Is racism necessarily bad?
In our current society and political spectrum the topic of racism is ever-present with the general emphasis on racism being wrong or bad. Yet, we seemingly never have the discussion about the moral implications, the definition of wrong/bad as well as the ethical point of view on the matter. Arrogantly we say racism is bad while failing to argument for the reasons of why exactly it is bad as well as defining what we consider bad. Thus in this myTake I will try to specify.
.
What is the definition racism?
I will use the classical meaning of racism from the Oxford dictionary as a starting point. It defines racism as: "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
Simply put: If you feel your race is superior to another race, you are racist. As a result the question of "is racism bad?" will be more precisely framed as "Is it bad to feel/think your race is superior to another race?".
That being said, interestingly enough in the last few years a secondary and more precise definition developed. The Oxford dictionary has this secondary definition listed as their primary one that says: "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
As a result in this take I will have to get into detail about both definitions to move towards a better understanding.
.
Tribalising
The topic of racism can not be understood without understanding the biological programming of human tribalising. The ability to form bonds and create tribes is a trait that our ancestors developed for centuries in order to have an advantage in the darwinist competition.
A functional tribe naturally has better chances than a single person. Through group-effort, hierarchy, rules, exchange of knowledge and distribution of responsibilities a tribe can simply outperform a single person. This is especially important, because humans aren't outstanding within the animal world. We are neither particular strong nor fast which makes other predators outperform us easily while we can be easily threatened by those for territory or access to food. But we have an increased level of endurance and intelligence. Those two attributes combined with our advanced skills in creating tribes made us outperform the competition and have an edge to the point we were able to secure our territory and hunt animals that are bigger than us.
That tribalising does have two big weaknesses though. Unlike a bee hive for example, the human tribe is a lot more complex. While bees have set tasks that they will follow independent of the tribes needs, their own skills and such - humans don't have such set tasks, but instead develop different positions within a hierarchy as well as different division of responsibilities through complex social interaction. This not only requires a complex analysis of all tribe-members, but also a high level of trust to be able to rely on each other. As a result this can easily lead to the tribe itself becoming dysfunctional and/or another tribe performing better, leaving the own tribe vulnerable.
Said complexity leads to a single person only being able to have a limited individual tribe available to them. Neither can a person create and maintain too many of such complex social interactions nor can a person build up the necessary trust. Usually we have our family, friends, local community(ies) and work-partners. And those are already stretching our capabilities, because we don't know most of them particulary close. For everyone outside of these tribes we need to assess on first impression in order to judge, if they are a potential threat to us. Either by them being a part of another tribe that is outperformung us or wanting to simply harm us/our tribe.
This naturally rewards socially adept individuals and tribes, but essentially means that due to the lack of background information of a person we don't know, we need to assess their potential danger based on superficial appearances. Hence, we have stereotypes and why we are more wary towards people of different ethnical backgrounds, cultural backgrounds, religious backgrounds, clothings, political orientations and other differences.
In return we are more easily and more likely bonding with someone that shares parts of our identity. Thus despite our limited capacity to form tribes, we are able to have a bigger and functioning tribe that is a nation as well as several sub-tribes within that nation and it's culture. That does work, if the nations culture itselfs works and the majority of people within that nation are similar enough in their core-beliefs. A culture is a set of rules which makes it possible for people who do not know each other to be able to co-exist and work within a (bigger) tribe. Therefore culture is of utmost importance of upholding the nation. The nation is of utmost importance, because too small communities would be easily conquered or annihilated by another nation.
Since we have to assess who is a potential threat, this instinct naturally is a matter of security. The more secure we feel - either with ourselves, our family, community, society, culture, nation - the less necessary to us it seems that we need to assess outsiders. That is, because we usually feel secure when our tribes and culture are functional. In return, too many outsiders who have a different cultural mindset and thus follow different tribal and cultural rules can negatively influence the cultures ability to make people co-exist in such a large scale and as a result decreases the perceived security.
Note: This is also why the increased crime-rates and thus the decreased feeling of safety in Europe is currently leading to the people becoming increasingly right-wing which directly translates to an increase in in-group (= more distinctive tribalism) preferences.
Interestingly it seems that wealth and the context of what gives people wealth as well as the wealth itself creates a sense of security resulting in most wealthy people being rather left-leaning. In return people who have something to lose and experience the threat of it losing will be more likely to lean right-wing while the bottom barrel of people are already in a constant level of threat and thus often times in no position of estimating a potential decrease or increase of threats.
The big question here is: Is this human instinct morally reprehensible? Or does it need to be preserved as a necessity to co-exist? Have we developed past our evolutionary traits or do we need to accept and integrate them in our modern life?
.
Superiority
Or why do we pick or stay within our tribes? Being part of a tribe is by no means a selfless act for either part involved. While we give, we also expect to receive from it. Thus we naturally want to be part of a functional tribe that can give us more than a dysfunctional tribe. Therefore we wil prefer a tribe that is superior to another tribe. In some cases, because we don't know better. In some cases, because we were born into a tribe. And in some cases, because we pick the tribal affiliation ourselves.
Either way, we eventually stay within that tribe, because we feel that the chosen tribe is superior to other tribes. Why else would we? If our tribe was inferior, then there is no biological nor cultural reason to stay within said tribe other than potential convenience or fear of leaving ones comfortzone.
In the recent centuries our modern western society, that got shaped by christian, european values, managed to create the most wealth, the most technological and scienticific advances, fended off and conquered other nations and developed into the most peaceful and wealthy timeframe for centuries. Essentially the western, christian nations outperformed the rest. It is easy to say that in this current timeframe our christian, european culture is simply superior. Is that, because we were the most barbaric, the smartest, the most strategic, created the most beneficial culture or other reasons is fairly irrelevant to the point that no other continent aside from North America and Europe managed to achieve that in the last hundreds of years.
Was that achieved through moral or immorale means? Did we achieve that because we were more or less immorale? Those are interesting questions, but they don't apply a judgement of the morality of perceived superiority. Being nor feeling superior in itself is not a fundamental moral wrong. We don't go around attacking children or cripples, because in most cases they are logically inferior. To become immorale towards those we consider inferior requires more than just the feeling of superiority.
.
The emotion Hate and the Perpetuator-Victim-Interaction
Hate is an obvious emotion that can range from a simple feeling of disgustto morally reprehensible behaviour. Yet, despite hate being such a vivid and relatable emotion, most people are unaware of what actually causes hate. For all it's intensity and the potential harm, it is quite a simple emotion though. There are two key emotions that cause hate.
1. Fear. Why do we feel fear? While the intensity can wary, we fear what we perceive as threatening. The very negative emotion of hate as a result of intense fear is quite a logical reaction to keep us on our toes from enemies, predators and similar. This can go from an emotional threat, like the fresh ex-partner you loathe and hate, to very serious, physical threats.
For example: In the west there is an increased fear towards terroristic attacks from muslim extremists. Depending on the intensity of the perceived fear that can easily create hate towards all muslims. In return a lot of muslims feel fear towards the west and their military interventions in the middle east which leads to hate towards western people just as much.
2. Disgust. Why do we feel disgust? Once again we feel it, because of what we perceive as disgusting can be threatening. Unlike the direct threat that fear causes, disgust involves more subtle threats that we want to avoid. Be it poisonous animals, molding food, uncleaniness and so on. These are usually not directly threatening such as a lion about to attack you, but they still put us off and want us to keep our distance.
For example: Going with the same in-groups as in the example for fear. Westerners feel disgust at how they perceive muslims treat their women. Them having to cover up, their word being worth less and so on. In return muslims feel disgust towards the overly sexual liberation within the western countries.
Both of these can lead to hate, but hate alone doesn't create harm outside of the individual feeling it. It requires to be put into motion, causing a perpetrator and a victim. The problem with this is that hateful actions can originate from both positions.
1. The position of the perpetrator. This is the case most people will think about first. Yet, it is the lesser of two evils. The "direct" perpetrator usually isn't acting directly through feeling threatened nor through hate. Instead other aspects in life causes them to become perpetrators.
For example: The bully likely is insecure himself and thus fears losing his social status. But he doesn't fear the victim. He fears dropping below the victim within the social hierarchy and thus picks on the weakest and least threatening target. Although the bully might feel disgust for the weakness of the victim.
Neither does the robber fear the person he is going to rob. He fears being out of money or being caught, but he will most often pick the easiest target.
As a result the direct perpetuator has no aim to completely rid of his victim since that victim is of no threat to him. He might want to overpower and conquer the victim, but there is no reason to go beyond that step.
2. The position of the victim. The perpetration out of the position of a victim on the other hand is way more dangerous as he has a reason to go beyond. If the threat is big enough there is the simple logical conclusion of "you or me". And every mentally healthy person will choose themselves, and/or their tribe, over the perceived threat. Essentially a pre-emptive strike.
Interestingly recent findings confirmed exactly that. All big genocides in the recent history of mankind originated from the position of victimhood. What better reason to get rid of an entire group of people than feeling, if you don't do it, they will do it to you instead?
This is especially dangerous, because the threat itself can, but does not necessarily have to, actually be threatening. It requires the perception of a serious threat to justify such actions.
Is the feeling of hate itselfa bad emotion? Will it directly lead to emotional or physical violence? Can you think of any current groups that use their victim-status to attack the perceived perpetrator pre-emtpively?
.
Morals
I will not go into the complex topic that is morals. A lot of very smart people wrote plenty about the topic. In amounts that are beyond what I could grasp and channel in such a small space. In the end morals themselves are knowingly neither black nor white and plenty of scenarios can have very different, yet justified moral implications. A classic example most people have heard already would be to kill one person in order to safe two other.
In the context of racism an interesting topic would be the discrimination of favouring native people over foreigners. Is it injustice and morally wrong to give the same treatment to foreigners than to those whose ancestors build up the country/culture/economy for the sole purpose of benefitting them and their descendant? Or is it injustice and morally wrong to give worse treatment to foreigners despite them having played little part in building up the country/culture/economy?
Eventually there is an argument to be made for either side depending on a persons perspective. That is what morals often comes down to. A matter of perspective, timeframe and individual priorities and conclusions.
.
Is racism in terms of perceived superiority wrong?
Starting with the first, classical definition of racism. Is it wrong to feel superior to another race?
Personally I think the clear answer here is a no. There is no ground to equalise the feeling of superiority to widely accepted moral wrongdoings. Can the feeling of racial superiority lead to morally reprehensible actions? In certain circumstances it could. It can be a part of what leads to people becoming the perpetrator to another racial group of people, but it by no means is the standard. As I argued above - we do not go around attacking children or cripples, either.
In fact, I see more dangers in feeling the opposite. Feeling your own race is inferior and thus another race could be a potential threat to your own. As explained, perpetrating actions from a perceived threat creates a way bigger danger. Which is the very opposite of this classical definition of racism.
Eventually it comes down to the feeling of being racially superior in itself not being the trigger nor the foundation for such actions. Instead, there can be a case made that more in-group tribalising and perceived racial superiority can be a positive in terms stronger and tighter racial tribalising which would directly result in a more functional tribe. Although it's tricky to answer, if that is desirable or if we want some outside influence.
Either way, the classical definition of racism is hardly morally reprehensible.
.
Is racism in terms of prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism wrong?
This newer, secondary definition of racism is definitely more tricky to answer. I think most people would agree that just hurting someone for the sole reason of that someone being from a different race is morally reprehensible behaviour.
That being said, there are plenty of moral grey areas where prejudice, discrimination and antagonism can be argued as morally justified or despicable - depending on the individuals point of view. Racial profiling would be one of those instances. Is it morally right or wrong to racially profile individuals from a certain race when that race statistically commits more crimes?
Alternatively, as asked earlier, is it morally right or wrong for a country to treat their native people better as a result of their ancestors building up the country for the sole purpose of benefitting them? Is that discrimination against foreigners morally reprehensible? Or is it considered taking away from the labour of the native ancestors and thus morally reprehensible towards the natives?
As a result prejudice, discrimination and antagonism CAN be morally objectible, but doesn't necessarily have to. There is no clear yes or no answer and thus clearly disproves the statement of racism being bad by design.
.
Conclusion
The conclusion to this is that defining racism as necessarily and always morally bad is intellectually dishonest. There are too many factors involved to make such a clear statement. Instead it seems to feed off of peoples empathy rather than objectively asking tough questions and making people think critically about the matter.
As an addition to that conclusion I have added several examples of moral questions within this MyTake to challenge and encourage everyone in exploring their own point of view rather than just copying the majorities opinion.
Most Helpful Opinions