The online matchmaking site Okcupid surveyed its members. Google [Okcupid Race and Attraction]. They looked at first-contact attempts and who was writing who back. They say it was immediately obvious that the sender’s race was a huge factor. That offers some proof to what has long been obvious to me: Homo sapiens are naturally racist. However, what does racism truly mean? Certainly, emotional bias is obviously the deep driving force at racism’s core.
Simply put, emotional bias is to racism as fear is to worry. Fear + thought = worry (1) and emotional bias + thought = racism (bigotry, prejudice, narrow-mindedness). Yet, fear and emotional bias are fundamental pillars of biology. So, what’s the problem? Clearly, thought is the straw that breaks the camels back here.
I know I’m biased in numerous ways, although not with regard to race. My biases arise over politics, religion, work ethic, diet, to name a few. Our biases are merely channels for our innate visceral insecurity (fear) to play out. No matter what form one’s bias takes, one common denominator is the hierarchical advantage with which such biases reward us (2). “I” am better than “them” because I __(fill in the bias)__. The list is as endless as the issues we value. That we place such high value on certain matters is proportional to our self-insecurity. The ‘lower’ one feels, the more one hungers for a ‘higher’ position on the social ladder. Thus, when we put “them” down, that automatically elevates our sense of self worth. Naturally, this superficial and vicarious ascent is fleeting because it isn’t a genuine security of being.
Ignorance is ignorant of its own ignorance
A racist, (bigot, prejudiced person) doesn’t normally know they are such. We are ignorant of our own ignorance. This is the disease to which chapter 71 refers… Realizing I don’t know is better; not knowing this knowing is disease. Thought, and its cohort belief, pushes instincts to extremes by locking emotional bias into memory.
There is an ironic and somewhat paradoxical side to this. If you know you are biased in a particular way (racist, or whatever) you’re not genuinely biased. You are able to feel your emotional bias as an integral part of your biology, even as the resultant thoughts are disease. That awareness helps defuse biased thoughts and impulses. When ignorance is aware of its ignorance, ignorance is much less blinding, i.e., Realizing I don’t know is better.
This cognitive disease that chapter 71 refers to is unique to humans, as far as we know. Knowing the constant is our protection from the misdirection that thinking and knowledge cause. Chapter 16 points the way…
What is this constant that we need to know? I see a few clues. First, biology offers a clear step toward returning to the root cause. Biology is obviously a major constant for any species. Mind you, the constant also alludes to that which is beyond all words and definition. Even so, the constant of biology helps transcend the culturally programmed biased “knowledge” that we all inherit beginning in childhood.
When I realize any aspect of my thoughts or knowledge are not impartial, I know my thinking is still biased. Knowing that, I can ponder deeper until I see the impartial whole. Still, thinking and feeling are truly separate issues. Animals only feel, we do both. Feeling attraction to one’s race is natural, as that survey suggests. As they say, “Birds of a feather flock together”, which also includes coming together via common interests and purpose. The problem, the disease, arises when feeling drives thought so much that we believe our thoughts accurately reflect reality.
More broadly, this all comes down to the dynamics of attraction (need) and aversion (fear). These forces are the workhorse of life itself, from protozoa to presidents. Our thoughts simply reflect what we need and fear in life. Yet, this subjective bias blinds us so fully that we believe we see life with little bias.
Try some rigorous hair splitting
The Correlation process (p.565) helps uncover the underlying forces playing out in one’s cognition. This process only works by challenging one’s biases and preconceptions. The hitch: we mostly seek confirmation of our biases rather than a challenge to them. We hang on to our biases because they shore up our illusionary sense of self as Buddha’s pointed out: “The illusion of self originates and manifests itself in a cleaving to things”, and biases are among our most precious “things”.
There is a side issue here too. The thinking that drives perceptions in one direction must have an antithesis in order to maintain the illusion of difference. Contrast is the name of this game. Conversely, duality vanishes in the stillness of true impartiality. This is called profound sameness, as chapter 56 puts it. Does this mean it is all a figment of our imagination? I imagine that is ultimately the case!
(1) Also, Need + thought = desire, expectations. Similarly, need is a vital pillar of biology for all living creatures. Here again, thought is the straw that breaks the camels back.
(2) I’ve found forms of racism everywhere I’ve been (See: Biographical Notes p.xii). It’s biological. Sure, society must push itself to minimize the effects of this. Nevertheless, it helps to lower expectations given that none can win a fight with Mother Nature.
piddlestyx supplied a lot of grist for the minds mill. I’ll responding to some of the questions:
(1) “…or are we naturally racist toward Black women?”
We are naturally averse to the darkness and by extension, the color black. This may have really taken hold of our awareness after we began to think. Thought creates a cognitive disconnection with the ‘in the moment’ aspect of nature because it enables self-consciousness. That schism with nature makes us insecure, which hightens fear… fear of the unknown, of darkness, of black, of the night.
(2) “How does one know if their conclusion is impartial? “
The more you cleave to a conclusion the less impartial. How do you know you’re cleaving to a conclusion? If your view is challenged and you feel threatened or upset, you’re clinging to the observation. Conversely, if you are making observations and only stand by them until further evidence rolls in, you are impartial. That approach is the gold standard of science.
(3) “To what extent have our views been shaped by our parents, by our neighborhood or city, by our society? “
The core of human nature, or any life form, is grounded in biology. If there is a biological basis, society can co-opt it and ‘color in’ the details, i.e., tribal instinct lie at the root of social ‘we’ and ‘them’. Culture (parents and the cultural values they project) determine the details. Some hate blacks, some hate Irish, some hate corporations… on and on.
(4) “Even then, what behavior is learned, and what is not? ”
It took me awhile, but I finally realized, “we can only truly understand what we intuitively know”. That also means, we can only teach others what they intuitively know. Learning is not what we like to think it is. In other words, it is not what you ‘learn’, it is what you know that is real.
(5) “this is argued from a biological standpoint, as is implied in the argument itself, then how can this be applied to race, which has no biological basis?”
‘Race’ has biological basis. In fact, without biological differences to notice, ‘race’ would mean nothing. Any trait that stands out and can be used to lump a group of people into the same category is ‘race’. Race is simply a synonym for ‘category’ or ‘type’. Of course, in modern time it takes on a lot of ‘color’, but then that is just an expression of the cultural tensions that exist…. especially in civilization.
(6) “Black is not a species, nor is White, or Asian, or biracial.”
Yes if you limit ‘species’ to a strictly narrow class of animals that can interbreed perhaps. But, if you look at the synonyms for species, you’ll have no trouble. The words by themselves mean nothing special; it is the fears and needs that one expresses through the words that make them potent.
The article you provided does not argue that people reply more to senders of their own race than senders of a different race; the data only shows that race is a significant factor. Black women get the least replies, though they reply the most out of any racial or ethnic group; even Black men don’t reply to Black women nearly as much as is expected. Could our social conditioning perhaps have something to do with who we find attractive, or are we naturally racist toward Black women?
How does one know if their conclusion is impartial? This sounds to me like a contradiction of what is said in chapter 71: “… not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.” Just because it seems impartial to conclude that racism is a part of human nature doesn’t necessarily make it true. How can someone cleave to their conclusion (to use the language in the translation of Buddha’s 2nd Noble Truth provided above) without being partial? Doesn’t this lead to the invalidation of others’ experiences?
We perceive the world through a filter not wholly of our own construction; it’s perhaps a blend of our own experience with the combined wisdom of the generations that came before us. To what extent have our views been shaped by our parents, by our neighborhood or city, by our society? Who can truly say?
In my own experience Othering runs deeper than racism. Othering is us vs. them mentality; it is the act of separation. Not tribal or primal (these are very awkward and inaccurate words to use, speaking as someone with Indigenous ancestry), but maybe a constant. Even then, what behavior is learned, and what is not?
Also, if it is natural for one species to be attracted to members of that same species, as you implied, and this is argued from a biological standpoint, as is implied in the argument itself, then how can this be applied to race, which has no biological basis? Black is not a species, nor is White, or Asian, or biracial. They aren’t subspecies, either. If it is natural for like to attract like, then what about people who are sexually attracted to animals and inanimate objects (like sofas, mattresses, pillows, walls, and roller coasters)? Are they acting unnaturally? If like attracts like, then is it unnatural for women to be attracted to men?
These were just some thoughts that popped into mind when I traipsed through your thought-blog.
I’m afraid racism runs much deeper than skin color. Many social species have this kind of divisive tribal instinct. In our species, religion, social class, ‘intelligence’, occupation, appearance, gender, etc., also serve elitist group identity. In civilized circumstances (post the agricultural revolution), this tribal instinct plays a much larger role in our competitive (hierarchical) instinct.
I’m afraid until we are self-honest enough to accept all these forms of racism and elitism as instinct based, we will keep passing the buck, blaming something or someone other than ourselves.
In other words, even though we live in glass houses, we throw stones. I’d say that is because we don’t truly realize that we are living in glass houses. But then I’m not really saying anything new am I? Jesus pointed that out a few years ago.
I would like to see a black perspective on this.
You know, I’ve always wondered about the current fight for civil rights in our country (USA). It was a noble cause that brought about great change. I find it to be a different story, today. In fighting ‘racism’, hasn’t it become mainstream, organized and made more acceptable while it cries out that racism is unacceptable? Take the NAACP, for example. Where’s the diversity in that organization? Another is La Raza, a Spanish organization which literally translated is ‘The Race’. The more we want to believe things are changing the more they stay the same. As Carl says, we just ‘hoodwink’ ourselves into believing they ‘look different’. No doubt racism today is a morality play rooted in our needs and fears.
We can only fault ourselves for ‘thinking too much’. Maybe Forest Gump is right. “Stupid is as stupid does.” In other words, you can’t reason with reason.
How about that! I thought I might touch a nerve with this post. I’m afraid there are a few facts you overlooked.
The fact that babies don’t discriminate (i.e., don’t exhibit tribal reactions) holds true for ALL infant tribal animals, from rats to chimps. Numerous instincts only kick in after puberty… territorial, sexual, perhaps pecking order (hierarchy), are some examples. Our failure to accept our biological reality only ensures that it will continue to hold absolute sway over our species.
Your idealistic desires (need + thought) are nothing new. We drag these cultural fantasies along with us throughout the ages. There is nothing wrong with hoping for ‘peace and earth and good will to men’. However, to expect it to be possible ‘if’ we were just ‘different’ (i.e., not socially conditioned, in the hands of the devil,or whatever) is just blindness caused by the glare of idealistic rationalizations. Those with such ‘good’ intensions seldom can see how the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Actually being self-honest enough to see ourselves as the simple animals we are, might be the first step to possibly moderating how we act and react.
Admittedly, that will take considerable courage; it is so much easier to hide behind the ‘group think’ of the day. Self-honesty will never be the perfect solution we crave. However, it does offer a starting point. The alternative is to continue thrashing around in the vicious cycle battling reality with our ideals–guess which wins? C’est la vie.
Racism is not an innate, biological, and natural response to someone from another ethnic group. When you put babies in a room, they do not discriminate against each other based on skin color. You will not and cannot find racist newborns because their minds have not yet been taught those social categories and dualistic thinking.
Racism is something that is socially conditioned over time, repeated in our environment by our parents, education, media, government, etc. In many countries, you will find that people of the same skin color discriminate against each other because one group has been historically and socially constructed to be another ethnic group, often from a geographical, class, or religious difference.
Highlighting racial differences will only strengthen the mental concept of “race.”