[Cross-posted from Raising Cain.]
Recently I discovered a great blog -- Who's Afraid of Social Democracy -- by psychoanalyst Elisabeth Young-Bruehl. Today she posted an article on the subject of prejudice, and I thought I'd say a few words, toss in some quotes and post a link to it here at Raising Cain.
her blog, Young-Bruehl writes about current affairs and reflects on
contemporary political issues and questions. Prior to her psychoanalytic
training, Young-Bruehl was a doctoral student of the political
philosopher, Hannah Arendt, and eventually wrote her biography. Young-Bruehl has also written many papers and books on gender issues, as well as a book very relevant to her blog post today, The Anatomy of Prejudices.
I formalized my anti-racist journey by becoming an activist in
organizational anti-racism transformation, I've spent much time
integrating what I'd previously discovered about human relating and
relationships from my psychoanalytic training and practice. The
intersection of the individual psyche and the collective mind of society
has become an edge of tremendous interest and discovery for me
personally and professionally.
That edge is not an either-or
space: we need to know a lot about how people come to be who they are
AND how the collective mind and societal systems come to be as they are
if we want to get beyond racism. The individual and society co-create
each other psychologically just as, in a parallel process, a baby and
her mother co-create each other. If we would like to change ourselves
and the systems in which we live, I believe we'll have to become aware
of these complex dynamics.
I have a sense that Young-Bruehl's last two blog posts have opened doors and moved my thinking about all of this forward.
Speaking about a changing view of the nature of prejudice after World War II, Young-Bruehl says:
That decade of psychoanalytic work was extremely important because it
opened up for exploration the whole domain of unconscious motivation.
But, to my mind, it was also very flawed and replete with misleading
generalizations. For example, in Adorno’s and Allport’s books, there is
no prejudice against women because all prejudice is against minority
groups and women are not a minority group. (By the same crazy logic,
there would be no prejudice against blacks in South Africa because the
blacks are not a minority group there…) During the Civil Rights movement
of the late 1950s, the ethnocentrism synthesis began to unravel under
pressure from people whose victim experience it misconstrued or
overlooked. People of color pointed out that racism is not just like
anti-Semitism. Look, they said, did the white people who invented tests
to show the inferior intelligence of people of color also try to show
the inferior intelligence of the Jews who supposedly masterminded the
international Jewish banking conspiracy?
She follows the evolution of this notion further into the feminist "gender-race-class" discussions of the 1970's, but notes:
Meanwhile, prejudices continued to flourish in ever-changing
appearances. Nonetheless, many hoped to be able to interpret America as a
nation marching in the direction of being “post-racial,” and many hoped
a “post-feminist” era was dawning because women have made considerable
social progress. These hopes, it seems to me, reflect the
still-prevalent confusion about prejudices and how they operate. Even if
the acts and appearances that are typical of a prejudice do abate or
ameliorate, the needs or unconscious purposes served by the prejudices
remain –and can rise up again or reassert or take new directions as
circumstances change. There’s not much lynching going on now, but huge
numbers of black men are hung up in jail, and that is not very
With that, I'll leave you to your own
investigation of Young-Bruehl's ideas. I get uneasy sometimes
excerpting from pieces that seem so coherent as Young-Bruehl's impress
me, so I hope you'll read her entire article.
She references her previous post as well, and you can access that one here.