Pluralism In Jonathan Rauch's In Defense Of Prejudice

1. Jonathan Rauch is very Millisean in the sense that he believes language on its own cannot be harmful, merely offense. Since this is the case, freedom of speech should not be restricted for any reason. According to “In Defense of Prejudice,” There are two sides to this argument. Purism follows that society will not function justly unless there is no more prejudice at all. In this case that would mean, if necessary, freedom of speech should be restricted. On the other hand, Pluralism follows that we cannot eradicate racism, so we should do our best to change their minds. When all else fails, all you can really do is leave them alone.

In today’s society, we face prejudice every day in many forms. Most people in today’s society have either been victims of prejudice or are guilty of exhibiting prejudice towards others.

Jonathan Rauch’s essay, “In Defense of Prejudice”, explores the idea of pluralism. Rauch focuses on intellectual pluralism in which he states, “permits the expression of various forms of bigotry and always will”. Pluralism may bring different topics such as racism, sexism, and homophobia. Rauch Points out if misguided ideas and ugly expressions be corrected or criticized it would help public safety.

This document is a critique on the Paul Bloom persuasive speech on topic “Can prejudice ever be a good thing?” Paul Bloom has presented this talk at official Ted conference and it was featured at January 2014. Paul Bloom is a professor of psychology and cognitive science at Yale University. Paul Bloom has a different opinion about prejudice. He said prejudice is often natural and rational thing. He discussed several stories and examples along with pictures in this Ted talk. In this document the author will critically review few points mentioned by Paul Bloom. The first point he mentioned that stereotyping can be good for the people. The second point is how the skin colors of people increase prejudice or biases. Finally the author

Nowadays, racism, politics, and prejudices are the cause of boycotting, riots, and injured people lately, but racism is not the issue. We are constantly surrounded by several different types of race, skin color, and culture. Today, people do not pay attention if a person is different because we are all equal, but with different background and we are worth the same. We have all spoken to a person with a different heritage and shared several different priceless moment with at least of person who is different. Cultural pluralism is the best hope for a just and cohesive society.

It has been thoroughly thought over what current topic or issue that people experience in most environments today, at both a micro and macro level that would be able to be examined and have come to the decision of looking at the most widely discussed subject, prejudice. All people are affected by prejudice in one way or another and it can impact on people's lives depending on what form it has taken. Also to be able to acknowledge that all people can be prejudices and see this is the first step to overcoming it.. The question that has been decided upon is that of “What types of prejudice do we see commonly today and how do they affect an individual at a micro and macro level?”

In his essay “ In Defense of Prejudice”, Jonathan Rauch explores a much talked about topic in the United States today, prejudice. As his title implies, he is in defense of prejudice, he makes it clear that he is not a supporter of hate or racism, rather a supporter of “intellectual pluralism” “which permits the expression of various forms of bigotry and always will.” (pg 1). Rauch defends the right to express all forms of bigotry. By utilizing specific examples where prejudice is at center stage, Rauch tries to convince his readers that the solution to prevent prejudice is not attempting to eradicate it, rather he believes if we, as a society channel prejudice more effectively we can make it “socially productive.” Ranch defends his

One strategy the author uses to convince the reader of his position involves making the problem personal to the audience. For example, in paragraphs seven through nine, Brooks shows how both well-meaning and malicious people aid in perpetuating the idea of what he calls ‘reductionist solitarism’. He then explains that this reductionist solitarism can be seen in racists, bigots, and populists, as well, contrastingly, in anti-racists, even going so far as to include stand-up comedians. Following this, in paragraph ten he connects these people to the reader, saying: “Unfortunately, if you reduce complex individuals to one thing you’ll go through life clueless about the world around you.” This statement personalizes the

During my time enrolled in Psy 3325: Stereotypes, Prejudice Discrimination, taught by Dr. Tay Hack, we explored several topics concerning social differences. Using the textbook ‘ Understanding the Psychology of Diversity’ second Edition, I gained a deeper understanding of how the mind groups individuals together both consciously and unconsciously thus influencing the way we treat a person. In this course we covered racism, classism, homosexism, weightism, ageism, and the stigmas that come with these titles.

The fundamental root of discrimination is prejudice. Prejudice starts with cognition and our thoughts towards another group which often leads to a generalization or stereotyping (Myers, 2014, pg.572). Stereotyping leads us to emotions directed towards a particular group or person; including fear, hatred, and hostility, fundamentally this is negative prejudice (Myers, 2014, pg.572). Myers (2014) states that if we believe our thoughts to be true, our emotions will lead to the actual act of discrimination. Taking action on prejudice is discrimination; it is the behaviours or actions directed towards a specific distinction of a group (Myers, 2014, ph.572). We do know that discrimination can take many forms, some acceptable and others purely inexcusable.

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor it must be demanded by the oppressed.’ We must combat the growing tide of prejudice, antisemitism, and racism.

In this paper I will discuss what happens when we allow biases and prejudice to affect our actions toward others. I will then conclude my paper with what we can do to prevent or eliminate discrimination.

Racism should also be closely examined as it is perceived as the acceptable norm in the society. The book shows that sometimes it may take ridiculous forms such as refusing to serve ice-cream to a Black family or suddenly dismissing a worker after learning that she was Black and not Hispanic. The author portraits the bigotry of the people who blindly follow the norms.

Prejudice is a burden that confuses the past, threatens the future and renders the present inaccessible. (Maya Angelou) By definition prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. Prejudice to others is hate, judgement, and evil. The effects of prejudice are shown in the novel The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, the play The Merchant of Venice, and the tragedy known as the Holocaust. Prejudice affected all people differently, but one thing is true for all; prejudice is crippling and disables those who experience it from being who they truly are and doing as they please.

As discussed, In the scientific field, it is understood that there are major differences between prejudice and discrimination, although seemingly similar due to their relation. However, prejudice pertains strictly to the attitude that one may develop, (Sartore-Baldwin 2013, Duckworth 2015, Mifflin Company 2002) and discrimination is defined based on actual negative actions aimed towards individuals. Prejudices may be established due to the dislike of someone 's sex, gender identity race, age, or even sexual preferences. Discrimination is based on those prejudices one develops, and that can cause one’s actions towards an individual to be negatively unjust. It is possible for an individual