2

PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION

Unit Structure
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Understanding prejudice and discrimination.
2.2.1 Prejudice
2.2.2 Discrimination
2.2.3 Why Prejudice is not inevitable
2.3 Rights – based approach.
2.4 Equity and social justice.
2.4.1 Equity
2.4.2 Social justice
2.5 Questions
2.6 References

2.1 INTRODUCTION

As we have already seen in the previous unit, prejudice is the affective or

feeling component of attitude which involves negative feelings towards
other members based on their group membership. In this unit, we focus on
the various factors that lead to prejudice against specific groups. The
emphasis is also on understanding the origins of prejudice. Prejudice has
influenced in history for centuries together all over the world e.g. Hitler’s
attempt to eliminate entire Jew race, caste system in India, apartheid system
in South Africa, etc. Prejudices manifest themselves in many forms. It may
take the forms of physical violence to one extreme or it may appear in subtle
forms like slurs or maintaining distance from people of a particular group.
Prejudice and discrimination is used as synonyms by many people in day to
day conversation. But there are certain differences between them.
Discrimination is the behavioral component of attitudes which involves
treating unfavorably to the members of some prejudiced social group.
Discrimination is present in society explicitly or in a subtle form. At the end
of this unit, we will understand various techniques to counter prejudice.

2.2 UNDERSTANDING PREJUDICE AND

DISCRIMINATION

2.2.1 Prejudice
Prejudice is traditionally thought of as the feeling component of attitudes
toward social groups. It reflects a negative response to another person solely 15
Multiculturalism: because the person is a member of a particular group. In the 1954 book, The
Theory & Practice
Nature of Prejudice, Gordon Allport referred to prejudice as “antipathy”
which means such generalization to the group as a whole. In this sense,
prejudice is not personal because it is an affective reaction toward the
category.
Thus, a prejudice toward a social group will lead to evaluation of all its
members negatively only because they are members of that group.
Discrimination has been traditionally defined as unfavorable treatment or
negative actions directed toward members of disliked groups. The prejudice
will or will not be expressed in overt discrimination based on the perceived
norms or acceptability of doing so.
Research findings reveal that when individuals score higher on measures of
prejudice than when they score lower, they process information about the
targeted group differently. For instance, people give more attention to the
information related to the targeted group and its members. When an
individual’s group membership seems ambiguous i.e. when people cannot
figure out which group the individual belongs to, then they are concerned
with learning about it. This is so because we believe the groups have
underlying essence. Essence can be understood as a feature, often some
biologically one, that distinguishes one group from other groups, which can
serve as justification for their differential treatment.
Researchers reveal that all prejudices are different. Though prejudice
includes negative feelings, these feelings will be different for different
groups. These negative emotions can be fear, anger, envy, guilt, or disgust.
Not all prejudices are due to some explicit attitude; rather some prejudices
can be a result of some implicit associations. In other words, our judgments
and interaction with others can be influenced without being aware of
prejudice being present.
The Origins of Prejudice: Contrasting Perspectives
An important question arises of where prejudice comes from and why it
persists. The following perspectives will aid in understanding the origins of
prejudice.
Threats to Self Esteem
Self-esteem refers to subjective evaluation of one’s own worth. People want
to see their group as worthy and more positive than another group. When
people see some event potential of threatening their group’s self-esteem,
they may react by devaluing the source of the threat. Research also indicates
that perceiving a threat can lead us to identify more with our in-group.
When our group’s image is threatened, in-group members bolster their own
group’s image by holding prejudiced views of an out-group. By derogating
members of another group, we can affirm our own group’s comparative
value. This is strongly conveyed when a threat is experienced.

16
16
Competition for Resources as a Source of Prejudice Prejudice and
Discrimination
Many basic things that people want are scarce. These are zero-sum
outcomes which mean if one group gets them then the other cannot. The
realistic conflict theory explains the cause of prejudice as when the
competition over some resource escalates members of in-group and out-
group will perceive each other in negative terms. Competitions are
inevitable as the wants and needs of human beings are infinite while the
resources to satisfy these wants are limited. So, the struggle exists over jobs,
houses, food grains, etc. As struggle gets prolonged, members of conflicting
groups start evaluating each other in increasingly negative ways and start
regarding each other as enemies which must be put to its place. Both groups
start considering themselves as morally superior and withdraw in their own
shell. So, what starts as simple, relatively emotional and hatred free
competition turns into a fully blown hatred filled highly with emotionally
charged conflict leading to strong negative prejudices. These negative views
increase eventually. Such views will involve labeling each other as
“enemies”, viewing one’s own group as morally superior, drawing the
boundaries between themselves and their opponents more firmly, and under
extreme circumstances, may come to see the opposing group as not even
human. Thus, starting with simple competition can lead to full-scale
prejudice.
Social Categorization in the Indian Context
People divide the social world into separate categories. Social
categorization is the tendency to divide the social world in two separate
categories- in-group and out-group.
The in-group is the social group to which an individual perceives himself or
herself as belonging to us. The out group is any group other than the one to
which individuals are perceived to belong to them. This social
categorization can be done on various dimensions as - race, religion, sex,
age, ethnic background and occupation.
This social categorization has great impact on behavior as follows:
1. In group members are viewed in more favorable terms than out group
members.
2. People assume that our group members possess more undesirable
traits than the in-group members.
3. People also believe that all out-group members are similar to each
other I.e. homogenous than in group members. So, the out-group
members are disliked more. This behavioral tendency leads to
attribution error. It is to make more favorable and flattering
attributions about members of one’s own group than about the
members of another group. This is the reason why we attribute the
desirable characteristics of in group members to stable internal
factors.

17
Multiculturalism: Tajfel and his colleagues (1991) have given an interesting answer to
Theory & Practice
the question of how social categorization leads to prejudice. They
proposed social identity theory in order to explain this. This theory
suggests that people identify themselves with specific social groups.
It also further says that our self-esteem is enhanced with our group
membership. As each group seeks to view itself superior and different
from rivals, prejudice arises out of clash of social perceptions.
In the Indian context, society has been categorized based on various
aspects such as religion, caste, gender, language, region,
socioeconomic status, etc. These categorizations help to maintain
social order and harmony. When these groups want power and
politics, prejudices emerge which causes challenges to maintain
sharing, bonding and connectedness. Research shows prejudices can
be originated even when groups are formed on a minimal or trivial
basis.
2.2.2 Discrimination
Discrimination refers to negative actions toward the objects of various types
of prejudice such gender, racial, ethnic etc. The goal of discriminatory
behavior is to harm the member of the target group but it may be done either
in very subtle form or very openly depending upon the constraints imposed
by the situation.However, such discriminations have decreased over the
years in many countries. But still discrimination may be present in subtle
ways and as it exists, we will look at ways to measure it.
Modern Racism: More Subtle, but Just as Harmful
Long time back, people used to openly express their racist prejudices.
However, at present, few Americans express anti-black statements. This
doesn’t mean that the prejudiced attitudes have vanished. Rather, social
psychologists believe that modern racism is present which involves
concealing prejudice from others in public settings, but expressing it in safe
settings. However, research findings suggest that some people may have
racist prejudices but they themselves would be unaware of.
Measuring Implicit Racial Attitudes
Racial attitudes can be measured directly by asking people to express their
views. However, prejudiced racial attitudes can also be implicit which
cannot be accepted by the people. Holding such prejudices can influence
behavior but people will be unaware of it and they might vigorously deny
having such views. Hence, several methods have been developed to
measure implicit racial attitudes. Most of these methods are based on
priming. Priming is a technique in which exposure to a certain stimulus or
event influences a response to a subsequent stimulus. Priming activates
information in memory available which then influences current reactions.
One of such techniques which use priming is known as bona fide pipeline.
In this technique, participants are first briefly exposed to faces of people
belonging to various racial groups (blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos) and
18
18
then they see various adjectives. After seeing the adjectives, they are asked Prejudice and
to indicate whether they have a “good” or “bad” meaning by pushing one Discrimination

of two buttons. Implicit racial attitudes of the participants will be revealed

by how quickly they respond to the words that have a negative meaning.
However, on the other hand, participants will take more time to respond to
words with a positive meaning after being primed with the faces of those
same minority group members. This is so because the positive meaning is
inconsistent with the negative attitude stimulated by the priming stimulus.
Research indicates that implicit racial attitudes are automatically elicited.
These attitudes influence decisions and degree of friendliness that is
expressed in interaction with the members of the target group.
How Prejudiced People Maintain an “Unprejudiced” Self-Image
Though implicit racial prejudices exist, many white Americans believe that
they are unprejudiced. Research suggests people can maintain unprejudiced
self-image through social comparison. People compare themselves with
extreme images of bigots and perceive themselves as not fitting that
prototype.
When We Confront What Our Group has done to another Group
People have a tendency to think that the group which they belong to or
identify with is good and moral. Research has been conducted to study how
people respond when they learn about the prejudicial actions of their own
group. Studies show that torturing out-group was perceived as justifiable
when it was a long-standing practice as compared to when it was seen as
something new. Torture committed by in-group members is perceived as
more moral than when it was committed by other groups.
When people perceive that their group is responsible for illegitimate
wrongdoings, an emotional response called collective guilt is evoked. In
order to avoid the aversive feelings of collective guilt, people may blame
the victims so that they will feel less burdened. This blaming will even reach
to the extreme where in-group members will exclude the victims from the
category of “human”. People may also use motivated forgetting of the harm
done by them and in-group members.
2.2.3 Why Prejudice is not inevitable
Prejudice appears to be a common aspect of life in most societies. In some
conditions, prejudice can be reduced. The following part focuses on the
techniques to counter the effects of prejudice.
On Learning Not to Hate
Social psychologists are of the view that prejudiced behavior is a learned
behavior. It is learned in the same way as any other behavior is learned.
Since it is learned it can also be reduced by unlearning and learning new
patterns of reactions. According to learning viewpoint, we learn prejudice
behavior in three ways:
a. Through parents, teachers and peers
b. Through mass-media
c. Through models.
19
Multiculturalism: a. Parents, teachers and peers:
Theory & Practice
Children are not born with prejudice. Children learn these prejudices
from their elders, parents, teachers and peers. Children learn these
behaviors at an early age and this behavior pattern continues later in
life. So, if parents avoid providing training to the children that
encourage discrimination, then we can reduce prejudice. Thus,
prejudice can be reduced by learning not to hate.
According to the social learning view, children are directly rewarded
(with love, praise, and approval) to hold and express negative
attitudes toward various social groups. People also develop such
prejudices through their own experiences. Research indicates that
when white participants’ parents were prejudiced, participants’ own
positive interactions with minority group were less and their behavior
was observed as more discriminatory when interacting with African
Americans.
Learning from parents also depends on how much children identify
with their parents. The more children identify with their parents, the
more they are influenced by their parents and thus, may hold
prejudices toward certain social groups. Thus, parents and even
institutions which exert strong influence on adults can help people
mold prejudices.
It is very difficult to tell parents that they have prejudiced thinking
towards a particular group and that they need to overcome such
prejudiced behavior. Many parents would not accept that they are
prejudiced, instead they would view their negative attitude towards
various groups as fully justified. It is very necessary to convince the
parents that there exists a problem that needs to be tackled.
Parents can also be convinced that prejudice harms not only those who
are its victims but also those who hold such views as well. This is
because an individual who has prejudiced feelings experiences
anxiety, fear and anger. If parents realize the detrimental
consequences of prejudice to their children’s self-development, then
they would take necessary steps to see to it that their children do not
develop prejudice or harbor negative feelings about a particular
group.
b. Mass Media:
Films and press have a considerable influence on our behavior. The
various characters depicted in the films should be such that they give
a secular mage. Films or printed literature should not put a particular
group in a bad light or create a poor image of a particular community.
Film censor boards can play an important role in checking prejudice
behavior transmitted in subtle forms through films.

20
20
c. Model: Prejudice and
Discrimination
Social learning theory has pointed out the role of models in
influencing our behavior. Parents and teachers are our best models.
Besides them, political leaders, social reformers or religious leaders
can also be models. Such models should not be encouraged to transmit
prejudiced behavior. Government can also see to it that famous
personalities do not pass on the message of prejudice and
discrimination to the masses.
The Potential Benefits of Contact
In order to reduce racial prejudice, the degree of contact between different
groups can be increased. This idea is known as the contact hypothesis.
When contact among people from different groups is increased, the growing
recognition of similarities can change the categorizations that people have
already formed. By knowing the norms of the out-group members can
actually aid in understanding that the norms of the group are not so “anti-
out-group” as individuals might initially have believed. Research also
indicates that friendships between different group members can reduce
anxiety about future encounters with out-group members.However, it
should be noted that the contact between the groups should take place under
specific favorable conditions.
Research by Sherif (1966) has shown that enhancing intergroup interaction
and cooperation can lead to deadlines in hostile reactions and negative
feelings. This happens because of following reasons:
1. Noticing Similarities
When contact between two groups increases, the group members
notice the number of similar attitudes they share between them, this
increases understanding of either group and enhances mutual
attraction. This in turn leads to decline in prejudice.
2. Mere Exposure Effect
Repeated contact may lead to positive feelings and attitudes through
mere exposure. The more familiar a person is to us, the more we like
him.
3. Perception of inconsistent information
Due to the increased number of similarities, the group members now
perceive information that is inconsistent with their stereotypes
regarding other group members. Thus, it can help to reduce
stereotypes about the out-group members.
4. Reduce illusion of out-group homogeneity
Increased contact reduces illusion of outgroup homogeneity. That is,
because of contact with other members, people realize that all of them
are different and not similar as was perceived.

21
Multiculturalism: To achieve these effects from contact hypothesis certain conditions
Theory & Practice
must be satisfied;
i. The groups that will contact must have equal social status.
ii. The norms of the contact must support and encourage group
equality.
iii. The contact between the groups must be informal, so that they
can get to know one another on a one-to-one basis.
iv. The contact between groups must involve cooperation and
interdependence. This can be achieved by working towards
shared goals.
v. The groups must interact in ways that permit disinformation of
negative stereotyped beliefs about one another.
vi. The persons involved must view one another as typical of their
respective groups, only then will they generalize their pleasant
contacts to other persons and situations.
But these conditions are rarely found in real life. So social psychologists
have suggested the extended contact hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests
that direct contact between persons from different groups is not essential for
reducing prejudice between them. In fact, such beneficial effects can be
produced if the persons in question merely know that persons in their own
group have formed friendship with persons from the said group.
The extended contact hypothesis is successful in reducing prejudice
because:
1. The group members realize that it is acceptable to form relationships
with members of other groups.
2. Knowing that members of one's own group enjoys friendship with our
group can help reduce anxiety about our group members.
3. Interaction with other group members also conveys the message that
our group members do not dislike the in-group members. It helps to
clear misunderstandings.
4. Cross-group friendships increase understanding of empathetic
attitudes between two groups.
Thus, friendly co-operative contact between persons from different social
groups could indeed promote respect and liking between them. When
individuals get to know one another, many anxieties, stereotypes and false
perceptions that have previously kept them apart seem to vanish in warmth
of new friendship and prejudice melts.

22
22
Recategorization: Changing the Boundaries Prejudice and
Discrimination
Recategorizations, termed by social psychologists, indicate the shift of
boundary between “us” and “them”. This technique can be used to reduce
prejudice. According to the common in-group identity model, when
individuals view themselves as members of a single social identity, their
attitudes toward each other become more positive. In order to induce the
perception of single social identity, the individuals belonging to different
groups can work together toward shared or superordinate goals. This leads
to reduction of feelings of hostility toward the former out-group members.
Research reveals the usefulness of this technique in laboratory settings and
on the field. This technique is also found to be powerful in reducing
negative feelings toward an out-group even when they had a long history,
including one group’s brutality toward another. Other research studies also
suggested that forming new subgroups composed of members from
competing groups can help reduce prejudice.
The Benefits of Guilt for Prejudice Reduction
When people encounter that they have done wrongdoings towards other
groups, collective guilt will help in reducing prejudice. Similarly, when a
person is a member of a group which has a history of being prejudiced
toward another group, they may experience guilt by association. Research
suggests that such feelings of guilt can aid in reducing prejudices towards
other groups.
Can We Learn to “Just Say No” to Stereotyping and Biased
Attributions?
Individuals themselves can regulate their thoughts, beliefs and feelings
toward out-group members. If individuals say “no” to the stereotypic habit
then the prejudices can be actively reduced. Research evidence also
suggests that people can learn to not rely on stereotypes they already
possess.
Social Influence as a means of reducing Prejudice
Social influence also has a great impact on reducing prejudices. When
people are provided with evidence that their own group members are like
members of another group that is typically the target of prejudice, it can
sometimes serve to weaken negative reactions.
Human beings have the tendency to compare. We also compare what is the
extent of prejudice others are having in comparison to us. If people realize
that their own views are more prejudiced than that of others, they might be
motivated to reduce their prejudice.
These social psychologists gave Caucasian students a list of 19 traits. They
asked them to estimate how many African American possess each of the 19
traits. Out of the 19, nine were positive and ten were negative traits.
After completing the estimation, students were informed that other students
in the university disagreed with their ratings. Some students were told that
other students viewed African Americans more positively than they did
23
Multiculturalism: (favorable feedback condition). Some students had less favorable views
Theory & Practice
about African Americans than they did had (unfavorable feedback
condition). After receiving this information, the Caucasian students were
again asked to rate the African American students on the 19 traits.
As predicted, racial attitudes were influenced by the feedback they received.
That is, students in unfavorable feedback gave more negative ratings the
second time whereas students in favorable feedback condition gave more
positive ratings than the first time.

2.3 RIGHTS – BASED APPROACH.

A human rights-based approach (HRBA) is a conceptual framework that is

normatively based on international human rights standards and
operationally directed to promoting and protecting human rights. It seeks to
analyse obligations, inequalities and vulnerabilities, and to tackle
discriminatory practices and unjust distributions of power that impede and
undercut human rights.
Under a human rights-based approach, plans, policies and programmes are
anchored in a system of rights and corresponding obligations established by
international law. This helps to promote sustainability, empowering people
themselves (rights holders)—especially the most marginalized—to
participate in policy formulation and hold accountable those who have a
duty to act (duty bearers). UN agencies have agreed (see below) that a
human rights-based approach consists of a number of essential attributes:

• As policies and programmes are formulated, the main objective

should be to fulfil human rights.

• A human rights-based approach identifies rights holders and their

entitlements and corresponding duty bearers and their obligations, and
works towards strengthening the capacities of rights holders to make
their claims and of duty bearers to meet their obligations.

• Principles and standards derived from international human rights

treaties should guide all policies and programming in all sectors and
in all phases of the process.
In practical terms, a human rights-based approach can be used to guide
policies and measures of poverty. It can inform assessments and strengthen
processes; it can be a mechanism for ensuring access to essential
information, effective participation, and the provision of access to justice.
Human rights based approaches
Human rights based approaches are about turning human rights from purely
legal instruments into effective policies, practices, and practical realities.
Human rights principles and standards provide guidance about what should
be done to achieve freedom and dignity for all. A human rights-based
approach emphasises how human rights are achieved The Commission
considers that, for Australia to comply with its international responsibilities,
24
24
all areas and level of government in Australia have a responsibility to apply Prejudice and
Discrimination
human rights based approaches. Development of a National Human Rights
Action Plan is a step towards this.
The Commission seeks to apply human rights based approaches in its own
work. The Australian Human Rights Commission Act (section 10A) states
that the Commission must perform its functions with regard for the
indivisibility and universality of human rights; and the principle that every
person is free and equal in dignity and rights. The Commission also supports
application of human rights based approaches by businesss and other
organisations throughout society.
What are human rights based approaches?
Details of a human rights approach will vary depending on the nature of the
organisation concerned and the issues it deals with. Common principles,
however, have been identified as the "PANEL" principles:
1. Participation
2. Accountability
3. Non-discrimination and equality
4. Empowerment
5. Legality
The summary below is gratefully adapted from materials on this issue by
our colleagues at the Scottish Human Rights Commission.
1. Participation
Everyone has the right to participate in decisions which affect their
human rights. Participation must be active, free and meaningful, and
give attention to issues of accessibility, including access to
information in a form and a language which can be understood.
2. Accountability
Accountability requires effective monitoring of compliance with
human rights standards and achievement of human rights goals, as
well as effective remedies for human rights breaches. For
accountability to be effective, there must be appropriate laws,
policies, institutions, administrative procedures and mechanisms of
redress in order to secure human rights.
Effective monitoring of compliance and achievement of human rights
goals also requires development and use of appropriate human rights
indicators.
3. Non-discrimination and equality
A human rights based approach means that all forms of discrimination
in the realisation of rights must be prohibited, prevented and
eliminated. It also means that priority should be given to people in the
most marginalised or vulnerable situations who face the biggest
barriers to realising their rights.
25
Multiculturalism: 4. Empowerment
Theory & Practice
Everyone is entitled to claim and exercise their rights and freedoms.
Individuals and communities need to be able to understand their
rights, and to participate fully in the development of policy and
practices which affect their lives.
5. Legality
A human rights based approach requires that

• the law recognises human rights and freedoms as legally

enforceable entitlements, and

• the law itself is consistent with human rights principles.

2.4 EQUITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

2.4.1 Equity
There is consensus in the development literature that an equity approach
signifies development aimed at reaching the most marginalized and
deprived populations first, in contrast to the objective of reaching only
greater quantities of people. Key international organizations like the World
Bank and UNICEF utilize the concept of equity prominently in their work
and refer to it explicitly in their reports and strategies. The first high profile
occurrence of the equity concept on the international organizations’ arena
appeared with the publishing of the UNDP’s 2005 Human Development
Report, the 2005 Report on The World Social Situation by UNRSID, and
the World Bank’s 2006 World Development Report. Anderson and O’Neil
noted this trend with the release of working papers entitled “A New Equity
Agenda” as a primer to a conference held by the Overseas Development
Institute (ODI) on the topic. This discussion dealt with the concept of equity
both in terms of its intrinsic as well as its instrumental value.
While intrinsically perceived as ensuring the human rights of the most
deprived, the instrumental view presents equity as an instrument for growth
and social cohesion. Overall, equity is not a new concept to development
work. Some view the equity approach as a response to growing inequalities
and a way to address those left out of the “lowhanging fruit” approach for
which the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are sometimes
criticized. The current dialogue around equity revolves predominantly
around how equity is measured. One camp holds that increasing equality of
opportunity, or equal access to services, is enough. Others argue that equity
should be measured according to outcomes, or the results of how groups of
people actually fare in life. Either way, an equity approach entails
addressing the specific deprivations of the most marginalized in societies.
The genesis of equality and equity as a concept of social justice arose from
a history of evolving philosophies of societal organization and distribution
of wealth and services. From natural law to the modern concept of rights,
the pursuit of a socially just distribution continues. Poverty exists at record-
26
26
high levels in absolute terms, disproportionately affecting the most Prejudice and
Discrimination
marginalized groups in societies across the world. The central theories
underlying the equity paradigm follow, providing a theoretical background
for the concept of equity and its relevance in today’s highly unequal world.
While there are many social justice theories, the four contemporary
frameworks relating to equity in this examination are John Rawls’ concept
of justice as fairness (1971), Amartya Sen’s capability approach (2000),
Charles Tilly’s concept of durable inequalities (2006), and the human rights
approach to poverty by The Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights (OHCHR) (2002). We examine each of these below.
Social equity
Social equity is concerned with justice and fairness of social policy. Since
the 1960s, the concept of social equity has been used in a variety of
institutional contexts, including education and public administration.
Definitions of social equity can vary but all focus on the ideals of justice
and fairness. Equity in old societies involves the role of public
administrators, who are responsible for ensuring that social services are
delivered equitably. This implies taking into account historical and current
inequalities among groups. Fairness is dependent on this social and
historical context.
Sex, gender and sexuality
Recent[when?] administration from former U.S. President Barack Obama
has shed light on the subject of social equity for members of the LGBT
community. The Obama administration appointed more than 170 openly
LGBT professionals to work full-time within the executive branch and
directed United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to
conduct “the first ever national study to determine the level of
discrimination experienced by LGBTs in housing” Other LGBT advocacy
interest groups, such as the Human Rights Campaign, have also worked
hard to gain social equity in marriage and to receive all the benefits that
come with marriage. Other references include: Mitchell, Danielle. "Reading
Between The Aisles: Same-Sex Marriage As A Conflicted Symbol Of
Social Equity." Topic: The Washington & Jefferson College Review
55.(2007): 89-100. Humanities Source. Web.
Race
Within the realm of public administration, racial equality is an important
factor.[according to whom?] It deals with the idea of “biological equality”
of all human races and “social equality for people of different races”.
According to Jeffrey B. Ferguson his article “Freedom, Equality, Race”, the
people of the United States believe that racial equality will prevail.[citation
needed]
Religion
Social equity in regards to religion has legal protections in some
jurisdictions. In the US, individuals, regardless of religious affiliation or
27
Multiculturalism: practice are afforded . According to 42 U.S.C. sect. 2000e(j) "Religion is
Theory & Practice
defined as all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief,
unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to responsibly
accommodate to an employee's or prospective employee's religious
observance or practice without unique hardship to the conduct of the
employer's business." This law was enacted to protect employees that are
employed by bosses of another religion, and allow them to observe their
particular religious practices and celebrations.
2.4.2 Social justice
Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political
and social rights and opportunities. Social workers aim to open the doors of
access and opportunity for everyone, particularly those in greatest need.
Social justice encompasses economic justice. Social justice is the virtue
which guides us in creating those organized human interactions we call
institutions. In turn, social institutions, when justly organized, provide us
with access to what is good for the person, both individually and in our
associations with others. Social justice also imposes on each of us a personal
responsibility to work with others to design and continually perfect our
institutions as tools for personal and social development.
Social justice is justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities,
and privileges within a society. In Western and Asian cultures, the concept
of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals
fulfill their societal roles and receive what was their due from society. In
the current movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the
breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets, and
economic justice. Social justice assigns rights and duties in the institutions
of society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens
of cooperation. The relevant institutions often include taxation, social
insurance, public health, public school, public services, labor law and
regulation of markets, to ensure distribution of wealth, and equal
opportunity.
Interpretations that relate justice to a reciprocal relationship to society are
mediated by differences in cultural traditions, some of which emphasize the
individual responsibility toward society and others the equilibrium between
access to power and its responsible use. Hence, social justice is invoked
today while reinterpreting historical figures such as Bartolomé de las Casas,
in philosophical debates about differences among human beings, in efforts
for gender, ethnic, and social equality, for advocating justice for migrants,
prisoners, the environment, and the physically and developmentally
disabled.
While concepts of social justice can be found in classical and Christian
philosophical sources, from Plato and Aristotle to Augustine of Hippo and
Thomas Aquinas, the term social justice finds its earliest uses in the late
18th century, albeit with unclear theoretical or practical meanings. The use
of the term was early on subject to accusations of redundancy and of
28
28 rhetorical flourish, perhaps but not necessarily related to amplifying one
view of distributive justice. In the coining and definition of the term in the Prejudice and
Discrimination
natural law social scientific treatise of Luigi Taparelli, in the early 1840s,
Taparelli established the natural law principle that corresponded to the
evangelical principle of brotherly love—i.e. social justice reflects the duty
one has to one’s other self in the interdependent abstract unity of the human
person in society. After the Revolutions of 1848 the term was popularized
generically through the writings of Antonio Rosmini-Serbati.
In the late industrial revolution, Progressive Era American legal scholars
began to use the term more, particularly Louis Brandeis and Roscoe Pound.
From the early 20th century it was also embedded in international law and
institutions; the preamble to establish the International Labour Organization
recalled that "universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is
based upon social justice." In the later 20th century, social justice was made
central to the philosophy of the social contract, primarily by John Rawls in
A Theory of Justice (1971). In 1993, the Vienna Declaration and
Programme of Action treats social justice as a purpose of human rights
education
Justice as Fairness
John Rawls’ seminal A Theory of Justice introduces the concept of "justice
as fairness", shifting the philosophy of distribution to the greater society
instead of individuals. Rawls presents two central principles to comprise his
philosophy. The equal liberty principle holds that individuals are entitled to
the maximum amount of liberties (to vote and run for office, freedom of
speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property
and freedom from arbitrary arrest) to the extent that it is good for the society
as a whole and that can be applied to all. The difference principle holds that
inequalities are acceptable only if they are redressed to the greatest benefit
of the most disadvantaged. Rawls’ treatment of inequalities shares a
fundamental value with the concept of equity in that they both aim to redress
inherent disadvantages in terms of opportunity and social mobility (Rawls
302). The equity paradigm derives the concept of a fair equality of
opportunity from Rawls second principle. The difference principle then
does allow for inequalities in outcomes to the extent that equality of
opportunity exists. Rawls claims “undeserved inequalities call for redress;
and since inequalities of birth and natural endowment are undeserved, these
inequalities are somehow to be compensated for” (Rawls 100). In Rawls’
view, individuals living in a society must commit to viewing one another as
free and equal unlike the distributional schemas of classical liberalism, neo-
liberalism, and libertarianism. Under the social equity paradigm in the
development context, this implies that a greater priority be placed on the
most disadvantaged to meet their unique needs.

29
Multiculturalism:
Theory & Practice
2.5 QUESTIONS

1. Explain the origin of prejudice in detail.

2. Describe modern racism.
a. Write a detailed note on learning not to hate.
b. Write in brief about the recategorization.
3. Explain the role of prejudice in discrimination. Write your answer
with suitable examples.
4. Discuss social justice in brief.

2.6 REFERENCES

1. Branscombe, N. R. & Baron, R. A., Adapted by Preeti Kapoor (2017).

Social Psychology. (14th ed.). New Delhi: Pearson Education;
Indian reprint 2017
2. Myers, D. G., Sahajpal, P., & Behera, P. (2017). Social psychology
(10th ed.). McGraw Hill Education.



30
30