Page 294 - Essencials of Sociology

Global Patterns of Intergroup Relations 267

Sometimes this rivalry shows up along very fine racial–ethnic lines, such as that in Miami
between Haitians and African Americans, who distrust each other as competitors. Divi-
sions among workers deflect anger and hostility away from the power elite and direct
these powerful emotions toward other racial–ethnic groups. Instead of recognizing their
common class interests and working for their mutual welfare, workers learn to fear and
distrust one another.
Symbolic Interactionism.
“I know her qualifications are good, but yikes! She’s ugly. I don’t want to have to look at
her every day. Let’s hire the one with the nice curves.”
While conflict theorists focus on the role of the owner (or capitalist) class in exploiting
racial–ethnic divisions, symbolic interactionists examine how labels affect perception and
create prejudice.

How Labels Create Prejudice. Symbolic interactionists stress that the labels we learn
affect the ways we perceive people. Labels create selective perception; that is, they lead
us to see certain things while they blind us to others. If we apply a label to a group,
we tend to perceive its members as all alike. We shake off evidence that doesn’t fit
(Simpson and Yinger 1972; Drakulich 2012). Shorthand for emotionally charged stereo-
types, some racial–ethnic labels are especially powerful. As you know, the term nigger is
not neutral. Nor are cracker, dago, guinea, honky, kike, kraut, limey, mick, spic, or any of
the other scornful words people use to belittle other groups. As in the statement above,
ugly can work in a similar way. Such words overpower us with emotions, blocking out
rational thought about the people to whom they refer (Allport 1954).
Labels and Self-Fulfilling Stereotypes. Some stereotypes not only justify prejudice and
discrimination but also produce the behavior depicted in the stereotype. We examined this
principle in Chapter 4 in the box on beauty (page 113). Let’s consider Group X. According
to stereotypes, the members of this group are lazy, so they don’t deserve good jobs. (“They
are lazy and wouldn’t do the job well.”) Denied the better jobs, most members of Group
X do “dirty work,” the jobs few people want. (“That’s the right kind of work for that kind
of people.”) Since much “dirty work” is sporadic, members of Group X are often seen “on
the streets.” The sight of their idleness reinforces the original stereotype of laziness. The
discrimination that created the “laziness” in the first place passes unnoticed.

To apply these three theoretical perspectives and catch a glimpse of how amazingly dif-
ferent things were in the past, read the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page.

Global Patterns of Intergroup Relations 9.4 Explain genocide, population
transfer, internal colonialism,
In their studies of racial–ethnic relations around the world, sociologists have found six segregation, assimilation, and
basic ways that dominant groups treat minority groups. These patterns are shown in multiculturalism.
Figure 9.3 on page 269. Let’s look at each.

Genocide
When gold was discovered in northern California in 1849, the fabled “Forty-Niners”
rushed in. In this region lived 150,000 Native Americans. To get rid of them, the white
government put a bounty on their heads. It even reimbursed the whites for their bullets.
The result was the slaughter of 120,000 Native American men, women, and children.
(Schaefer 2004)

Could you ever participate in genocide? Don’t be too quick in answering. Gaining an
understanding of how ordinary people take part in genocide will be our primary goal in selective perception seeing cer-
this section. In the events depicted in the little vignette above, those who did the kill- tain features of an object or situa-
ing were regular people—people like you and me. The killing was promoted by calling tion, but remaining blind to others