Social connection: a block to getting rid of discrimination - still?

Something I have been thinking about of late - well, for decades, actually - is the problem of how to end discrimination. 

In this recent post I touched on unconscious bias - and I genuinely consider all unelected positions with authority or influence should include an assessment of unconscious bias (preferably by a psychologist, but use of an expert-prepared questionnaire would do at a pinch). 

But there is another problem I’ve noted previously, which comes out of the fact that humans are hard wired for social connections. 

This well-examined in Gabor  Maté’s  book  “The Myth of Normal”. 

In social circumstances, for much of my life there have been “rules”around social interactions - for example, jokes about stereotypical gender roles, jokes about work or work-life balance (meaning relationships) that were, in effect, initiatory tests. 

Someone might, back in the 70s (and, disturbingly more recently) joke about roles at barbecues - i.e., who does the cooking: if the listener laughs, the "joke" teller will assume the listener is socially compatible or “trustworthy”, and inch closer towards a friendship or social connection. 

It’s a little like the now thankfully banned initiations into apprenticeships, where the social rules are “tests of suitability for admission and ensuring have experienced enough to pay for admission”.

In terms of friendships, this admission is done slowly by most adults because of a fear of past hurts being repeated - see Gabor Maté’s book, but also watch how young children may interact much more quickly and easily. 

These formulaic interactions (“rules for exploring the potential of a friendship or trusted interaction at work”) will change from time to time: when discussing this in the past, people seem to assume these change with every generation, but my observations suggests it could be every two or three generations. 

The rules are also different for different socio-economic classes and/or niches - a blue collar worker won’t joke about the same things as a product of elitists schools or heads of large corporations/conglomerates (small corporations, maybe).

These informal rules for social approaches are a problem when they are built on mocking or othering certain groups - for instance, the jokes I mentioned above reinforce gender stereotypes and promote sexism or even misogyny. In my opinion,. such behaviour is nearly as evil as gossip.

Most people know that such jokes are not acceptable now (well, in decent places, at any rate), but I suspect the lingering use of such jokes, particularly in private, is because people don’t have positivist alternatives to use. 

I’ve tried discussing this with people in the past, and I have found they often are unaware of their unearned advantage (i.e., privilege) in being eloquent and thus are quite dismissive and belittling (i.,e., bigotted) about a genuine problem/issue.

Bute there are solutions, which I suggest are:

1. acknowledge that this issue exists;
   
2. teach healthy ways to connect - particularly in schools, but adults need positive alternatives as well. 
   

A couple of my other posts may also provide some useful stimulus to thinking on this. They are at: 

• https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2023/05/a-defence-and-challenge-content-warning.html; and 
• https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2023/04/patterns-content-warning-misogyny-white.html.
  

 

Possible flaws 

Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:

• there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan  Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”; 
  
• I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
  

 

If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below.

Vote Yes for the Voice in Australia.  

Finally, remember: we need to be more human being rather than human doing.