A Light in the World

Accepting the Republican party nomination for President in August of 1988, George H.W. Bush said, “I hope to stand for a new harmony, a greater tolerance. We've come far, but I think we need a new harmony among the races in our country. And we're on a journey into a new century, and we've got to leave that tired old baggage of bigotry behind.” And “…we’re a nation of community….a brilliant diversity spreads like stars, like a thousand points of light in a broad and peaceful sky.”

Whatever your politics are, and whatever your judgment is of the sincerity or success of Bush’s goals, I think we can agree on the ideals he brings up: Moving toward harmony across racial (and all other) groups is always an admirable goal, and one we need to constantly keep moving toward.

I always liked Bush’s use of the phrase “thousand points of light.” It is meant to indicate people or organizations that are devoted to helping others. I will return to this a bit later.

You may have wondered, “Why is there so much prejudice in the world?” And why it appears worldwide, and throughout history. Such cross-cultural pervasiveness of prejudice across time might be taken by evolutionary psychologists as evidence of humans being “hardwired” to dislike others who are different. Are we born with prejudice baked into our system? No, actually. Prejudice is a learned attitude. We are born with an innate tendency to automatically categorize things (Gardner 1985; Ramsey et al, 2004). That is very helpful and helps us move through life by not needing to analyze every object we see to determine what it is and what its function is. Automatic categorization helps us instantly make those judgments. The problem comes when we bring that to people. People aren’t homogenous, based on a single feature or even several features. If I see a skinny man with glasses, I can’t assume he is an introvert who likes to read.

But we still categorize people and derive stereotypes and prejudices from that process. Why? Largely because, as Taylor (1981) writes, people are “cognitive misers.” People don’t like to think too much about most things, so anything that helps us avoid thinking will be a welcome cognitive tool. Stereotypes are great in that regard (Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen, 1994). They help us come to fast judgments without having to think much about the person we are evaluating. If we are wrong, oh well. Research on stereotypes and stereotyping shows that people are much more concerned about making fast judgments about others than about making accurate ones (Nelson & Olson 2024).

So we automatically categorize and stereotype people? Is that inevitable? Is there nothing we can do to avoid stereotyping and being prejudiced toward others? No.

Pioneering research by Patricia Devine (1989; Devine, Monteith, Zuwerink, & Elliot, 1991) shows that thinking about others in terms of a stereotype is a two-step process. First, seeing or thinking about someone in a group to which you don’t belong (researchers call them “outgroups”) automatically brings forth any and all stereotypes and prejudiced feelings about that group; this, says Devine, is the “activation” step. People who are high in prejudice seamlessly let those stereotypes linger in their consciousness — Devine and others say this is where the stereotype is “applied” — to color how they perceive that individual. They see no problem doing so because they believe in the truth of those stereotypes. But, for those who are low in prejudice and do not want to think about others in terms of stereotypes, the second step (application) doesn’t work the same way.

To recap: Devine says stereotypes are automatically activated in high- and low-prejudiced people. But the application process is different for high- vs. low-prejudiced people. High-prejudiced people let those stereotypes color their perceptions of the individual. And they feel fine doing so, because they think the stereotype is true. But the low-prejudiced person is motivated to not let stereotypes color the way they perceive others. So before the stereotype affects their judgments, the low-prejudiced person engages in cognitive work to consider the individual on their merits — as an individual, not a stigmatized category member.

Research by Devine and her colleagues (Devine & Monteith, 1999) shows that people can avoid the application of stereotypes if they are sufficiently motivated to do so. As I mentioned above, most people are not so motivated, and they are content to let their automatically-activated stereotypes taint and guide their perceptions of others.

For those motivated to not let automatically-activated stereotypes bias their perceptions, it requires “intention, attention, and time” (Devine, 1989). One must be highly motivated to break the bad habit of prejudice and stereotyping.

So, prejudice and stereotyping are not inevitable. One must decide to put in the time and cognitive effort to unlearn the “default” associations between a stereotype and an actual member of a stereotyped group, and instead intentionally focus on perceiving and thinking about them on their own merits as an individual.

Earlier I mentioned Bush’s “thousand points of light” notion. We each need to intentionally decide to be a source of positivity and helpfulness in our community. We cannot accept the ugliness that accompanies prejudice and stereotypes, and the division, pain, and wars that emerge from that way of thinking. It takes effort and consistent motivation, but we can each decide to be a point of light, bringing positivity to the world, and helping others. Yes it may sound too simple (or naïve) to the cynical reader. But positive change starts with each of us, trying to bring light into the world.