On the need for an objective framework for understanding bigotry

The context

From rising anti-Semitism in the US, France, Germany, Belgium, the UK, etc. to multiple anti-Semitic murders in France, an anti-Semitic massacre in the United States, an anti-Black racist massacre in Charleston, an Islamophobic massacre in New Zealand, to an anti-Christian massacre in Sri Lanka, etc. it is clear that the world is now in the middle of an epidemic of resurgent hate.

Combatting this epidemic of hate requires the ability to clearly and consistently identify those statements, beliefs, and behaviors that contribute to this rise in hate so that they can be addressed. However, despite there being a pressing need for clarity, a perusal of social media, various news outlets, and late night talk shows reveals a great deal of confusion and disagreement regarding what bigotry is and what statements or actions cross that line.

Subjective vs objective bigotry

There is an increasingly popular idea in some social justice spaces of a subjective approach to bigotry that is often expressed as “each group gets to define its own oppression” or “each group gets to define its own bigotry”. Though this idea is an inaccurate paraphrasing of a recommendation by Judge Sir William Macpherson who intended only to refer to what allegations should be investigated, not a standard by which to determine if those allegations were valid, the idea is often attributed to him as the “Macpherson Principle”. While there are some merits to the Macpherson Principle or to various similar ideas, there are also many dangers and drawbacks that, overall, demand a more objective approach.

The merits of subjectivity

Merits to the idea of subjective bigotry include:

1. A person is the ultimate authority on their own feelings, and thus when the goal is to be maximally accommodating and to minimize offended-ness, this definition can be useful. For example, when it comes to interactions with small numbers of people, simply taking people at their word that they feel offended and accommodating (or humoring) their feelings is good advice for being maximally inclusive.
2. Members of targeted groups have knowledge of their groups’ culture, history, etc. as well as personal experiences with bigotry that make them much more knowledgable in contemporary manifestations of such bigotry, in cultural or historical references used by bigots that may not be known to people outside their own group. Furthermore, there are some kinds of language or ideas that may not, themselves, be inherently bigoted but that have a high correlation with other bigoted ideas or language, and members of targeted groups who experience not just the bigoted statements but also this language that co-occurs with it may be able to infer bigoted motives based on seemingly innocuous language based on this co-occurrence that others might not pick up.

The drawbacks of subjectivity

While subjective definitions of bigotry are not without merit, the drawbacks are many:

1. If each group gets to define their own bigotry, what then is to be done when there is not agreement within that group on what is actually bigoted? What if there isn’t even agreement within that group regarding who is or is not a member of the targeted group? In conjunction with horizontal oppression and tokenism, subjective definitions of bigotry can be easily exploited to dismiss legitimate claims of bigotry by relying on token members.

2. If bigotry is subjective, then how are potential allies to help with the identification and elimination of bigotry? For many marginalized groups, the size of the group is small enough relative to the overall population and relative to those with bigoted views that successful elimination of bigotry demands help from allies in the broader population. If only members of the targeted group are capable of identifying bigotry, then it places a disproportionate burden on members of the target group. Rather than relying on the targeted group for each and every determination, the targeted group should provide expertise that is fed into an objective framework of understanding bigotry that enables the thought process, reasoning, and understanding of the targeted group to be applied by others outside of the targeted group to help in identifying and eliminating bigotry.

3. How does one deal with those who exploit accusations of bigotry to avoid accountability when, themselves, engaging in bigoted actions or statements directed against other marginalized groups? How does one deal with mutually unsatisfiable subjective definitions of bigotry? While the vast, vast, vast majority of accusations of bigotry leveled by members of marginalized groups are legitimate and made in good faith, subjective definitions are easily hijacked and exploited, and any power that can be abused will inevitably be abused by someone. This abuse not only can serve to increase bigotry (e.g. by providing a shield with which to undertake bigoted statements or actions towards other groups) but can also serve to increase bigotry against members of the same group, by — when used illegitimately — contributing towards skepticism of other claims raised by other group members.

4. If bigotry is purely subjective, what is to prevent identarian extremists from hijacking the language of subjective bigotry and asserting similar rights and claims? Those arguing that “each group gets to define its own bigotry” are unintentionally legitimizing so-called “men’s rights activists” calling for men to define misandry in ways that legitimize misogyny and for white nationalists and white supremacists to define anti-white racism in ways that legitimize anti-Blackness and anti-Semitism. To prevent this exploitation of the language of social justice and human rights, it is necessary to be rooted in an objective understanding.

5. The argument, “because I say so” or “because I feel that way” is unpersuasive. While subjective definitions of bigotry may remove public expressions of bigotry when implemented, they do not get at the underlying sentiment that drives it. There is a need to explain and communicate about bigotry in ways that can be understood by members outside of the affected group. Not only does this allow allies to help in the identification and elimination of bigotry, but it is also much more persuasive, resulting in an elimination of bigoted expressions not merely because it is forbidden but because those who previously held bigoted beliefs have been persuaded regarding the wrongness of those beliefs. While some people may never be persuaded and it is important to prevent those people from expressing bigotry, too, there are those who hold bigoted beliefs out of ignorance and are capable of being persuaded. When bigoted expression is merely repressed rather than eliminated through persuasion, it can create long-lasting resentment and bubble to the surface at a later time. It’s important to treat both the symptoms and the causes.

6. While subjective definitions may serve in the court of public opinion, they are wholly unsuitable to policy-making, to law enforcement, etc. When it comes to hate crime and anti-discrimination laws as well as the enforcement of those laws, an objective litmus test that guarantees consistent outcomes is required. By a similar token, companies seeking to create company-wide policies require an objective understanding of bigotry.

Proposed objective framework

How would one define bigotry objectively? While it is reasonable to hash out a mutually agreed upon and acceptable definition, here is how I would recommend defining it:

Bigotry involves the treatment or mistreatment of a person based not on their individual actions/behaviors/statements but based on their identity or any other attribute that is merely a coincidence of birth and not a result of their own actions and decisions. Something can also be bigoted if it has discriminatory effects, regardless of whether it is driven by identity; for example, policies that disproportionately affect one group vs another due to underlying factors that correlate with identity can also count as a form of bigotry.

Statements or actions that legitimize bigotry, glorify acts of bigotry, or that reinforce beliefs, stereotypes, and myths that promote bigotry are also bigoted. This includes statements or actions that stereotype groups as inferior, superior, weak, dangerous, aggressive, greedy, or any other attribute that can motivate bigoted treatment.

A statement or action can also be bigoted if it is motivated by a desire to be bigoted or to promote bigotry, regardless of whether the statement or action is inherently bigoted; for example, a statement that intends to be malicious towards a person based on their identity but is based on factually incorrect information about the targeted culture such that the statement is nonsensical rather than being offensive on its face, is still bigoted if the underlying intentions or motives behind the statement or action was, itself, bigoted.

A person is bigoted if they are motivated by bigotry or if, regardless of their motives, they engage in bigoted actions or statements and, when made aware of the bigoted nature of those statements or actions, they make the choice to continue with such behavior.

Role of marginalized groups’ expertise in the framework

While it is necessary to have an objective definition of bigotry, I want to be clear that I am not saying that the marginalized groups affected should have no say in the definition. Rather, marginalized groups should be involved in helping to tweak and refine the definition. More importantly, members of marginalized groups can help, within the context of this framework, to serve as subject matter experts on the history, manifestations, and real world harm of myths, stereotypes, and beliefs about their respective groups. Members of marginalized groups should also be consulted with in terms of helping to make predictions regarding the likely motives of a person in cases of ambiguity; members of targeted groups may recognize coded language and other give-aways that reveal an underlying prejudicial world view even when bigotry is not engaged in overtly.

When there are questions as to what is or is not bigoted, news sources should indeed elevate the voices of members of the affected group in having that discussion. However, news sources should apply this framework to avoid elevating tokens or political extremists, using this framework to identify those who are most suited to speak to issues of bigotry affecting the group. Furthermore, news sources should primarily rely on members of the targeted groups for understanding the harm caused by myths, stereotypes, etc. as well as ways in which contemporary expressions reflect historical myths, stereotypes, etc. or for understanding the connection between coded language and the bigoted intent, etc. News sources should be asking more targeted questions rather than revisiting the definition of bigotry in the case of each and every incident, enabling exploitation and derailment.

Outside of the news, members of affected groups should be listened to, but care must be taken not to elevate tokens or place an undue burden on members of those groups if they don’t want to; people should apply this objective definition and basic reasoning skills to be useful allies without creating extra work for members of the targeted group.

Consistency, consistency, consistency

Regardless of whether you agree with this post, it is important to be consistent when it comes to different groups; if one believes in an objective definition, apply the same objective definition when it comes to anti-Blackness, anti-Semitism, homophobia, Islamophobia, sexism, and other bigotries. Likewise, if you believe in a subjective definition, apply that same rule regarding subjectivity to all of the affected groups. Treating one marginalized group differently from another on account of identity is, in itself, a form of unequal and unfair treatment, and such inconsistency fuels harmful oppression olympics, jealousy, and strife between various different marginalized groups. This is not to say that bigotry manifests the same way between different groups; there are significant differences in how these various forms of bigotry manifest; however, the meta, high-level approach to how one addresses bigotry should be the same to guarantee fairness.