Social Justice Usage
Source: The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity
Also known as implicit social cognition, implicit bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. These biases, which encompass both favorable and unfavorable assessments, are activated involuntarily and without an individual’s awareness or intentional control. Residing deep in the subconscious, these biases are different from known biases that individuals may choose to conceal for the purposes of social and/or political correctness. Rather, implicit biases are not accessible through introspection.
The implicit associations we harbor in our subconscious cause us to have feelings and attitudes about other people based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, age, and appearance. These associations develop over the course of a lifetime beginning at a very early age through exposure to direct and indirect messages. In addition to early life experiences, the media and news programming are often-cited origins of implicit associations.
New Discourses Commentary
Implicit bias (or unconscious bias) is an attribution of stereotypes of certain qualities onto specific social groups (read: identities) that takes place almost entirely beneath one’s awareness. Someone with an implicit bias against black people, for example, may consider themselves not-racist or even antiracist with respect to black people while still exhibiting attitudes (like anti-blackness) or holding racial stereotypes about black people—these biases existing beneath one’s conscious awareness. Even more insidiously, implicit bias can refer to having very generic (negative) associations with some identity factors that do not manifest even to the level of stereotypes but that may produce very subtle differences in intuitive or cognitive assessment of members of certain identity groups as compared with others.
To understand this last point, implicit bias (or implicit association) testing is considered to be the way in which implicit biases can be detected. The way this testing proceeds is to present a person with a number of words with some clearly identifiable valence (e.g., positive versus negative, science versus non-science, etc.) and some indicator of identity, such as pronouns, images of people, or stereotypically ethnic names. The tests carefully track how quickly people can complete certain association tasks when the positive-valence terms are associated with one identity and negative with the other versus when they are switched. The underlying assumption is that if it takes longer to associate positive-valence ideas with certain identities than others, then it must be due to some learned, but implicit, bias. For instance, if it takes someone longer to associate science words with women than it does with men, the test would indicate an implicit bias against women in science. Much of this research has been called deeply into question and is held with rather profound suspicion, both about what it actually shows and whether it has any particular application in practice [1]. (The evidence against its application in practice may outweigh the evidence for its application, for example.)
Implicit bias is considered of utmost importance to the Theory of Critical Social Justice. There (and somewhat beyond) they are explained as being rooted in experiences and learned associations, often by means of socialization into identity-based systems of power and the “ideologies” that support and naturalize them (see also, false consciousness). The Theory of Critical Social Justice and much of the activism that proceeds from it considers implicit biases to be tantamount to hard evidence of the kinds of false consciousness around which its entire Theory of systemic injustice turns. Consistent with its ultimately critical mission (which has always believed that oppression largely results from unjust systems of power that fail to be properly identified and criticized – see also, critical theory), much of what it advocates in practice boils down to looking for the root causes of implicit biases and engaging with them to eradicate them (see also, critical consciousness, consciousness raising, wokeness, internalized dominance, and internalized oppression). Antiracism, which is not merely being against racism, is explicitly such a project.
The Theory of Critical Social Justice is abundantly clear in its interpretation of the (for it, sole) source of implicit biases. Whatever confounding factors might genuinely be in play, Theory understands implicit bias to be wholly the result of socialization about the relative worth (usually measured by equitable access) a person has in society as determined by the many intersecting socially constructed identity categories she belongs to (see also, positionality). That is, Theory posits that there is no genuinely meaningful difference between any human beings whatsoever (see also, blank slatism), that all such categories are ultimately fictions (see also, social constructivism), and that there can be (almost) no consequential effects of holding different cultural values (see also, cultural relativism), and thus any differences must be wholly the result of injustices that exist in the power dynamics between social identity groups. Simply, Theory says implicit biases exist because people have learned that members of different identity groups have different values because this is reflected in the various unjust and intersecting power dynamics that allegedly structure society. (NB: Theory does believe that there are consequential negative effects of holding dominant cultural values because these lead to biases that cause harm, exclusion, marginalization, oppression, and trauma – see also, standpoint epistemology, epistemic injustice, epistemic oppression, and epistemic violence.)
Rather like the way it views microaggressions (tiny slights that indicate to members of minoritized groups that they’re not members of dominant groups), the Theory of Critical Social Justice would hold that much that passes as systemic injustice is the result of the aggregated effects of many such minuscule implicit biases. For example, one could imagine that if it takes people (especially white people) some fraction of a second longer to associate black people with positive terms or women with science, then in some (perhaps very small) proportion of cases, an unjust snap decision will be made about these things or some other seemingly minor negative consequence will manifest. In aggregate, over the billions of such decisions made over some period of time in society, this will create a consequential negative effect for members of those minoritized groups.
This vaguely defined allegedly causal force is then taken to be a significant part of what is meant by terms like “systemic racism,” which can be read from society not necessarily in any particular interaction or event but in the aggregate by interpreting any disparate (inequitable) outcomes to be proof of the injustice inherent in the system. It is worth pausing to reflect on what system is being referenced here, however; it is the system of people’s unconscious thoughts, which it is believed they have been socialized into by anything in society that might possibly lead them to have those incorrect unconscious thoughts. This, among other aspects (institutional, cultural, knowledge, language/discourses, etc.), is the system that Critical Social Justice insists we must deconstruct, disrupt, dismantle, subvert, and ultimately overthrow in a complete social revolution that tolerates no injustice whatsoever—as it defines justice.
Related Terms
Anti-blackness; Antiracism; Bias; Blank slatism; Consciousness raising; Critical; Critical consciousness; Critical theory; Cultural relativism; Deconstruction; Discourse; Dismantle; Disrupt; Dominance; Engage; Epistemic injustice; Epistemic oppression; Epistemic violence; Equity; Exclusion; False consciousness; Harm; Identity; Ideology; Injustice; Internalized dominance; Internalized oppression; Intersectionality; Justice; Knowledge(s); Marginalization; Microaggression; Minortize; Oppression; Positionality; Racism (systemic); Revolution; Science; Social construction; Social constructivism; Social Justice; Socialization; Standpoint epistemology; Structural; Subversion; System, the; Systemic power; Theory; Tolerance; Trauma; White; Woke/Wokeness; Woman
[1] Sources indicating the dubious nature of the Implicit Association Test, upon which implicit bias is allegedly empirically grounded, are copious now (here are several examples summarizing the literature). Some of this literature indicates that even the creators of the IAT have backed off from saying it shows much of anything. Further, there is apparently fairly robust evidence that (1) the test results aren’t stable and change from one test to another, (2) are easily gamed to get the score you want once you know how, (3) have no observable correlation with behavior or predict behaviors in reverse, (4) do not improve or change with implicit bias training that is supposed to make you more aware of them, although this often backfires and increases certain forms of racial resentment in office environments (not white on black resentment, though), and (5) may not be measuring anything remotely close to what they claim to be measuring, as the results can often be reversed simply by changing some initial conditions of the people taking the tests. Further, there are confounding variables all over the place, including stuff about people finding the tests confusing and having other systematic error-introducing issues with the test.
Lastly a feminist paper in The Lancet from 2019 argues that the IAT isn’t just unreliable but is also, in fact, sexist, because it focuses on something allegedly observable and objective when it should be focusing on structural issues that are embedded in the social hierarchy (i.e., more Theory, more storytelling, etc.). Their point was that even if the IAT is legit, which they don’t believe it is any longer, it would be problematic because it doesn’t take the right kind of approach that these social theories really advocate, which would be completely divorced from any data at all. It is not clear whether the feminist authors decided to problematize the IAT just because that’s all they do to everything or because it stopped being useful to them because it was being debunked scientifically, so they wanted to put even more distance between them and it.
Revision date: 6/13/20
5 comments
The more the true nature of woke is exposed,the more the only conversation with them is whether it goes in the head or the heart.
Dear D
In that case i’m fortunately having avoided reasoning with them entirely. I never speak with them, on the odd occasion have spoken at them, but really hat what ND’s, does aside from anytime a direct debate does happen ( i’ve seen a few here )
They are not capable of debate, one can only make the field conditions worse for them, again hat what i assumed ND’s is all about.
Therefore what i was really referring to still the existence of exposure to the counter arguments, not actual arguments with wokes. Much of the effectiveness back at the labs that design CM’s tactics is dependent on a certain amount of intrinsic secrets not being unleashed with respect to how condition learning works on the woke. The strength of CM with respect to its ability to fire woke is finite. It does not recover systems from serious damage to its delicate inner linings, that instead would be supplementation of police state action instead.
So correct 1 woke or 10 million makes no difference as any minion is but 1 of the mass when the centrality of the experience isn’t going on within the woke unit. That fact is where a most serious flaw is = there s no such thing as counter wokecraft as there is no such thing as wok based social engineering design.
Tbh i cannot understand why anyone would ever feel that arguments with minion units could change anything.
Furthermore it would never be the desire of social engineers to refrain either. It is just that if there is too much awareness of the dynamics
then CM will dysfunction = affect wokes. Which is why i feel a failing CM could have the nwo turn towards military policing. But the state of affairs in the project are probably not advanced enough bar more of the threatening phenomenon – for instance C19 could have been a surrogate move in this type of sense, where the times not right to send out actual jackboot.
Put it this way – there is either codebreaking with CM or there is no counter argument. If those are accurate enough, the exposure is fairly ‘lethal’ to woke sense of security. For instance make no mistake that ( say ) a psychic medium knows they are lying. Its just that an emotional drive is powerful enough to override that sense of self loathing. Thus every woke knows they are lying to themselves, & an index of mental stress from this does slowly accumulate.
The social engineering only scaffolds a persons self delusional borrowings>>>>> and it leads the way to make mistakes with ones emotions pretending to be a trade off to reaching personal goals. Wokes – CM powered lefties – racists – neo facists – any of whom can be teenage to coffin dodger – they all have expiry dates where the intensity of the self loathing frustration becomes unbearable. This aspect ould well be what powers knife crime & so on though i digress. Crime of which the engineer see as a positive epiphenomenon given that the true reason for the woke project is the deconstruction of the modernity age. In fact i’d feel that the social science behind cm constantly monitors it all with a view to avoiding an outbreak of anarchy. They want just the drip drip of anarchy for now.
If broken and cultural marxism is delicate in places, they’d either need a whole new architecture or the use of force. As you say CRT isn’t going away. That doesn’t mean is ability to cash self loathing emotion, for pride & woke activism will always b this effective.
A Woke puts personal failure to the backs of their mind <<< self perpetuated personal failure. And sells their soul to the dvil at the crossroads like Robert Johnson. Even with ons own head there are only so many times self humiliation can be offset by being an anti white racist, just because there is a sociological scheme running that enables this.
The IAT is completely phony, and can be gamed and controlled to get any result the test-taker wants. How do I know? I did it at least half a dozen times in grad school. Totally invalid.
You cannot make them understand that the facts don’t match up. You can tell them that there’s equal opportunity now and there has been for years, and in the event that one feels they were discriminated against, they can take people to court for it, but they’ll still write thousands of papers to whine, in the guise of academic legitimacy. If you insist that you’re not racist, or misogynist, they’ll say intentionality doesn’t matter. They will always fall back on implicit bias and THEY WILL NEVER propose solutions as to how we should deal with it. Critical race theory is here to stay, forever. And I’m so tired of trying to talk to these people.
You might want to add this one to the list of items critiquing IAT.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113340432267610972
Some quotes:
“Anything short of straight group representation — equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity — is “proof” that the process is unfair.”
“Advocates want to have it both ways. On the one hand, any steps taken against discrimination are by definition insufficient, because good intentions and traditional checks on workplace prejudice can never eliminate unconscious bias. On the other, researchers and “diversity experts” purport to know what’s needed and do not hesitate to recommend more expensive and strenuous measures to purge pervasive racism. There is no more evidence that such efforts dispel supposed unconscious racism than that such racism affects decisions in the first place.
But facts have nothing to do with it. What began as science has morphed into unassailable faith. However we think, feel or act, and however much apparent progress has been made, there is no hope for us. We are all racists at heart.”
This article was written in 2005.