Psychological Vs sociological Understanding of Prejudice (Essay Sample)

Name
Professor
Course
Date
Psychological Vs sociological Understanding of Prejudice
Introduction
The paper is based on two article written by different scholars, but taking about prejudice. The first article written by Vincent N. Parrillo takes about the “causes of prejudice” while the second article takes about “what does modern prejudice look like”. Despite the fact that both articles are based on one theme-prejudice, one is a critique of the other. Parrillo is a sociologist and a professor by profession composed the paper noting the two most evident causes of prejudice; sociological and psychological causes of prejudice (Parrillo 7). Though he tries to break down the causes of prejudice to increase reader and researcher understanding the article clearly points out that sociological cause carries the biggest weight than the other. Likewise, Vedantam co-supports his claims of with a scholar (Banaji) perceptive that is based on personal experience of Banaji and his pals. (6) Vedantam denotes that contemporary prejudice is based on individual preference, but Parrillo claims that prejudice has no cause. Both authors have a common standing point from their arguments; they say that personal preference is the main cause of prejudice. Personal preference has also several sub-causes.
According to Parrillo (1997), the a degree of prejudice is measure in a sociological perspective depending on the cultural understanding of the people being prejudiced, the activity being prejudiced and the social interactions of the agent of prejudice (Parrillo 112). Thanks to the understanding and layout of information of the Parrillo as he clear points out that the relationship between people is the key sociological cause of prejudice; meaning that social actions and functions are the main causes of prejudice. Parrillo also states that those people living together or socially sharing common norms have little chances of prejudicing against each other. The author also denotes that the level of prejudice increases as an individual’s social class increases. This is seen the affluent and the poor in the society. He points giving an example of blacks as poor, showing their level of prejudice against each other being high as compared to the white in the affluent side with low rate of prejudice. But in his analysis he also shows how cross-cultural understanding affects prejudice. The difference between whites’ and black culture is identified as the highest cause of prejudice to an extent that both are not able to share common social amenities such as play grounds. (507) Parrillo uses personal justification of actions to explain the existence of prejudice in the current world. He asserts that maligning a group or a tribe against the other is a cause of mistreatment that contributes to prejudice.
On the other side, Vendantam, claims that the world discrimination such as in sports is identified as handling of human race in a awkward manner, thus considering the other party as less important persons who no right; this also mostly known as personal favoritism. He also states that in-group and out-group norms and beliefs based on socio economic differences affect the levels of prejudice. (2) For example, Vendantam states that social economic factors in the modern world such as the financial crisis situations and global inflation rate are key causes of prejudice. This affects an individual cognitive evaluation of an issue which later turns out to a blaming game in the society. For example, the blacks are blamed for unskilled labor that calls for poor quality of products; blacks are prejudiced are being illiterate with less skills. Large disparities found in races, cultures and norms of the people in the society also contribute to social misunderstanding in the world. Vendantam further says that prejudice has contributed to discrimination and stereotypes that have later changed the meaning of prejudice to hatred. Parrillo on the other...