why is there a tendency for humans to react hostilely to difference
(I'm asking that is about causes for racism, anti-semitism, etc.)?

---

Clarification of Question by plech-ga on 03 Mar 2004 09:20 PST

I realize this may seem like a naive question. So the answers I expect
are fear, and scapegoating--it's easy to lay blame on a group which is
distinguishable from another by the shared physical characteristics of
that group...I guess the next step is to ask why this fear? Can any
students of psychology contribute a possible explanation?

Fear?

~ czh ~

Hi Plech. Here is the Bibles explanation of why we cannot get on.
While we know that men go to war, either as nations or just plain next
door neighbours, we should look further for the cause. First John 5;19
[ We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the
power of the wicked one. The wicked one is Satan the devil who has
done a very good job in convincing people he does not exist. Now where
is he. The Bible answers that. Revelation 12;7. And war broke out in
Heaven. Michael [ Jesus ] and his angels battled with the dragon
[Satan] and the dragon and its angels battled{8} but it did not
prevail, neither was a place found for them in heaven.{9} So down the
great dragon was hurled, the one called Devil and Satan, who is
misleading the entire inhabited earth, he was hurled down to the
earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. {10} and {11} state
how the Lamb [ Jesus] is involved and {12} goes on " On this occasion
be glad, You heavens, and you who reside in them [ the angels] Woe for
the earth and the sea [ governments and peoples] because the Devil has
come down to you ,HAVING GREAT ANGER, knowing he has a short period of
time. Revelation does go on to say that eventually Satan will be fully
done away with, but he surely is not right now. The punishment of
Satan is set out in Revelation 20; 1 - 3. For a thousand years his
influence will be removed, and then he is released for a "little
while" to re-test those who have just enjoyed a thousand years of
peace. We cannot bring it about by ourselves, no matter how hard we
wish it or try. Its all there in the scriptures. And..Q.E.D... For you
know this first, that no prophecy of scripture springs from any
private interpretation. {21} For prophecy was at no time brought by
man`s will, but men 40 of them over 16 centuries, but men spoke from
God, as they were borne along by holy spirit.

There's an evolutionary reason here, plech. Our ultimate goal as
living things is to live up to the Reproductive Imperative--to get the
most of our types of genes out in the world as possible (look into the
science of sociobiology). The upshot of this is that those different
from us can (note: not "always do" but "can") present a threat--they
may outcompete us, they may mingle with us and "dilute our genes," or
they may simple attack and destroy us.

Now, obviously this fear of difference isn't the only factor in
operation; otherwise different groups would never get along at all.
Nor do I believe that this is an excuse for racism--if you look
around, I'm sure you'll find that people fear ~cultural~ differences
more than ~racial~ ones.  But I do believe it to be the root cause of
the fear and hatred you point out.

I believe from my experience that we all have a "free-floating fear
inside of us. We all seem to cope in different ways from womb to tomb
depending on genetics,societal position. childhood experience etc.
Along with fear, we seem to have an emptiness or void. People are
constantly filling themselves with all sort of thins, booze, drugs,
sex, eating, smoking the list goers on and on. Some people fill
themselves with an "unrealistic" fear (phobia). I believe that is what
constitutes prejudice. It is maintained by mans need to release
aggression. Here are the defin. of the word, they volumes:

1. opinion formed beforehand: a preformed opinion, usually an
unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings,
or inaccurate stereotypes

 
2. the holding of ill-informed opinions: the holding of opinions that
are formed beforehand on the basis of insufficient knowledge

 
3. irrational dislike of somebody: an unfounded hatred, fear, or
mistrust of a person or group, especially one of a particular
religion, ethnicity, nationality, or social status

 
4. law disadvantage or harm: disadvantage or harm caused to somebody or something.

I have seen people clinically who have all sorts of these void
fillers, some ritualize their behavior, washing hands over and over.
Others prefer to hate the FBI, Government, their eighth grade teacher,
or any other conceived threat
to their existance.  It is all "very real" to them and serves a very
critical function in their existance.  Medication, in conjunction with
therapy, seems to work best at present. As the science of genetics
continues to offer new insights into the brain, I am sure it will help
those who are mentally ill. I do not believe that it will make much of
an impact on prejudice or mans "inate fears".  The war will be about
who and what criteria is used to alter behavior.

One of my favorite people, Dr. Karl Menninger, once told an intern
friend of mine, while on rounds at the University of Chicago Hospital,
the "We should never take away a man's neurosis until we are sure we
have something better to replace it."

I can highly recommend the following, "The Nature of Violence" by Erich Fromm
I have taken an excerpt that may be germain:
Quote:
"The affirmative answer to this question is old. From [Thomas] Hobbes
to [Sigmund] Freud to Konrad Lorenz, the assumption has been that man
is an inherently aggressive animal. This assumption was made by Freud
in his concept of the life instinct and the death instinct and by
Freudian psychoanalysts who did not follow Freud in this assumption
but postulated the existence of a destructive instinct in man. Lorenz
shares the concept of an aggressive instinct and combines it with
assumptions about inherited aggressiveness rooted in the evolution of
men from animals. According to the psychoanalysts and Lorenz,
aggressiveness is spontaneously produced within the nervous system. It
grows and accumulates and must be expressed if it is not to explode
against or without a person's intention. Aggressiveness in this view
does not need a special stimulus or provocation. It arises by itself
and seeks and finds those stimuli which give it a chance to express
itself. As Lorenz puts it in his book On Aggression, we don't have
aggression because we have different political parties, but we have
different political parties because we carry aggression within
ourselves."Unquote

If my thoughts are of help, I will be delighted.  If not, I never said
I knew and answers, only theories.

Good Luck in your continued search!!

Hello Plech,
I believe from my experience, that we all have a "free-floating fear
inside of us. We all seem to cope in different ways from womb to tomb
depending on genetics,societal position. childhood experience etc.
Along with fear, we seem to have an emptiness or void. People are
constantly filling themselves with all sort of thins, booze, drugs,
sex, eating, smoking the list goes on and on. Some people fill
themselves with an "unrealistic" fear (phobia). I believe that is what
constitutes prejudice. It is maintained by mans need to release
aggression. Here are the defin. of the word, they speak volumes:

1. opinion formed beforehand: a preformed opinion, usually an
unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings,
or inaccurate stereotypes

 2. the holding of ill-informed opinions: the holding of opinions that
are formed beforehand on the basis of insufficient knowledge
 
3. irrational dislike of somebody: an unfounded hatred, fear, or
mistrust of a person or group, especially one of a particular
religion, ethnicity, nationality, or social status

 4. law disadvantage or harm: disadvantage or harm caused to somebody or something.

I have seen people clinically, who have all sorts of these void
fillers, some ritualize their behavior, washing hands over and over.
Others prefer to hate the FBI, Government, their eighth grade teacher,
or any other conceived threat
to their existance.  It is all "very real" to them and serves a very
critical function in their existance.  Medication, in conjunction with
therapy, seems to work best at present. As the science of genetics
continues to offer new insights into the brain, I am sure it will help
those who are mentally ill. I do not believe that it will make much of
an impact on prejudice or mans "inate fears".  The war will be about
who and what criteria is used to alter behavior.

One of my favorite people, Dr. Karl Menninger, once told an intern
friend of mine, while on rounds at the University of Chicago Hospital,
that "We should never take away a man's neurosis until we are sure we
have something better to replace it."

I can highly recommend the following article. I have taken an excerpt
that may be germain:

"The Nature of Violence" by Erich Fromm
Quote:
"The affirmative answer to this question is old. From [Thomas] Hobbes
to  [Sigmund] Freud to Konrad Lorenz, the assumption has been that man
is an inherently aggressive animal. This assumption was made by Freud
in his concept of the life instinct and the death instinct and by
Freudian psychoanalysts who did not follow Freud in this assumption
but postulated the existence of a destructive instinct in man. Lorenz
shares the concept of an aggressive instinct and combines it with
assumptions about inherited aggressiveness rooted in the evolution of
men from animals. According to the psychoanalysts and Lorenz,
aggressiveness is spontaneously produced within the nervous system. It
grows and accumulates and must be expressed if it is not to explode
against or without a person's intention. Aggressiveness in this view
does not need a special stimulus or provocation. It arises by itself
and seeks and finds those stimuli which give it a chance to express
itself. As Lorenz puts it in his book On Aggression, we don't have
aggression because we have different political parties, but we have
different political parties because we carry aggression within
ourselves."Unquote

If my thoughts are of help,I will be delighted.  If not, I never said
I knew any answers, only theories. We are not at a point yet where we
know what what we don't know, you are not afraid to "reach" in your
thinking!

Good Luck in your continued search!!

I believe the answer to your question lies in the mass confusion or
lack of distinction between ethical relativism and cultural
relativism, and is evident in the kind of attitude you described
above.
My view is in opposition to ethical relativism which takes the
position that moral actions ought to be judged only within a cultural
context. The idea of relativism sprung from anthropological studies of
diverse customs and rituals among far reaching, secluded societies,
customs which could have been considered immoral to our own or other
standards and yet were virtuous or righteous according to the
aborigine of the culture in question. Cross cultural studies attest to
this view and say that because moral behavior is so diverse across the
globe, a universal moral standard that the absolutist proclaims is
nonexistent.
However, ethical relativists regard relativism as an easy corollary of
cultural relativism, an opinion with which I don't agree. I can
consistently embrace cultural relativism while reject ethical
relativism. Although ethical standards arise within particular
cultures and vary from culture to culture, there is still an extra
cultural standard of moral judgments.According to relativists, moral
judgments are possible only within a given culture, because such
judgments refer only to compliance or noncompliance with that
culture?s norms. But the fact is that although belief arises within
cultural context, it does not imply that it can have no other basis.
For example, whereas societies may differ in derivative moral
judgments about marriage between close relatives, they  frequently
agree about more fundamental taboos such as the immorality of incest.
Moreover, if there were to have been an exception to this taboo in
some culture or other, I advertise that these societies would
naturally become afflicted with genetic disease.An example can be seen
with England?s Royal families? heartfelt experience with hemophilia.
Incest therefore, is such an absolutist immorality. Ethical relativism
apparently coincides with a determination to reject ethnocentrism and
maintain a nonjudgmental stance toward foreign cultural practices.
However, relativists are unable to condemn even such obviously immoral
acts as genocide without conflicting with relativism. In fact, many
relativists maintain, for the sake of consistency, that as long as it
was the norm in Nazi germany to violate the human rights of jewish
citizens, and as long as the consequences for doing so were positive
in that society at the time, than genocide is not so apparently
immoral.I sustain, however that the absence of universally accepted
standards would support ethical relativism only if within a culture
that has the same beliefs and agreed consequences of a particular
behavior such as genocide also agreed in their ethical judgments. This
situation has not been demonstrated. Minorities disagreed with the
rest of the populace of Nazi germany in the extermination of Jews, for
example. If ethical relativity should be embraced by every individual,
it is hard to imagine a society consisting of more than an individual,
and so how are we to distinguish between civility and lawlesness? What
relative moral laws shall we adopt in our transnationalized,
deterritorialized society in order to survive? We live in a world
where cultural hybridity is a must, considering the inexpensive and
rapid movement of people across the globe. Since governmental laws are
there to provide justice for society and not to impose injustices on
the populace, then I see a conflict between ethical relativism and
cohabitation within a culturally diverse climate.
Unfortunately, the mass confusion between ethical relativism and
cultural relativism, as is evident in the kind of attitude you
described above, will see individual differences as a threat to the
moral code of a community or to the moral code of an individual, which
is, of course, in my opinion, wrong.
That's why.... thanks.