Max Stirner's idea of the "Union of egoists" (German: Verein von Egoisten) was first expounded in The Ego and Its Own.
A union of egoists is understood as a voluntary and non-systematic
association which Stirner proposed in contradistinction to the state. Each union is understood as a relation between egoists which is continually renewed by all parties' support through an act of will. The Union requires that all parties participate out of a conscious egoism.
If one party silently finds themselves to be suffering, but puts up and
keeps the appearance, the union has degenerated into something else. This union is not seen as an authority
above a person's own will, but a voluntary relation subordinate to the
wills of its members. This idea has received interpretations for
politics, economics, romance and sexual relations.
In his main work, The Ego and Its Own,
Stirner makes a difference between society and the Union of egoists. As
such, "[m]orality is incompatible with egoism, because the former does
not allow validity to me, but only to the Man in me. But, if the State
is a society of men, not a union of egos each of whom has only himself
before his eyes, then it cannot last without morality, and must insist
on morality. Therefore we two, the State and I, are enemies. I, the
egoist, have not at heart the welfare of this "human society," I
sacrifice nothing to it, I only utilize it; but to be able to utilize it
completely I transform it rather into my property and my creature; i.
e., I annihilate it, and form in its place the Union of Egoists".
Stirner establishes other oppositions along the same lines: "The
Christian people has produced two societies whose duration will keep
equal measure with the permanence of that people: these are the
societies State and Church. Can they be called a union of egoists? Do we
in them pursue an egoistic, personal, own interest, or do we pursue a
popular (i.e. an interest of the Christian people), to wit, a State, and
Church interest? Can I and may I be myself in them? May I think and act
as I will, may I reveal myself, live myself out, busy myself? Must I
not leave untouched the majesty of the State, the sanctity of the
Church? Well, I may not do so as I will. But shall I find in any society
such an unmeasured freedom of maying? Certainly no! Accordingly we
might be content? Not a bit! It is a different thing whether I rebound
from an ego or from a people, a generalization. [...] For the State is
likewise a society, not a union; it is the broadened family ("Father of
the Country — Mother of the Country — children of the country")".
On economics, Stirner sees the idea of Union of egoists apply as
follows: "If men reach the point of losing respect for property, every
one will have property, as all slaves become free men as soon as they no
longer respect the master as master. Unions will then, in this matter
too, multiply the individual's means and secure his assailed property".
Stirner establishes that reciprocity and what he calls "intercourse"
are important elements of the Union of egoists: "Like the hall, the
prison does form a society, a companionship, a communion (e.g. communion
of labor), but no intercourse, no reciprocity, no union.
On the contrary, every union in the prison bears within it the dangerous
seed of a "plot," which under favorable circumstances might spring up
and bear fruit".
Unions of egoists are also associations with a participant's
active will: "But war might rather be declared against establishment
itself, the State, not a particular State, not any such thing as the
mere condition of the State at the time; it is not another State (e.g. a
"people's State") that men aim at, but their union, uniting, this
ever-fluid uniting of everything standing. — A State exists even without
my co-operation: I am born in it, brought up in it, under obligations
to it, and must "do it homage." [huldigen] It takes me up into its "favor," [Huld]
and I live by its "grace." [...] Now the Nationals are exerting
themselves to set up the abstract, lifeless unity of beehood; but the
self-owned are going to fight for the unity willed by their own will,
for union. [...] In this combination I see nothing whatever but a
multiplication of my force, and I retain it only so long as it is my
multiplied force. But thus it is a — union. Neither a natural ligature
nor a spiritual one holds the union together, and it is not a natural,
not a spiritual league".
What is and what is not a Union of egoists
Egoistical
relationships have to be flexible enough so that it can be ended up at
the will of the participant. The Union of egoists ceases to be one under
specific conditions, i.e. "the party ceases to be a union at the same
moment at which it makes certain principles binding and wants to have
them assured against attacks; but this moment is the very birth-act of
the party. As party it is already a born society, a dead union, an idea
that has become fixed. As party of absolutism it cannot will that its
members should doubt the irrefragable truth of this principle; they
could cherish this doubt only if they were egoistic enough to want still
to be something outside their party, i.e. non-partisans. Non-partisans
they cannot be as party-men, but only as egoists. [...] [T]he
dissolution of society is intercourse or union. A society does assuredly
arise by union too, but only as a fixed idea arises by a thought — to
wit, by the vanishing of the energy of the thought (the thinking itself,
this restless taking back all thoughts that make themselves fast) from
the thought. If a union [Verein] has crystallized into a society, it has ceased to be a coalition [Vereinigung];
for coalition is an incessant self-uniting; it has become a unitedness,
come to a standstill, degenerated into a fixity; it is — dead as a
union, it is the corpse of the union or the coalition, i.e. it is
—society, community. [...] You bring into a union your whole power, your
competence, and make yourself count; in a society you are employed,
with your working power; in the former you live egoistically, in the
latter humanly, i.e. religiously, as a "member in the body of this
Lord”; to a society you owe what you have, and are in duty bound to it,
are — possessed by "social duties"; a union you utilize, and give it up
undutifully and unfaithfully when you see no way to use it further".
Stirner admits that "complete freedom" is not possible, but he
sees that the Union of egoists are the most free form of association
that can be had: "Limitation of liberty is inevitable everywhere, for
one cannot get rid of everything; one cannot fly like a bird merely
because one would like to fly so, for one does not get free from his own
weight...The union will assuredly offer a greater measure of liberty,
as well as (and especially because by it one escapes all the coercion
peculiar to State and society life) admit of being considered as "a new
liberty"; but nevertheless it will still contain enough of unfreedom and
involuntariness. For its object is not this — liberty (which on the
contrary it sacrifices to ownness), but only ownness".
Stirner's Critics
In Stirner's Critics, Stirner intended to respond to criticisms made to important arguments put forward in The Ego and Its Own. In it, Stirner tends to refer to himself in the third person.
He defines the Union of egoists as follows: "Egoism, as Stirner uses
it, is not opposed to love nor to thought; it is no enemy of the sweet
life of love, nor of devotion and sacrifice; it is no enemy of intimate
warmth, but it is also no enemy of critique, nor of socialism, nor, in
short, of any actual interest. It doesn't exclude any interest. It is
directed against only disinterestedness and the uninteresting; not
against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against
sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists,
etc. The "exclusiveness" of the egoist, which some want to pass off as
isolation, separation, loneliness, is on the contrary full participation
in the interesting by — exclusion of the uninteresting".
Unions of egoists vs. class hierarchy
In
this work, Stirner corrects what he sees as a misinterpretation of his
idea of Union of egoists by the German socialist writer Moses Hess.
He charges Hess of wanting to characterize Unions of egoists as "the
utterly common opposition of the liberal bourgeoisies who put the blame
on the state when people fall into poverty and starve".
Instead, he corrects him by saying that it "is a union in which most of
those involved are hoodwinked about their most natural and obvious
interests, a union of egoists? Have "egoists" come together where one is
the slave or serf of the other? There are, it's true, egoists in such a
society, and in this sense, it might in some aspects be called an
"egoistic union"; but the slaves have not really sought this society
from egoism, and are instead, in their egoistic hearts, against these
lovely "unions," as Hess calls them".
Stirner's examples of Unions of egoists in practice
Stirner
also proceeds to give specific examples of what he would consider
Unions of egoists: "It would be another thing indeed, if Hess wanted to
see egoistic unions not on paper, but in life. Faust finds himself in
the midst of such a union when he cries: "Here I am human, here I can be
human" — Goethe says it in black and white. If Hess attentively
observed real life, to which he holds so much, he will see hundreds of
such egoistic unions, some passing quickly, others lasting. Perhaps at
this very moment, some children have come together just outside his
window in a friendly game. If he looks at them, he will see a playful
egoistic union. Perhaps Hess has a friend or a beloved; then he knows
how one heart finds another, as their two hearts unite egoistically to
delight (enjoy) each other, and how no one "comes up short" in this.
Perhaps he meets a few good friends on the street and they ask him to
accompany them to a tavern for wine; does he go along as a favor to
them, or does he "unite" with them because it promises pleasure? Should
they thank him heartily for the "sacrifice," or do they know that all
together they form an "egoistic union" for a little while?"
Interpretations and influence
Scholar
Andrew Carlson argues that people would be held together by mutual
advantage through common "use" of one another in this Union of egoists.
In joining the Union, an individual increases his own individual
power—each person would through his own might control what they could.
It does not imply though that there would be a region of universal
rapacity and perpetual slaughter, nor does it mean the wielding of power
over others as each person would defend his own uniqueness. Carlson
holds that once a person has attained self-realization of true egoism,
they would not want to rule over others or hold more possessions than
they need because this would destroy their independence.
Carlson views the Union of egoists as essentially a non-formal group
that participants voluntarily engage in for personal gain. Since no one
person is obligated to the group, they may leave if it ceases to serve
their interests, making the benefit mutual to all members. Whereas
individuals in communism are obligated to one another in society, in
egoism they are obligated only to themselves. Stirner saw this as the
opposite of a state, government or society, which could use the
individual for its own gain without benefiting the individual or truly
being in his interest.
There would be neither masters nor servants, only egoists.
Everyone would withdraw into his own uniqueness which would prevent
conflict because no one will be trying to prove themselves "in the
right" before a third party as each individual would be "above" the
Union. It is claimed by egoist anarchists that egoism will foster genuine and spontaneous union between individuals.
Stirner held that only this form of organisation would not intrude on
the individual's power, exerting neither moral influence nor legal
constraint.
Stirner does not develop in any detail the form of social
organisation that the Union of egoists might take, with some, such as
Carlson, arguing that organization itself is anathema to Stirner's
Union. Within the Union, the individual will be able to develop himself
and the Union exists for the individual. The Union of egoists is not to
be confused with society which Stirner opposes because society lays
claim to a person which is considered to be sacred, but which consumes
an individual. The Union is made up of individuals who consume the Union
for their own good.
In his introduction to Benjamin Tucker's 1907 edition of The Ego and His Own, James L. Walker
said: "In Stirner we have the philosophical foundation for political
liberty. His interest in the practical development of egoism to the
dissolution of the State and the union of free men is clear and
pronounced, and harmonizes perfectly with the economic philosophy of Josiah Warren.
Allowing for difference of temperament and language, there is a
substantial agreement between Stirner and Proudhon. Each would be free,
and sees in every increase of the number of free people and their
intelligence an auxiliary force against the oppressor".
The writers of An Anarchist FAQ
report that "many in the anarchist movement in Glasgow, Scotland, took
Stirner's "Union of egoists" literally as the basis for their anarcho-syndicalist organising in the 1940s and beyond. Similarly, we discover the noted anarchist historian Max Nettlau stating that "[o]n reading Stirner, I maintain that he cannot be interpreted except in a socialist sense".
They also say "Stirner believed that as more and more people become
egoists, conflict in society will decrease as each individual recognises
the uniqueness of others, thus ensuring a suitable environment within
which they can co-operate (or find "truces" in the "war of all against
all"). These "truces" Stirner termed "Unions of egoists." [...] The
unions Stirner desires would be based on free agreement, being
spontaneous and voluntary associations drawn together out of the mutual
interests of those involved, who would "care best for their welfare if
they unite with others" [p. 309]. Unlike the state, the unions exist to
ensure what Stirner calls "intercourse", or "union" between individuals.
To better understand the nature of these associations, which will
replace the state, Stirner lists the relationships between friends,
lovers and children at play as examples [No Gods, No Masters,
vol. 1, p. 25]. These illustrate the kinds of relationships that
maximise an individual's self-enjoyment, pleasure, freedom and
individuality as well as ensuring that those involved sacrifice nothing
while belonging to them. Such associations are based on mutuality and a
free and spontaneous co-operation between equals. As Stirner puts it,
"intercourse is mutuality, it is the action, the commercium, of
individuals" [p. 218]. Its aim is "pleasure" and "self-enjoyment".
The idea of Union of egoists was interpreted in a sexual sense by French and Spanish individualist anarchists
of the early 20th century. Catalan historian Xavier Diez reports: "In
this sense, the theoretical positions and the vital experiences of
french [sic] individualism are deeply iconoclastic and scandalous, even within libertarian circles. The call of nudist naturism,
the strong defence of birth control methods, the idea of "unions of
egoists" with the sole justification of sexual practices, that will try
to put in practice, not without difficulties, will establish a way of
thought and action, and will result in sympathy within some, and a
strong rejection within others". The main theorist of this was the French individualist anarchistÉmile Armand in what he called "amorous camaraderie".
While explaining his concept of immediatism, post-left thinker Hakim Bey compares the idea of Union of egoists to those of other thinkers:
The penetration of everyday life by the marvelous—the creation of "situations"—belongs
to the "material bodily principle", and to the imagination, and to the
living fabric of the present... The individual who realizes this
immediacy can widen the circle of pleasure to some extent simply by
waking from the hypnosis of the "Spooks" (as Stirner called all
abstractions); and yet more can be accomplished by "crime"; and still
more by the doubling of the Self in sexuality. From Stirner's "Union of
Self-Owning Ones" we proceed to Nietzsche's circle of "Free Spirits" and thence to Charles Fourier's "Passional Series", doubling and redoubling ourselves even as the Other multiplies itself in the eros of the group.
When speaking about his concept of permanent autonomous zone in his book Temporary Autonomous Zone, Hakim Bey compares it to Peter Kropotkin's concept of mutual aid.
He says that "face-to-face, a group of humans synergize their efforts
to realize mutual desires, whether for good food and cheer, dance,
conversation, the arts of life; perhaps even for erotic pleasure, or to
create a communal artwork, or to attain the very transport of bliss—in
short, a "union of egoists" (as Stirner put it) in its simplest form—or
else, in Kropotkin's terms, a basic biological drive to "mutual aid".
Bureaucracy (/bjʊəˈrɒkrəsi/; bure-OK-rə-see) is a body of non-elected governing officials or an administrative policy-making group. Historically, a bureaucracy was a government administration managed by departments staffed with non-elected officials. Today, bureaucracy is the administrative system governing any large institution, whether publicly owned or privately owned. The public administration
in many jurisdictions and sub-jurisdictions exemplifies bureaucracy,
but so does any centralized hierarchical structure of an institution,
e.g. hospitals, academic entities, business firms, professional
societies, social clubs, etc.
There are two key dilemmas in bureaucracy. The first dilemma
revolves around whether bureaucrats should be autonomous or directly
accountable to their political masters.
The second dilemma revolves around bureaucrats' responsibility to
follow preset rules, and what degree of latitude they may have to
determine appropriate solutions for circumstances that are unaccounted
for in advance.
Various commentators have argued for the necessity of bureaucracies in modern society. The German sociologist Max Weber
(1864–1920) argued that bureaucracy constitutes the most efficient and
rational way in which human activity can be organized and that
systematic processes and organized hierarchies are necessary to maintain
order, to maximize efficiency, and to eliminate favoritism. On the other hand, Weber also saw unfettered bureaucracy as a threat to individual freedom, with the potential of trapping individuals in an impersonal "iron cage" of rule-based, rational control.
Etymology and usage
The term "bureaucracy" originated in the French language: it combines the French word bureau – desk or office – with the Greek word κράτος (kratos) – rule or political power. The French economist Jacques Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay (1712–1759) coined the word in the mid-18th century. Gournay never wrote the term down but a letter from a contemporary later quoted him:
The late M. de Gournay... sometimes
used to say: "We have an illness in France which bids fair to play
havoc with us; this illness is called bureaumania." Sometimes he used to
invent a fourth or fifth form of government under the heading of
"bureaucracy."
The first known English-language use dates to 1818 with Irish novelist Lady Morgan referring to the apparatus used by the British government to subjugate Ireland as "the Bureaucratie, or office tyranny, by which Ireland has so long been governed". By the mid-19th century the word appeared in a more neutral sense, referring to a system of public administration in which offices were held by unelected career officials. In this context "bureaucracy" was seen as a distinct form of management, often subservient to a monarchy. In the 1920s the German sociologist Max Weber expanded the definition to include any system of administration conducted by trained professionals according to fixed rules. Weber saw bureaucracy as a relatively positive development; however, by 1944 the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises opined in the context of his experience in the Nazi regime that the term bureaucracy was "always applied with an opprobrious connotation", and by 1957 the American sociologist Robert Merton suggested that the term "bureaucrat" had become an "epithet, a Schimpfwort" in some circumstances.
The word "bureaucracy" is also used in politics and government
with a disapproving tone to disparage official rules that appear to make
it difficult—by insistence on procedure and compliance to rule,
regulation, and law—to get things done. In workplaces, the word is used
very often to blame complicated rules, processes, and written work that
are interpreted as obstacles rather than safeguards and accountability
assurances. Socio-bureaucracy would then refer to certain social influences that may affect the function of a society.
In modern usage, modern bureaucracy has been defined as comprising four features:
hierarchy (clearly defined spheres of competence and divisions of labor)
continuity (a structure where administrators have a full-time salary and advance within the structure)
impersonality (prescribed rules and operating rules rather than arbitrary actions)
expertise (officials are chosen according to merit, have been trained, and hold access to knowledge)
Although the term "bureaucracy" first originated in the mid-18th
century, organized and consistent administrative systems existed much
earlier. The development of writing (c. 3500
BC) and the use of documents was a critical component of such systems.
The first definitive example of bureaucracy occurred in ancient Sumer, where an emergent class of scribes used clay tablets
to document and carry out various administrative functions, such as the
management of taxes, workers, and public goods/resources like
granaries. Similarly, Ancient Egypt had a hereditary class of scribes that administered a civil-service bureaucracy.
In China, when the Qin dynasty (221–206 BC) unified China under the Legalist
system, the emperor assigned administration to dedicated officials
rather than nobility, ending feudalism in China, replacing it with a
centralized, bureaucratic government. The form of government created by
the first emperor and his advisors was used by later dynasties to
structure their own government.
Under this system, the government thrived, as talented individuals
could be more easily identified in the transformed society. The Han dynasty (202 BC – 220 AD) established a complicated bureaucracy based on the teachings of Confucius, who emphasized the importance of ritual in a family, in relationships, and in politics. With each subsequent dynasty, the bureaucracy evolved. In 165 BC, Emperor Wen introduced the first method of recruitment to civil service through examinations, while
Emperor Wu (r. 141–87 BC), cemented the ideology of Confucius into mainstream governance installed a system of recommendation and nomination in government service known as xiaolian, and a national academywhereby officials would select candidates to take part in an examination of the Confucian classics, from which Emperor Wu would select officials.
In the Sui dynasty (581–618) and the subsequent Tang dynasty (618–907) the shi class would begin to present itself by means of the fully standardized civil service examination system, of partial recruitment of those who passed standard exams
and earned an official degree. Yet recruitment by recommendations to
office was still prominent in both dynasties. It was not until the Song dynasty
(960–1279) that the recruitment of those who passed the exams and
earned degrees was given greater emphasis and significantly expanded. During the Song dynasty (960–1279) the bureaucracy became meritocratic. Following the Song reforms, competitive examinations took place to determine which candidates qualified to hold given positions.
The imperial examination system lasted until 1905, six years before the Qing dynasty collapsed, marking the end of China's traditional bureaucratic system.
A hierarchy of regional proconsuls and their deputies administered the Roman Empire.The reforms of Diocletian
(Emperor from 284 to 305) doubled the number of administrative
districts and led to a large-scale expansion of Roman bureaucracy. The early Christian author Lactantius (c. 250 – c.
325) claimed that Diocletian's reforms led to widespread economic
stagnation, since "the provinces were divided into minute portions, and
many presidents and a multitude of inferior officers lay heavy on each
territory." After the Empire split, the Byzantine Empire developed a notoriously complicated administrative hierarchy, and in the 20th century the term "Byzantine" came to refer to any complex bureaucratic structure.
Modern
Persia
Uzun Hasan's
conquest of most of mainland Iran shifted the seat of power to the
east, where the Aq Qoyunlu adopted Iranian customs for administration
and culture. In the Iranian areas, Uzun Hasan preserved the previous
bureaucratic structure along with its secretaries, who belonged to
families that had in a number of instances served under different
dynasties for several generations. The four top civil posts of the Aq
Qoyunlu were all occupied by Iranians, which under Uzun Hasan included;
the vizier, who led the great council (divan); the mostawfi al-mamalek, high-ranking financial accountants; the mohrdar, who affixed the state seal; and the marakur "stable master", who supervised the royal court.
At his new capital, Tabriz, Uzun Hasan managed a refined Persian
court. There he utilized the trappings of pre-Islamic Persian royalty
and bureaucrats taken from several earlier Iranian regimes. Through the
use of his increasing revenue, Uzun Hasan was able to buy the approval
of the ulama (clergy) and the mainly Iranian urban elite, while also taking care of the impoverished rural inhabitants.
The Safavid state was one of checks and balance, both within the
government and on a local level. At the apex of this system was the
Shah, with total power over the state, legitimized by his bloodline as a
sayyid, or descendant of Muhammad. So absolute was his power, that the French merchant, and later ambassador to Iran, Jean Chardin
thought the Safavid Shahs ruled their land with an iron fist and often
in a despotic manner. To ensure transparency and avoid decisions being
made that circumvented the Shah, a complex system of bureaucracy and
departmental procedures had been put in place that prevented fraud.
Every office had a deputy or superintendent, whose job was to keep
records of all actions of the state officials and report directly to the
Shah. The Shah himself exercised his own measures for keeping his
ministers under control by fostering an atmosphere of rivalry and
competitive surveillance. And since the Safavid society was
meritocratic, and successions seldom were made on the basis of heritage,
this meant that government offices constantly felt the pressure of
being under surveillance and had to make sure they governed in the best
interest of their leader, and not merely their own.
The Ottomans
adopted Persian bureaucratic traditions and culture. The sultans also
made an important contribution in the development of Persian literature.
Russia
The autocracy survived the Time of Troubles
and the rule of weak or corrupt tsars because of the strength of the
government's central bureaucracy. Government functionaries continued to
serve, regardless of the ruler's legitimacy or the boyar
faction controlling the throne. In the 17th century, the bureaucracy
expanded dramatically. The number of government departments (prikazy; sing., prikaz ) increased from twenty-two in 1613 to eighty by mid-century. Although the departments often had overlapping and conflicting jurisdictions, the central government, through provincial governors, was able to control and regulate all social groups, as well as trade, manufacturing, and even the Eastern Orthodox Church.
The tsarist bureaucracy, alongside the military, the judiciary and the Russian Orthodox Church, played a major role in solidifying and maintaining the rule of the Tsars in the Tsardom of Russia (1547–1721) and in the Russian Empire (1721–1917). In the 19th century, the forces of change brought on by the Industrial Revolution
propelled many countries, especially in Europe, to significant social
changes. However, due to the conservative nature of the Tsarist regime
and its desire to maintain power and control, social change in Russia
lagged behind that of Europe.
Russian-speakers referred to bureaucrats as chinovniki (Russian: чиновники) because of the rank or chin (Russian: чин) which they held.
Ashanti Empire
The government of the Ashanti Empire was built upon a sophisticated bureaucracy in Kumasi, with separate ministries
which saw to the handling of state affairs. Ashanti's Foreign Office
was based in Kumasi. Despite the small size of the office, it allowed
the state to pursue complex negotiations with foreign powers. The Office
was divided into departments that handled Ashanti relations separately
with the British, French, Dutch, and Arabs. Scholars of Ashanti history, such as Larry Yarak and Ivor Wilkes, disagree over the power of this sophisticated bureaucracy in comparison to the Asantehene. However, both scholars agree that it was a sign of a highly developed government with a complex system of checks and balances.
Instead of the inefficient and often corrupt system of tax farming that prevailed in absolutist states such as France, the Exchequer was able to exert control over the entire system of tax revenue and government expenditure.
By the late 18th century, the ratio of fiscal bureaucracy to population
in Britain was approximately 1 in 1300, almost four times larger than
the second most heavily bureaucratized nation, France. Thomas Taylor Meadows, Britain's consul in Guangzhou, argued in his Desultory Notes on the Government and People of China
(1847) that "the long duration of the Chinese empire is solely and
altogether owing to the good government which consists in the
advancement of men of talent and merit only", and that the British must
reform their civil service by making the institution meritocratic. Influenced by the ancient Chinese imperial examination, the Northcote–Trevelyan Report
of 1854 recommended that recruitment should be on the basis of merit
determined through competitive examination, candidates should have a
solid general education to enable inter-departmental transfers, and
promotion should be through achievement rather than "preferment,
patronage, or purchase". This led to implementation of His Majesty's Civil Service as a systematic, meritocratic civil service bureaucracy.
In the British civil service, just as it was in China, entrance
to the civil service was usually based on a general education in ancient
classics, which similarly gave bureaucrats greater prestige. The
Cambridge-Oxford ideal of the civil service was identical to the
Confucian ideal of a general education in world affairs through
humanism.
(Well into the 20th century, Classics, Literature, History and Language
remained heavily favoured in British civil service examinations. In the period of 1925–1935, 67 percent of British civil service entrants consisted of such graduates.)
Like the Chinese model's consideration of personal values, the British
model also took personal physique and character into account.
France
Like the British, the development of French bureaucracy was influenced by the Chinese system. Under Louis XIV of France,
the old nobility had neither power nor political influence, their only
privilege being exemption from taxes. The dissatisfied noblemen
complained about this "unnatural" state of affairs, and discovered
similarities between absolute monarchy and bureaucratic despotism. With the translation of Confucian texts during the Enlightenment, the concept of a meritocracy reached intellectuals in the West, who saw it as an alternative to the traditional ancien regime of Europe.
Western perception of China even in the 18th century admired the
Chinese bureaucratic system as favourable over European governments for
its seeming meritocracy; Voltaire claimed that the Chinese had "perfected moral science" and François Quesnay advocated an economic and political system modeled after that of the Chinese.
The governments of China, Egypt, Peru and Empress Catherine II were regarded as models of Enlightened Despotism, admired by such figures as Diderot, D'Alembert and Voltaire.
Napoleonic France adopted this meritocracy system and soon saw a rapid and dramatic expansion of government, accompanied
by the rise of the French civil service and its complex systems of
bureaucracy. This phenomenon became known as "bureaumania". In the early
19th century, Napoleon attempted to reform the bureaucracies of France and other territories under his control by the imposition of the standardized Napoleonic Code. But paradoxically, that led to even further growth of the bureaucracy.
French civil service examinations adopted in the late 19th
century were also heavily based on general cultural studies. These
features have been likened to the earlier Chinese model.
Other industrialized nations
By
the mid-19th century, bureaucratic forms of administration were firmly
in place across the industrialized world. Thinkers like John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx began to theorize about the economic functions and power-structures of bureaucracy in contemporary life. Max Weber
was the first to endorse bureaucracy as a necessary feature of
modernity, and by the late 19th century bureaucratic forms had begun
their spread from government to other large-scale institutions.
The 1980s brought a backlash against perceptions of "big government" and the associated bureaucracy. Politicians like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan
gained power by promising to eliminate government regulatory
bureaucracies, which they saw as overbearing, and return economic
production to a more purely capitalistic mode, which they saw as more
efficient. In the business world, managers like Jack Welch gained fortune and renown by eliminating bureaucratic structures inside corporations.
Still, in the modern world, most organized institutions rely on
bureaucratic systems to manage information, process records, and
administer complex systems, although the decline of paperwork and the
widespread use of electronic databases is transforming the way
bureaucracies function.
Theories
Karl Marx
Karl Marx theorized about the role and function of bureaucracy in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, published in 1843. In Philosophy of Right, Hegel had supported the role of specialized officials in public administration, although he never used the term "bureaucracy" himself. By contrast, Marx was opposed to bureaucracy. Marx posited that while corporate
and government bureaucracy seem to operate in opposition, in actuality
they mutually rely on one another to exist. He wrote that "The
Corporation is civil society's attempt to become state; but the
bureaucracy is the state which has really made itself into civil
society."
Leon Trotsky
Leon Trotsky developed a critical theory of the emerging Soviet bureaucracy
during the early years of the Soviet Union. According to political
scientist, Thomas M.Twiss, Trotsky associated bureaucratism with authoritarianism, excessive centralism and conservatism.
Social theorist Martin Krygier had noted the impact of Trotsky's
post-1923 writings in shaping receptive views of bureaucracy among later
Marxists and many non-Marxists. Twiss argued that Trotsky's theory of
Soviet bureaucracy was essential for a study of Soviet history and
understanding the process of capitalist restoration in Russia and
Eastern Europe. Political scientist, Baruch Knei-Paz argued Trotsky had,
above all others, written "to show the historical and social roots of
Stalinism" as a bureaucratic system.
One of the predictions made by Trotsky in his 1936 work, The Revolution Betrayed,
was that the USSR would come before a disjuncture: either the toppling
of the ruling bureaucracy by means of a political revolution, or
capitalist restoration led by the bureaucracy:
The fall of the present
bureaucratic dictatorship, if it were not replaced by a new socialist
power, would thus mean a return to capitalist relations with a
catastrophic decline of industry and culture.
John Stuart Mill
Writing in the early 1860s, political scientist John Stuart Mill theorized that successful monarchies were essentially bureaucracies, and found evidence of their existence in Imperial China, the Russian Empire, and the regimes of Europe.
Mill referred to bureaucracy as a distinct form of government, separate
from representative democracy. He believed bureaucracies had certain
advantages, most importantly the accumulation of experience in those who
actually conduct the affairs. Nevertheless, he believed this form of
governance compared poorly to representative government, as it relied on
appointment rather than direct election. Mill wrote that ultimately the
bureaucracy stifles the mind, and that "a bureaucracy always tends to
become a pedantocracy."
Max Weber
The fully developed bureaucratic apparatus compares with other
organisations exactly as does the machine with the non-mechanical modes
of production.
–Max Weber
The German sociologist Max Weber was the first to formally study bureaucracy and his works led to the popularization of this term. In his essay Bureaucracy, published in his magnum opus Economy and Society, Weber described many ideal-typical forms of public administration, government, and business. His ideal-typical bureaucracy, whether public or private, is characterized by:
regular and continuous execution of assigned tasks
all decisions and powers specified and restricted by regulations
officials with expert training in their fields
career advancement dependent on technical qualifications
qualifications evaluated by organizational rules, not individuals
Weber listed several preconditions for the emergence
of bureaucracy, including an increase in the amount of space and
population being administered, an increase in the complexity of the
administrative tasks being carried out, and the existence of a monetary economy requiring a more efficient administrative system. Development of communication and transportation technologies make more efficient administration possible, and democratization and rationalization of culture results in demands for equal treatment.
Although he was not necessarily an admirer of bureaucracy, Weber
saw bureaucratization as the most efficient and rational way of
organizing human activity and therefore as the key to rational-legal authority, indispensable to the modern world. Furthermore, he saw it as the key process in the ongoing rationalization of Western society.
Weber also saw bureaucracy, however, as a threat to individual
freedoms, and the ongoing bureaucratization as leading to a "polar night
of icy darkness", in which increasing rationalization of human life
traps individuals in a soulless "iron cage" of bureaucratic, rule-based, rational control. Weber's critical study of the bureaucratization of society became one of the most enduring parts of his work. Many aspects of modern public administration are based on his work, and a classic, hierarchically organized civil service of the Continental type is called "Weberian civil service" or "Weberian bureaucracy". It is debated among social scientists whether Weberian bureaucracy contributes to economic growth.
The political scientist Jan Vogler challenges Max Weber's characterization of modern bureaucracies.
Specifically, he lists Weber's views regarding strict merit
recruitment, clearly delineated career paths for bureaucrats, the full
separation of bureaucratic operations from politics, and mutually
exclusive spheres of competence for government agencies. Because he
considers several of these aspects to be violated by the overwhelming
majority of existing public administrative systems, Vogler provides an
alternative view of the defining organizational features of modern
bureaucracies. According to this view, modern public bureaucracies are
"(internally hierarchical) administrative organizations ... subordinated
to the government" that have all of the following characteristics:
a full separation of offices and officeholders (i.e., no private possession of administrative positions)
recruitment procedures focused on relevant skills and ensuring at least minimal competence
written rules and regulations that set standards for official conduct
stable salaries and salary progression, mostly determined by individual bureaucratic rank
limited discretion in bureaucrats' work routines and an overall political-legal orientation of the administrative system
Vogler considers modern bureaucracies as only requiring "minimal
competence" from candidates for bureaucratic offices. This leaves space
for the possibility of biases in recruitment processes that give
preferential treatment to members of specific social, economic, or
ethnic groups, which are observed in many real-world bureaucratic
systems. Moreover, Vogler's perspective does not portray bureaucracies
as strictly separated from politics and does not require government
agencies to have mutually exclusive spheres of influence, which is in
line with frequent interagency collaboration and conflict over disputed
areas of competence in existing public administrations.
Woodrow Wilson
Writing as an academic while a professor at Bryn Mawr College, Woodrow Wilson's essay The Study of Administration
argued for bureaucracy as a professional cadre, devoid of allegiance to
fleeting politics. Wilson advocated a bureaucracy that:
...is a part of political life only as the methods of the counting house
are a part of the life of society; only as machinery is part of the
manufactured product. But it is, at the same time, raised very far above
the dull level of mere technical detail by the fact that through its
greater principles it is directly connected with the lasting maxims of
political wisdom, the permanent truths of political progress.
Wilson
did not advocate a replacement of rule by the governed, he simply
advised that, "Administrative questions are not political questions.
Although politics sets the tasks for administration, it should not be
suffered to manipulate its offices". This essay became a foundation for
the study of public administration in America.
Ludwig von Mises
In his 1944 work Bureaucracy, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises
compared bureaucratic management to profit management. Profit
management, he argued, is the most effective method of organization when
the services rendered may be checked by economic calculation of profit
and loss. When, however, the service in question can not be subjected to
economic calculation, bureaucratic management is necessary. He did not
oppose universally bureaucratic management; on the contrary, he argued
that bureaucracy is an indispensable method for social organization, for
it is the only method by which the law can be made supreme, and is the
protector of the individual against despotic arbitrariness. Using the
example of the Catholic Church, he pointed out that bureaucracy is only
appropriate for an organization whose code of conduct is not subject to
change. He then went on to argue that complaints about bureaucratization
usually refer not to the criticism of the bureaucratic methods
themselves, but to "the intrusion of bureaucracy into all spheres of
human life." Mises saw bureaucratic processes at work in both the
private and public spheres; however, he believed that bureaucratization
in the private sphere could only occur as a consequence of government
interference. According to him, "What must be realized is only that the
strait jacket of bureaucratic organization paralyzes the individual's
initiative, while within the capitalist market society an innovator
still has a chance to succeed. The former makes for stagnation and
preservation of inveterate methods, the latter makes for progress and
improvement."
Robert K. Merton
American sociologist Robert K. Merton expanded on Weber's theories of bureaucracy in his work Social Theory and Social Structure,
published in 1957. While Merton agreed with certain aspects of Weber's
analysis, he also noted the dysfunctional aspects of bureaucracy, which
he attributed to a "trained incapacity" resulting from "over
conformity". He believed that bureaucrats are more likely to defend
their own entrenched interests than to act to benefit the organization
as a whole but that pride in their craft makes them resistant to changes
in established routines. Merton stated that bureaucrats emphasize
formality over interpersonal relationships, and have been trained to
ignore the special circumstances of particular cases, causing them to
come across as "arrogant" and "haughty".
Elliott Jaques
In his book A General Theory of Bureaucracy, first published in 1976, Elliott Jaques
describes the discovery of a universal and uniform underlying structure
of managerial or work levels in the bureaucratic hierarchy for any type
of employment systems.
Jaques argues and presents evidence that for the bureaucracy to
provide a valuable contribution to the open society some of the
following conditions must be met:
The number of levels in the hierarchy of a bureaucracy must
match the complexity level of the employment system for which the
bureaucratic hierarchy is created. (Elliott Jaques identified a maximum
of eight levels of complexity for bureaucratic hierarchies.)
Roles within a bureaucratic hierarchy differ in the level of work complexity.
The level of work complexity in the roles must be matched by the
level of human capability of the role holders. (Elliott Jaques
identified maximum of eight Levels of human capability.)
The level of work complexity in any managerial role within a
bureaucratic hierarchy must be one level higher than the level of work
complexity of the subordinate roles.
Any managerial role in a bureaucratic hierarchy must have full
managerial accountabilities and authorities (veto selection to the team,
decide task types and specific task assignments, decide personal
effectiveness and recognition, decide initiation of removal from the
team within due process).
Lateral working accountabilities
and authorities must be defined for all the roles in the hierarchy
(seven types of lateral working accountabilities and authorities:
collateral, advisory, service-getting and -giving, coordinative,
monitoring, auditing, prescribing).
Jaques' definition of effective bureaucratic hierarchy is important
not only in sociology but also in social psychology, social
anthropology, economics, politics, and social philosophy. It also has a
practical application in business and administrative studies.
Like every modern state, a liberal democracy is highly bureaucratized, with numerous sizable organizations filled with career civil servants.
Some of those bureaucracies have a substantial amount of influence to
preserve the current political system because they are primarily focused
on defending the country and the state from threats from both within
and beyond. Since these institutions frequently operate independently
and are mostly shielded from politics, they frequently have no
affiliation with any particular political party or group. For instance,
loyal British civil officials work for both the Conservative and Labour
parties. However, on occasion a group might seize control of a
bureaucratic state, as the Nazis did in Germany in the 1930s.
Although numerous ideals associated with democracy, such as
equality, participation, and individuality, are in stark contrast to
those associated with modern bureaucracy, specifically hierarchy,
specialization, and impersonality, political theorists did not recognize
bureaucracy as a threat to democracy. Yet democratic theorists still
have not developed a sufficient solution to the problem bureaucratic authority poses to democratic government.
One answer to this problem is to say that bureaucracy has no
place at all in a real democracy. Theorists who adopt this perspective
typically understand that they must demonstrate that bureaucracy does
not necessarily occur in every contemporary society; only in those they
perceive to be non-democratic. Because their democracy was resistant to
bureaucracy, nineteenth-century British writers frequently referred to
it as the "Continental nuisance".
According to Marx and other socialist thinkers, the most advanced
bureaucracies were those in France and Germany. However, they argued
that bureaucracy was a symptom of the bourgeois state and would vanish
along with capitalism, which gave rise to the bourgeois state. Though
clearly not the democracies Marx had in mind, socialist societies ended
up being more bureaucratic than the governments they replaced.
Similarly, after capitalist economies developed the administrative
systems required to support their extensive welfare states, the idea
that bureaucracy exclusively exists in socialist governments could
scarcely be maintained.
In social psychology, a positive stereotype refers to a subjectively favourable belief held about a social group. Common examples of positive stereotypes are Asians with better math ability, African Americans with greater athletic ability, and women with being warmer and more communal.
As opposed to negative stereotypes, positive stereotypes represent a
"positive" evaluation of a group that typically signals an advantage
over another group. As such, positive stereotypes may be considered a form of compliment or praise.
However, positive stereotypes can have a positive or negative effect on
targets of positive stereotypes. The positive or negative influence of
positive stereotypes on targets depends on three factors: (1) how the
positive stereotype is stated, (2) who is stating the positive
stereotype, (3) in what culture the positive stereotype is presented
(e.g., Western contexts vs. East Asian contexts).
Prevalence
In The Nature of Prejudice (1954), Gordon Allport
suggested that the categorisation of people into groups is adaptive.
Although, this categorisation may allow for quicker processing of
information present in one's environment, this process may result in
stereotyping.
Stereotypes have implications for targets of stereotypes and
interpersonal interactions generally, because stereotypes assign traits
and abilities to members of social groups due simply to their perceived
group membership. Much research on prejudice
and stereotypes has largely focused on negative stereotypes (e.g., the
association of older adults with frailty) and the result of their
prevalence (e.g., stereotype threat) on perceivers and targets.
Composed of three studies spanning nearly 40 years, the Princeton
Trilogy (1933) is noted as one of the earliest set of studies
documenting the actual content of stereotypes attributed to different
ethnic groups and the change in content over time.
In the initial study of Princeton students in 1933, students were asked
to list the traits that were associated with various racial/ethnic
groups (e.g., Germans, Jews, Negroes). In this initial study, students
were found to associate distinct traits with each social group and that
there was a high consensus among beliefs (e.g., Germans were
scientifically minded and industrious, Italians were artistic, and
Negroes were superstitious and lazy).
In the follow-up studies in 1951 and in 1969, the researchers found
that the consensus and content of the stereotypes had changed in the
four decades after the initial study.
In the U.S., the content of stereotypes that people explicitly
associate to other groups have become more positive since the onset of
early studies, such as the Princeton Trilogy, that measured stereotype
content. The positive change in content can be attributed to multiple factors:
the relative change in status of different social groups
the expression of negative stereotypes as being less socially acceptable
the increased intergroup contact of people of different ethnicities and nationalities
Although both positive stereotypes and negative stereotypes require
making generalisations about a group, positive stereotypes and their
expression may not be seen as rooted in prejudice because of their
positive valence.
Additionally, because positive stereotypes may, on the surface,
indicate a positive view of a social identity, expression of positive
stereotypes in social interactions may not be as readily suppressed.
As a result, positive stereotypes are more likely to be used to when
describing a group than a negative stereotype, (e.g., "Women are more
warm than men" versus saying "Women are less competent than men") which
may contribute to their increase in prevalence.
Interaction with negative stereotypes
In their stereotype content model
(SCM), Fiske and colleagues (2002) provided evidence that being
positively stereotyped in one domain typically leads to being
correspondingly negatively stereotyped in another domain.
In their model of "mixed" stereotype content, they focused on the
stereotypes of warmth and competence. In their model, they propose that
"people want to know others’ intent (i.e., warmth) and their capability
to pursue their intentions (i.e., competence)" (p. 879)
The researchers indicated that the motivation to positively stereotype
groups as either warm or competent stemmed from perceived status and
competition of an out-group. According to the SCM, out-groups are
positively stereotyped as more competent to the extent that they are
more powerful or hold higher-status. And correspondingly, out-groups are
positively stereotyped as more warm to the extent that they are seen as
less competition. However being positively stereotyped on one dimension
usually corresponded with being negatively stereotyped on the other
dimension.
Stereotype Content Model from Fiske et al., 2002
For instance, social out-groups viewed as subordinate
and not competitive (e.g., elderly people) are often stereotyped as
higher in warmth, but lower in competence. Being high in warmth and low
in competence is considered to be a paternalistic
stereotype, as the out-group is perceived as not inclined or incapable
to harm the in-group. On the other end of the spectrum, an out-group
that is perceived as high-status and highly competitive (e.g., rich
people) may evoke an envious
stereotype. These groups would likely be positively stereotyped as
being high in competence to justify their higher relative position in
society (compared to one's own in-group). However, feelings of envy or
resentment about the group's higher status is justified by perceiving
them as more cold (i.e., lower in warmth).
Follow-up research has identified that for some subordinate
groups being positively stereotyped as high in competence may vary in
meaning. For instance, Black athletes and Black musicians are positively
stereotyped as high in competence. However, when investigated further,
the high competence rating was attributed to being competent due to
talent rather than due to intelligence.
Advantages
Researchers
have found that being associated with a group that is positively
stereotyped in a domain (e.g., academics) can result in enhanced
performance if one is led to think about one's group membership, but not
the specific stereotype. For instance, researchers have studied how the
performance of Asian-Americans is affected when they are exposed to the
common stereotype that Asian-Americans are good at mathematics. In one
study, before taking a math test, one group of Asian-Americans were
subtly led to think about the association of Asians and better math
ability through answering questions about their ethnic identity and
family history (e.g., what languages they spoke, how many generations of
their family lived in America). Compared to both another group of
Asian-Americans that were explicitly reminded about the positive
association between Asian-Americans and math and a control condition
that was not reminded of their ethnicity or the positive stereotype, the
group lead to indirectly think of the positive Asian stereotype
answered more math questions correctly.
In a separate study, Asian-American women subtly led to think about
their ethnic identity (i.e., Asian) performed more accurately on a
quantitative task than did Asian-American women led to think about their
gender identity (i.e., woman) and women that were not made to think
about either identity. In a study of age and memory, older individuals primed to think of positive stereotypes associated with older age and wisdom showed increased performance on a set of memory tasks.
Disadvantages
When
positive stereotypes are expressed or simply believed as true about a
group and its members, positive stereotypes can be related to a number
negative consequences for targets’ emotional and psychological states,
their performance-based behaviors, and others’ judgments of them. The
ambiguity of positive stereotypes when encountered over time might come
to be seen as a form of microaggression.
Depersonalisation
Because stereotypes communicate beliefs held about a group, being the target of a stereotype can evoke a sense of being depersonalised
or being seen only by one's group membership instead of as a unique
individual. Feeling depersonalised has been found to determine the
extent of a person's negative reaction to being the target of a positive
stereotype.
For example, women who were told that they had performed well on a math
test reported higher levels of anger and greater desire to attack or
avoid the male test administrator if when he gave them their positive
feedback, he said, "Wow...you did really well for a woman" versus if he
simply said, "Wow...you did really well."
In a set of studies by Siy and Cheryan (2013), women and U.S.-born
Asian Americans were made the target of positive stereotypes (e.g., You
women are so cooperative, I know all Asians are good at math). Both
women and Asian-American targets expressed greater dislike and
negativity towards the person expressing the stereotype. In the study of
Asian-Americans, those participants that were the target of positive
stereotypes reported feeling greater levels of anger and annoyance than
those who were not targets of positive stereotypes. The amount of
negativity felt and expressed was influenced by the extent that the
positive stereotype made the participants feel depersonalised.
To determine whether this negative reaction to feeling depersonalised by a positive stereotype is found across different cultures,
Siy and Cheryan (2013) also studied U.S. born Asian-Americans compared
to non-U.S. born Asian-Americans. They found that both U.S. and non-U.S.
born groups reported similar levels of depersonalisation as a result of
being a target of a positive stereotype. However, unlike in their
previous studies, the extent of feeling depersonalised did not predict
negative reactions to being stereotyped for non-U.S. born
Asian-Americans.
The researchers asserted that non-U.S. born Asian-Americans may react
less negatively to being depersonalised and thus would react less
negatively to being the target of a positive stereotype. This difference
was attributed to general differences in values of East Asian cultures,
which place more value on interdependence, and Western cultures (e.g., U.S. culture), which place more value on independence. Eastern cultures promote more collectivistic
values and individuals are more likely to describe themselves in
relation to others and by their group memberships. In contrast, Western
cultures promote more individualistic values and thus individuals place high importance on being seen as a unique individual, separate from others.
Because being the target of a stereotype may signal that an individual
is being judged by their group membership and not by their individual
traits, someone who values being viewed as an individual may have an
increased negative reaction to being depersonalised. Thus, the extent of
a target's negative reaction to being depersonalised by a positive
stereotype can depend largely on the relevant culture
in which the stereotype is expressed, and importantly, how a person
views themselves and wants to be viewed in relation to others.
Association with negative stereotypes
"Positive stereotypes may signal to targets that negative stereotypes are not far behind" -In Prejudice Masquerading as Praise (Siy & Cheryan, 2016, p. 953)
Social groups typically are associated with both positive and negative stereotypes.
For example, women are positively stereotyped as warm but negatively
stereotyped as weak; Asian-Americans are positively stereotyped as
competent but negatively stereotyped as cold; Black Americans are
positively stereotyped as athletic but negatively stereotyped as
unintelligent.
An individual targeted by a positive stereotype associated with their
social group may assume that the stereotyper also believes they possess
the negative stereotypes associated with the group. The negative stereotype that is assumed to be held by the stereotyper
depends on to what social group the positive stereotype references. In a
study by Siy & Cheryan (2016), Asian-American men were either
exposed to a positive stereotype about their race (e.g., "Asians are
ambitious") or their gender (e.g., "Men are ambitious"). Asian men that
were positively stereotyped based on their gender were more likely to
believe that negative gender stereotypes (e.g., aggressive, dominant)
were also being applied to them than those who were only targets of
positive racial stereotypes. In a similar manner, Asian men that were
targets of positive racial stereotypes were more likely to believe that
negative racial stereotypes (e.g., bad at driving, bad at English) were
also being applied to them.
Example
The
Model Minority Myth perfectly explains how positive stereotypes have
negative consequences. The model minority myth is a stereotype against
Asian Americans and it states how all Asian Americans are intelligent,
hard-working, and academically more successful than other minorities. In
order words, it says that Asian Americans outperform other racial
groups in school.
The model minority myth is a positive stereotype, which says
Asian Americans outperform other groups, but it also has negative
stereotypes associated with it. Due to this stereotype, Asian Americans
are faced with frequent racism, which causes interracial tension. On top
of that, the myth deemphasizes the academic problems that Asian
Americans have. Since Asian Americans are perceived with this “positive”
stereotype, they tend to hide their personal problems because they
don’t want to break this “positive" stereotype around them. It makes
people hide in a shell because they don't want to be the odd one out.
They want to fit into the stereotype, even if they don't. This positive
stereotype ignores the diversity in the group of Asian Americans by not
understanding that not all Asian Americans have same resources or even
the same experiences.
The model minority myth puts into perspective how good
stereotypes can still be associated with negative stereotypes, so people
need to be careful of their words because it can make someone feel less
of a person in their group.
Benevolent prejudice is a superficially positive prejudice
that is expressed in terms of positive beliefs and emotional responses,
which are associated with hostile prejudices or result in keeping
affected groups in inferior positions in society.
Benevolent prejudice can be expressed towards those of different race,
religion, ideology, country, sex, sexual orientation, or gender
identity.
Some of the earliest and most notable studies on benevolent
prejudice were conducted by the researchers Susan Fiske and Peter Glick,
with the primary focus of their research being the issue of sexism.
Benevolent prejudice derives from their studies on ambivalent sexism,
claiming that there are two main types of sexist attitudes: hostile and
benevolent sexism.
The term benevolent sexism eventually broadened into benevolent
prejudice, with one of the earliest uses of the term being in a study by
Susan Fiske and Peter Glick that focused on benevolent and hostile
sexism across cultures.
Application
Benevolent
prejudice is a superficially positive type of prejudice that is
expressed in terms of apparently positive beliefs and emotional
responses. Though this type of prejudice associates supposedly good
things with certain groups, it still has the result of keeping the group
members in inferior positions in society. Benevolent prejudices can help justify any hostile prejudices a person has toward a particular group. It is defined by UK LGBT rights charity Stonewall
as "expressions of positive views about minority groups that are not
intended to demonstrate less positive attitudes towards them, but which
may still produce negative consequences".
In an experiment run by Judd, Park, Ryan, Brauer, and Kraus (1995), perceptions of African Americans held by European Americans
show that they held hostile beliefs indicating that they viewed African
Americans as hostile, cliquish, irresponsible, and loud. However, the
same European American participants held benevolent beliefs that African
Americans were athletic, musical, religious, and had strong family
ties. The study was also done with African American participants who
were asked to share their beliefs about European Americans. The African
Americans said that European Americans were self-centered, greedy,
stuffy/uptight, and sheltered from the real world. However, the same
African Americans held benevolent beliefs that European Americans were
intelligent, organized, independent, and financially well-off.
LGBT and disabled people
A Stonewall UK publication (Understanding Prejudice: Attitudes towards minorities)
published in 2004 has found that interviewees used benevolent
stereotyping of gay men as "fun" and "caring stereotypes" of disabled
individuals, saying they were "vulnerable and in need of protection".
This was seen as contrasting to the negative prejudices of Travellers
and asylum seekers who were often the subject of aggressive prejudice. The survey also stated that:
These stereotypes are not intended to demonstrate a less
positive attitude towards these groups, but lesbians, gay men or
disabled people can experience these views as negative and
discriminatory. This benevolent prejudice demonstrates a lack of
understanding of what being disabled or lesbian and gay can mean; a lack
of awareness of the more serious discrimination that these groups often
experience; and the changing expectations and rights of these minority
groups. Other research has suggested that these benevolent attitudes can
play an important role in the social exclusion of particular groups,
for example because labels like "nice", "kind" and "helpless" can define
some minority groups as not competent or suitable for powerful
positions.
The survey also showed that men were more likely to exhibit
aggressive prejudice, whereas women were more likely to exhibit
benevolent prejudice.
Sexism across cultures
An
experiment run by Glick and Fiske et al. aimed to measure benevolent
and hostile sexism across various countries and cultures.
The study found that in countries where the levels of hostile sexism
were high, the levels of benevolent sexism were also high. Researchers
claimed that "the strength of these correlations supports the idea that
HS and BS act as complementary forms of sexism."
This was exemplified in countries such as Cuba and Nigeria, where men
scored higher on sexism, resulting in a higher hostile and benevolent
sexism score amongst women; therefore, the results in those countries
provided "evidence consistent with the notion that disadvantaged groups
adopt the system-justifying beliefs of dominant groups."
Media literacy and stereotyping
An
experiment run by Srividya Ramasubramanian and Mary Beth Oliver aimed
to measure the reduction in prejudice in their participants.
In the experiment, participants were to watch a media literacy video,
then proceed to read stereotypical and counter-stereotypical news
stories about African Americans, Asian-Indians, and Caucasian-Americans.
The participants were then prompted to fill out a questionnaire
regarding their feelings about the aforementioned groups. The results
revealed that the participants were more likely to display benevolent
prejudice towards the Asian-Indian group, than to the Caucasian-American
or African American group. Benevolent prejudice towards Asian-Indians
was seen as a result of the cultural stereotypes associated with the
group, such as passivity and deprivation, thus the results were
"consistent with the argument that benevolent feelings stem from notions
of superiority of dominant groups over subordinate groups seen as
incompetent, yet sociable.
.png)
