Apparent racial inconsistency can reflect adherence to divergent contextual norms

Evidence

Allport was not alone in his views; most early social psychologists agreed that prejudice was the result of societal norms (Chein, 1946; Lewin, 1952; Marrow & French, 1945). For example, Minard (1952) studied coal miners in West Virginia. While below the ground, Black and White miners worked together in complete integration without substantial racial conflict, but above ground practiced almost complete segregation. It may seem the miners were inconsistent: they were racist above ground and antiracist below. However, the miners were consistent with prevailing social norms in different contexts. Underground work rules had developed that tolerated and promoted integration, but societal rules above ground promoted segregation. The workers moved between the two worlds without conflict because they adhered to the norms in both places. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1889

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Allport’s in-group norms discussion and to situational-behavior research in social psychology (e.g., Milgram, Zimbardo). — connects to: The justification process for subordination is identical across race, caste, class, and sex — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 59; Racially inflected banter can coexist with genuine interracial friendship — Amit Singh, “Carnal conviviality” and the end of…, 70; Residence norms measurably shape patterns of human genetic variation — Joseph Henrich, The Secret of Our Success: How Culture…, 311 (+7 more)
• DEEPTHINKING: A compact, vivid demonstration that ‘prejudice’ is not a stable individual trait but a context-contingent compliance with local norms — reframes the whole concept.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1889