Benevolent paternalism can coopt minority-group members into their own subordination

Evidence

Allport recognized that prejudice functioned to maintain the advantaged status of majority groups while rationalizing the exploitation of minority groups. However, he did not consider other, arguably more prevalent mechanisms of control, such as those involving protection and benevolence (e.g., paternalism; Jackman). In this way, he missed the broader dynamics of prejudice that can contribute to systemic inequities by coopting minority-group members. A focus on the relations between groups reveals evidence of seemingly “cooperative” behaviors of victimization by the targets of prejudice and of subtle “backlash” to even positive behaviors, if they deviate from the status quo (see Jackman, Rudman, and Eagly & Diekman). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 140

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Jackman’s ‘Velvet Glove’ theory of paternalism; relevant to existing vault claims that prejudice reduction follows positive intergroup contact, since positive behavior may itself be backlash-triggering. — connects to: Racecraft naturalizes hierarchy so the subordinated consent to their own subordination — Cyra Akila Choudhury, Racecraft and Identity in the Emergence…, 461; Third-party punishment can stabilize any cultural trait within a group — Joe Henrich and Robert Boyd, The Evolution of Conformist…, 117
• QUESTION: If benevolent behaviors toward minority members can be controlling, how does contact theory’s assumption that warm contact reduces prejudice hold up?
• SEED: Angle: ‘When liking is a tool of control’ — benevolent paternalism as the overlooked face of prejudice, complicating the contact hypothesis.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 140