|
|
This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
The academic literature on prejudices underlines the need for a complex typology. Some types of prejudice “produce exclusion and violence”, while others are defined by a “bias involving more subtle types of control and exploitation (e.g., affectionate paternalism)” (Dovidio et al. 2005, 10). Prejudices are often directed against people you think you are very fond of—which is of special importance regarding, for example, gender prejudice. And any prejudice can turn into a seemingly positive perception—as Philosemitism can be the result of anti-Semitism, as the result of intergenerational learning: when a generation after the Holocaust has learned to abhor any kind of anti-Jewish feeling, there can be a tendency to perceive Jews automatically in a positive way.
But the new perception, too, is based on prejudice: Jews are seen as different from others, Jews are considered special people. And Philosemitism can turn once more into anti-Semitism when reality proves that Jews are not good per se. As neither anti-Semitism nor Philosemitism is the result of specific “Jewish behaviour”, both are the consequence of a specific need to construct Jews. Philosemitism is not deconstructing “the Jew” as defined by anti-Semitism, but it is basically a reconstruction of the same kind: it says a lot about the Philo- or anti-Semite, but it does not say anything about Jews. This does not mean that Philosemitism has to be seen, in its consequences, the way anti-Semitism has to. With respect to results, it is just the opposite. But the mechanisms behind negative and positive prejudices have to be seen as parallel agents.
Prejudices are based on a—seemingly—clear separation of roles: there are perpetrators, and there are victims. But in many circumstances, victims are overwhelmed by the specific prejudice that makes them victims—and are reproducing that prejudice. This can be self-hatred, as the Jewish self-hatred in the case of Otto Weininger demonstrates (Weininger 1921). But in many cases, victims just accept the given social structure based on prejudice. Rather than coercion, compliance may be most important factor responsible for making victims accept their role.
Through millennia, most women were convinced that men were the “natural” rulers of the world, that men were entitled to define society. During much of that time, most women did not have to be coerced into