A Preferential Option
In Sway: Unravelling Unconscious Bias,[1] Pragya Agarwal paints a picture for us of how we are programed to make judgments about others based on how we have been conditioned within our own context.[2] Agarwal asserts that we all have these biases. No one is immune.[3] Much as we learned in RARE leadership,[4] Agarwal encourages that “the key is to not fall back on it for decision-making but rather to use it as a trigger for sparking analytical and logical thought.”[5]
Agarwal describes her work own as being:
about understanding the way we put up walls between ‘us’ and ‘them’ before we even realise we are doing so, how we interpret the messages we get from the media and the politicians, and the attempts to make sense of the noise and understand how our biases shape the way we react to these messages.[6]
I do not need to be convinced that the human brain has created shortcuts in its thinking. These shortcuts, while a programmed act of survival, can lead us to jump to inaccurate assessments of situations. I believe that we use our biases to navigate through thousands of transactions a day and sometimes those assumptions can be wrong, leading to relational damage. It is not a big leap for me to then see how those series of bad actions can create a hostile environment to people who belong to the “out-groups,” or those who are underrepresented. I can see that I and my ancestors (as well as everyone else’s) have had a part to play in that. And, as I have mentioned in previous posts, I acknowledge that I am writing from a place of relative privilege.
Where I have questions, though, is the right way to respond. Let me use some of our earlier readings as fodder for the discussion:
Identity Trap and Intersectionality and Loneliness
In his book, Identity Trap: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment,[7] Francis Fukuyama discussed intersectionality and how the practice of refining our own identity so specifically that virtually only we could fit into it. At the time, I reflected in my blog that “you can see that when we play this game out to the end, we can eventually identify ourselves down into a depressive and anxious state of self-isolation.” [8]
Not so Black and White: Universalism or…?
Two weeks ago, we assessed Kenan Malik’s treatment of Racism and Identity Politics in Not So Black and White.[9] The connection that I want to pull from that work was that Malik believes that the true source of inequity in society today is driven by economic, rather than racial disparities.[10] He is concerned about observing a movement away from universalism (equity) and towards a world of segregating into identity groups.
Agarwal, at least, in part, agrees by stating in her epilogue: “True inclusivity happens when people are given equal voice.”[11] However, she then goes on to say “…And sometimes, to overturn the tide of oppression and marginalisation through history, positive discrimination might be necessary.”[12] It seems like she might lay aside her desire to promote an equal voice to correct a social wrong.
Catholic Social Teachings
This idea of “positive discrimination” is not new. Indeed, going back to Matthew Petrusek, who, in Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture [13] introduced us to the virtues of Catholic Social Teaching (CST), which includes the principle of a Preferential Option for the Poor. Wikipedia defines this principle as:
…a trend throughout the Bible, of priority being given to the well-being of the poor and powerless of society in the teachings and commands of God as well as the prophets and other righteous people.
When you start reading leading thinkers about this principle, you hear an argument that the way that we treat those with less advantages reflects the extent to which we honor Christ, who, after all, became poor for us. (2 Cor 8:9)[14] As people who profess a desire to be Christ-like, this idea should not be dismissed.
As usual, I am left with more questions than answers. Today, here are my musings. I would love to hear agreements, expansions, or counter-ideas:
- Agarwal is unclear on if she is trying to solve bias or inequity. Are they different problems?
- I am concerned that her focus on intersectionality may perpetuate a problem by creating greater segregation, and thus greater societal loneliness.
- I wonder if there is a more effective way to see “the other” or the out-group members than addressing their hyper-focused identities.
____________________
[1] Pragya Agarwal, Sway: Unravelling Unconscious Bias, 1st ed. (London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2020).
[2] Agarwal, 41.
[3] Unravelling Unconscious Bias with Dr Pragya Agarwal., 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqW87y97RYM.
[4] Marcus Warner, Rare Leadership in the Workplace: Four Habits That Improve Focus, Engagement, and Productivity. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2021).
[5] Agarwal, Sway, 42.
[6] Agarwal, 23–24.
[7] Francis Fukuyama, “Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment” (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2018).
[8] “Questions of Identity,” accessed March 9, 2024, https://blogs.georgefox.edu/dlgp/questions-of-identity/.
[9] Kenan Malik, Not so Black and White: A History of Race from White Supremacy to Identity Politics, 1st ed. (London: Hurst & Company, 2023).
[10] What We Get Wrong About Race – Kenan Malik, 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vajeuKADyc.
[11] Agarwal, Sway, 414.
[12] Agarwal, 414.
[13] Matthew Petrusek and Cardinal Thomas Collins, Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture (Word on Fire, 2023).
[14] Michael P. Griffin and Jennie Weiss Block, In the Company of the Poor: Conversations between Dr. Paul Farmer and Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2013), 147.
About the Author
Jennifer Vernam
9 responses to “A Preferential Option”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I like the quote “the key is to not fall back on [our biases] for decision-making but rather to use it as a trigger for sparking analytical and logical thought.” I hadn’t caught that one. I guess that presupposes that we can always “catch” ourselves when we’re stuck in our own biases. Any thoughts on how to do this well?
Ha! I had asked Travis the same question in his post, so we should just wait for his answer! Just kidding. I think that a good place to start is to live into a concept we heard from Beerel: A good leader routinely moves outside their own echo chamber, intentionally. I think we can push ourselves to be in situations where we hear challenging thoughts, and that may help us question our own assumptions.
Jen, regarding your third question, which reads “I wonder if there is a more effective way to see ‘the other’ or the out-group members than addressing their hyper-focused identities”, given what I think I know about your NPO, how would you answer this question compared to where you began a year and a half ago with your research? And yes, I realize I am turning the question you asked us…back toward you. Thinking about how Christians from different tribes disagree on various subjects, I wonder what principles from “positive discrimination” could be pulled out to help two sets of divergent voices ultimately find common ground / common cause without foregoing their beliefs. Does that make sense? Maybe a better question is this: What is one thing you could use from Agarwal’s book to apply toward your NPO?
I will speak to the last question. As I was reading Agarwal, I was in the midst of building a survey for conversation participants. I realized that I need to get a sense of where they are leaning regarding controversial topics so that I can seed my discussion group with people who do not agree. It’s a challenge, because even asking people to share their views on issues is fraught with potential triggers, and I might not see those triggers until I have already stepped on the landmine. So, in such a loaded environment, how do I get participants to walk the line of being willing to be vulnerable in sharing their biases without causing trauma to others who come from a different viewpoint? I don’t have a great answer, but what I am going to try is to test out my questions with others first to see how where I need to soften or couch my questions to create safety. Not sure that is helpful, but it’s what I am thinking on this week.
Jen, Good job bringing in our past readings. I am drawn to the question you pose below:
“I am concerned that her focus on intersectionality may perpetuate a problem by creating greater segregation, and thus greater societal loneliness.”
Just moments ago, I asked John Fehlen a similar (ish) question. Might over focusing on intersectionality create even more loneliness than before? As you reflect more on Agarwal’s book, how has your years of working in the healthcare system with diverse groups of people given you insight into how structures are fighting against bias?
I do think that by hyper-categorizing ourselves and our experiences, we create more isolation for ourselves and society. I see your question through a change management lens… how can we get the behavior change needed to create more unity?
Some ideas might be:
– Create space in our institutions to reward listening before speaking. Perhaps we reward our leaders that pass along meaningful learnings from rounding with their employees.
– Create activities that move people outside of their echo chambers with things like field trips to other departments, job shadowing and even short-term service trips, and ask them to tell the story of what they learned and how that impacts their work.
I would love to hear others’ ideas, so I will head over to John’s posts!
Jen, you too syntopicaled the heck out of this post! Great job.
Like Pam, I was drawn to your question, “I wonder if there is a more effective way to see “the other” or the out-group members than addressing their hyper-focused identities.” The question that comes up for me in response is what if “the other” or the “out-group” *wants* to be known for their hyper-focused identities. Do we respect what they want or do we push against it? I know you are asking this out of a desire to heal our divisiveness so I am truly curious about what you think about this. I really don’t have an answer to this – like you, more questions than answers.
Hi Jennifer, I woke up this morning and realized it was FRIDAY. Recovering from my Texas Immigration Symposium must have been more draining than I though.
I do like your questions. It sort of prompted me to look at other research criticizing microaggression research.
Scott O. Lilienfeld, “Microaggressions: Strong Claims, Inadequate Evidence,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 12, no. 1 (January 1, 2017): 138–69, https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616659391.
A snippet…. Lilienfeld says microaggression researchers have largely ignored the role of negative emotionality. Negative emotionality (NE) is “a pervasive temperamental disposition to experience aversive emotions of many kinds, including anxiety… hostility, irritability, and perceived victimization” (Lilienfeld, 2017, p. 153). Persons with high levels of NE tend to be vigilant, judgmental, and prone to interpreting ambiguous stimuli in a negative light.
He also, “calls for a moratorium on microaggression training programs and publicly distributed microaggression lists pending research to address the MRP’s scientific limitations.
SURPRISE….
Shalom…
You have articulated–better than I could–several of the questions that arose for me as I read this book, Jenn. Thanks. I blogged about the seeming contradiction (in my view) in Agarwal’s book between NOT stereotyping people and intersectionality which, by necessity, must put people in groups. And my un-blogged question: to what degree is this stream of thinking helping us better interact with others (I do think it is positively helping in some respects) and in what ways is this sort of training contributing to our ‘age of outrage’ and ‘victimhood’, where everyone notices every slight (like spelling their name wrong) and interprets and interprets that as a microagression? (and not, perhaps, someone’s poor literary capacity). And then a complex question: what degree of responsibility lies on me as it relates to how my words or action are perceived and interpreted by another? Lots of questions still left for me!