Instalaciones Provisionales de Salud y Confort

This section of the literature review discusses the evolution of two important and related forms of discrimination which can be linked to racism within the place of employment. There is significant empirical evidence that addresses the impact of racism on individual employment opportunities (Lang and Lehman, 2012), where economic consequences have been more severe for ethnic minorities (Fryer and Torelli, 2010; Chay, 1998). Furthermore, there is considerable research showing systemic racial discrimination within organisational culture which can interfere with career advancement, fair

2018; Cox, 1990). The goal of this section is to expand on the specific theoretical relevance of such racism in the workplace.

4.7.1 Intentional, Explicit Discrimination

The various steps by which a person exhibits a negative attitude towards a racial group other than theirs are expounded by Allport (1954). The sequence proposed by the author includes verbal abuse, aversion, discrimination, physical assault and elimination. Omi and Winant (2014) expand on this view and argue that while the first common evidence of intentional or explicit discrimination is verbal abuse, this often leads to other steps in the sequence proposed by Allport (1954). In most cases, people do not progress to other steps without adequate assurance and support for their tendencies. From an employment perspective, unless there is an organisational culture that supports such implications of racial discrimination (Selmi, 2016), it is difficult for an individual to display such tendencies. In the following section, various forms of explicit bias are discussed.

Verbal antagonism includes casual racial slurs and hurtful comments. Such comments are passed either when the person targeted is present or behind someone’s back (Cortina, 2008). However, these comments might be brushed off as not sufficient to be illegal or infringing freedom of speech, but are still an expression of hostility (Wodak, 2008). Along with the various non- verbal types of antagonism, a hostile situation in schools, neighbourhoods and workplaces can be created artificially (Bullard and Feagin, 1991) and there are growing challenges faced in relation to such expression of hostility, given the rise in the tendency towards racism being addressed under the notion of freedom of expression. A tense environment created by verbal and nonverbal antagonism is the first step towards discrimination among people of differing races. Such verbal abuse and nonverbal hostile expressions are authentic ways of discrimination in which the goal is to put someone down in front of others (Bartlett, 2009). These may also be preceded by various forms of physical ill-treatment, such as denying employment (Talaska et al., 2008). For instance, in a workplace, the primary bias of an interviewer based on race or community will be clearly observed in the way he/she treats the

interviewee, such as being uninterested in the answers, asking questions that may sound ridiculous and even illogical, shortening the time taken for the interview, and twisting and increasing the rounds of questions with the aim of torturing the interviewee (Bodensteiner, 2008). The performance of the interviewee is hence undermined due to nonverbal hostility exhibited by the interviewer. However, under legal conditions, both types of treatment (verbal and nonverbal) are often represented based on evidence collected to demonstrate the prejudiced state of mind of the discriminator (Bullard and Feagin, 1991). This may also comprise unlawful racially prejudiced behaviour when they move to a level where racism could make the working environment hostile.

The concept of avoidance indicates the comfort of a person to interact within their own group (the ingroup) in social places over interactions with people of a group other than theirs (the outgroup). With respect to discretionary contact settings, people may prefer to either mingle or not mingle with people from underprivileged racial groups (Talaska et al., 2008). On the other hand, under certain social conditions, people may differentiate themselves based on their race and, in their workplaces, this contact may move such outgroup members towards less important jobs or degrade the careers of those who eliminated from such informal networks (Barth and Dale-Olsen, 2009). A traditional theory known as a ‘taste for discrimination’ shows how hatred towards interracial contact can affect the wages offered and labour markets (Becker, 1971). The willingness of people to spend more time with an outgroup member in a given environment helps in assessing the level of avoidance they show (Bowlus and Eckstein, 2002). Various sociological studies have tried to measure avoidance in terms of reporting or observing people within social contact conditions. In legal settings, avoiding casual interaction could also be inferred as hostility (Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2000). Avoidance can look harmless in a given situation, but when considered as a behavioural entity, it can eventually result in long-term elimination and permanent discrimination. It can be particularly problematic in cases where social media are involved, when hiring and promoting someone,

al., 2017). Avoidance of a person can be as detrimental as active or direct verbal abuse.

4.7.2 Subtle, Unconscious, Automatic Discrimination

Despite various statistics showing that people have reduced their racial bias, people still tend to hold some biased attitudes arising from the old English history of prejudice (Fox, 2013). Even though such biased attitudes need not lead to discriminatory attitudes with extreme effects, the prevalence of such attitudes could lead to sub-conscious forms of racism and discrimination in more explicit ways (Jackson, 2003). Such surface-level bias is often portrayed in the media as Whites versus non-Whites and de facto segregation in occupation and education sectors.

This phenomenon surrounding subtle biases is described as a group of unconscious beliefs and relationships that impact on the behaviours and attitudes of ingroup members, such as Whites’ attitudes towards Blacks or other unprivileged groups (Duckitt, 1991). An internal conflict is faced by ingroup members that leads to dissociation from hardcore racist behaviours and the social presence of such behaviours (Liao et al., 2016). Although the intentions and character of people may be good, their racial cognition and biased nature cannot be eliminated completely, the result of which is a contemporary and subtle form of bias or prejudice that goes deep and aims not to contend with the norms of anti-racism. Various subtle forms of racism and their impact on discrimination are dealt with in the following section, these being indirect, ambiguous, automatic and ambivalent behaviours (Eberhardt and Fiske, 1998). The situation in which members of the ingroup blame outgroup members for their disadvantage is referred to as indirect prejudice. For instance, outgroup members should strive harder; at the same time, they should not force themselves onto others or their ideas into places where they are not needed (Liao et al., 2016). The differences between members of the ingroup and outgroup are often emphasised more so that the members of the latter group can be shown as external entities that are only worth being ousted and avoided. This type of prejudice can result in policy support that leaves non-Whites at a loss (Vallejo, 2015).

The expression of subtle prejudice can be unconscious and spontaneous as members of the ingroup classify outgroup members based on their race, age and gender. The minute reactions of people to members of the outgroup can comprise basic fear, anxiety and a tendency to negatively stereotype relationships. People have been commonly known to respond to even minimal exposure to such uncontrollable behaviours of outgroups (Carter and Murphy, 2015). However, the social setting in which people tend to face an outgroup member can mould such responses. Outgroup members who are not so familiar, lower in grade and different never express the same reactions to those who are not known, dominant or undifferentiated (Kulich et al., 2015). Irrespective of this, a person’s spontaneous reaction to members of the outgroup shows unconscious harboured bias, which leads to a hostile and differentiated environment. Such spontaneity in reactions also indicates stereotype-acknowledging behaviour (Chen and Bargh, 1997).

The main impact of subtle prejudice is to prefer the ingroup, thus disabling the outgroup. In this way, such prejudice seems to be more ambiguous in nature. For instance, bias may imply a greater liking for the majority rather than hatred towards minorities (Perry et al., 2015). From a practical viewpoint, in a zero-sum environment, the ingroup benefit often leads to similar outcomes to the outgroup loss. In general, ingroup members tend to acknowledge other members by rewarding them and hence putting the outgroup at a disadvantage (Brewer and Brown, 1998). In due course, people tend to perceive their own ingroup in a positive way, adding to its strength and improving its standards. The defects of outgroups are hence used to support the same thing. These allocations, which are random attributions, comprise another major form of subtle discrimination. From ambivalent prejudice theories, the uncertainty of subtle prejudice implies that outgroups are not always uniformly subject to antipathy (e.g. Perry et al., 2015). Although outgroups may be disregarded, they may be liked in a snobbish manner. On the other hand, outgroups may be revered yet disliked too (Eberhardt and Fiske, 1998). The reactions of Whites to Black professionals justify this outright behaviour. Some racial groups show both dislike and

disrespect. Homeless people, poor people and other welfare recipients usually invoke a hostile and certain type of expression of subtle prejudice. The most significant point in this case is that all reactions to such races or groups need not be completely negative to increase discrimination. For instance, one might not promote or increase the wages of another due to racial bias and considering the person to be highly incompetent (Helms, 2015). However, in a similar ingroup, the member may get some more chances for extra training or support to increase their competence. In contrast, one might accept the exceptional talents and qualities of an outgroup member but not want to interact with the same person socially, and eventually fail to promote them. All forms of subtle prejudice—indirect, ambiguous and automatic—comprise barriers to equal treatment (Helms, 2015). This form of prejudice is the toughest of all to record in all its forms and the major impacts of biased behaviour are harder to capture.