The racial divisiveness and tensions that erupted this past year (specifically in Charlottesville, North Carolina, in August), resulted, predictably, in a maelstrom of opinions—informed and otherwise. Amid all the arguing over whether Nazis should be punched, if and when censorship is acceptable, whether President Trump is racist, the appropriateness of publicly naming and shaming marchers, and so on, one thing largely missing from the debate is evidence-based guidance on what psychology and sociology can teach us about what’s effective at reducing racism and prejudice.
Emotionally satisfying reactions are not necessarily effective ones, and they may in fact be counterproductive. Is it better to engage with racists or deny them an audience? What do we know about what is most likely to actually change people’s minds? There’s no panacea, but here are some strategies suggested by experts who have experience in productively confronting racism and prejudice.
Researchers found evidence suggesting that racial and gender biases can be reduced using personal engagement instead of hostile reactions; as a Vox headline noted, “Research Says There Are Ways to Reduce Racial Bias. Calling People Racist Isn’t One of Them.” Likewise, former white supremacists recommend that the most effective way to deal with racists is not to attack, shout down, or insult them because it just fuels their narrative of victimhood and gets them sympathy—even perhaps from those who otherwise wholly disagree with their views, such as free speech absolutists. Musician Daryl Davis has taken a similar tactic, as explained in a Huffington Post story: