“Are we all racist?” »» Last Tuesday, France 2 intended to answer this question by broadcasting the result of a series of experiences inflicted on 50 voluntary guinea pigs but held in ignorance of the real theme of the evening. But the program, which swore under the authority of science -in particular thanks to the very committed presence of a lecturer in social psychology -did not bother to give a precise definition of racism. Could it be obvious? Not really. First experience: two men, a black and one white, are sitting on two chairs and each have an empty chair next to them. Cobayes are asked to sit down. Many of them choose to sit next to the white. The comments are panicked. Would they have been if they had all made the opposite choice? How did those who do not appear in assembly? What does this prove? The specialist comments: we feel closer to those who look like us. Is it already racism? No, not really, he replies, but it participates.
The program then gradually slides on the rejection of prejudices and stereotypes, which are defined as “A set of preconceived ideas that we will attribute to an individual by the simple fact of his belonging to a group”. The experiences continue, seeking to prove that we all have prejudices. Huge discovery … Is it already racism? We don’t really know. When in doubt, the program specifies that this feeds discrimination against “Visible minorities”. Everyone therefore has prejudices, but only some suffer the consequences.
The program continues experiences… questionable. Example: two portraits of people accused of the same thing are presented to two separate groups. One is white, the other Maghreb – generated by artificial intelligence. The guinea pigs are invited to give a sentence, as if they were sworn in the assizes. Result: the young Maghreb is recently a heavier penalty. Tagged comments. But the groups that judge both are the same! How to compare “Scientifically” ? And the show to specify that the students magistrates are subject to the test … Understand: prejudices can generate legal errors. Except, however,, however, that no juror must decide from a title and only a photo, thank God.
Same thing with the reaction of passers -by – in hidden camera – when three young people (a white, a Maghreb, a woman) sciented the padlock of a bicycle by pretending to have forgotten their keys. The reactions of passers -by who come and go are different: they ask questions to the two men – and a couple calls the police for the young Maghreb, while all offer their help to the girl. Again, difficult comparison: they are not the same people every time. On social networks, several French people have also encouraged public service to go after its racial comparisons-since this is the subject of this program obviously imported from the United States. How ? By also exploring the involvement of the same profiles in delinquency. Sometimes prejudices feed on experience – even if it can generate heavy injustices for lack of discernment. Exactly like when we weigh on a category of the population the accusation of racism in such a heavy way …
How to fight against racism? “Through education,” they answer. But it is rather a question of deconstruction …
Later, participants are called upon to say a word to qualify a photo. An Asian woman eating sushi with chopsticks? “Asian”. An Asian woman who recovers lipstick? ” Makeup “ Or “Femininity”. An Asian woman with a blouse and a stethoscope? ” Doctor “. So then? What does this prove? That the context sometimes erases the “Prejudices”explain the commentators. But to describe an Asian woman as Asian is a “Prejudice” ? Racism? See a “Visible minority” Is it already criminal? In any case, this participates, that evening, to strengthen the conviction that indeed, we are all racist.
So how to fight? “By education”they answer. But it is rather a question of deconstruction. The explanation is as follows: we are racist because we have prejudices which are the fruit of our culture, and especially because we belong to human groups. To fight against racism, we must therefore deconstruct everything, until our memberships, whatever they are. Finally here, in the West. There should only be atomized individuals, without anchoring or particular identity, interchangeable and virgins of any cultural sedimentation.
“This presence of ‘‘We’‘ indicates social categorization and should alert us ”explains the scientific deposit of the evening docly. Or rather one of the sureties. Because another has slipped into the commentary on an experience, a lecturer too. But Maboula Soumahoro is also, which France 2 does not specify, a decolonial activist. For example, she said in 2019 that a “” white man »» could not “” embody anti -racism »» neither “” be right against a black woman or an Arabic »». Prejudice? Stereotype? Racism? This time, the public service is not pronounced.
