On February 5, 1999, Amadou Diallo
was shot. Four police officers were walking by his apartment and began to
approach him because they thought he resembled the perpetrator in a rape case.
As Diallo reached into his pocket, pulling out what the officers believed to be
a gun, they fired. When they went to gather his body, they realized that the
gun did not exist, finding only a wallet instead.
Why did the officers perceive a
wallet as a gun? Most attribute the fatal error to a combination of the
atmosphere in the dangerous neighborhood and racial profiling. The officers
were all white, and Diallo was a West African immigrant. While there were
admittedly other factors at play, this horrific story is not the only instance
where a black face provoked an instinctive sense of fear in white individuals.
Cognitive neuroscientists have
tried to better understand how people react unconsciously to faces that are
racially different than their own. In a research article entitled “Separable Neural Components in the Processing of Black and White Faces,” scientists
discuss an experiment that was designed to contrast conscious and controlled
modes of thinking. During the fMRI component of the study, the all-white
participants were shown a series of black and white faces while getting an
fMRI. Some of the faces were flashed for 30 milliseconds, which is too fast for
humans to consciously know what they are seeing. Other faces were flashed for
550 milliseconds, which does allow for conscious recognition. The brain
activity during the short runs was supposed to measure the unconscious
reactions, while the brain activity during the longer runs was intended to
measure the conscious ones.
When the subjects were shown black
faces for 30 milliseconds, the amygdala, the region of the brain that processes
fear and emotion, lit up on the fMRI. When they were shown black faces for 550
milliseconds, there was more activity in the frontal cortex, a region
associated with control and regulation. “The data show neural differences
between more automatic and controlled processing of social groups, and suggest
that reflective processes may interact with and modulate evaluations arising
more automatically during perceptual processing.” Essentially, when the
subjects were consciously aware of what they were seeing, parts of their brain
were able to regulate the automatic fear response and result in a response that
reflected their conscious, non-racist views.
The response in the 30-millisecond
trials would probably match the fMRI’s of the police officers on the night of
Diallo’s death. Due to the stereotypes associated with race and the
neighborhood itself and the poor lighting, they were scared when he reached for
his pocket, and they acted accordingly. Now, this begs the question: are these
responses innate and determined, or are they in our control?
The neighborhood and Diallo’s race
were definitely associated with a series of negative stereotypes that were perpetuated
by society. At that point, many of them were self-fulfilling prophecies; people
were born into neighborhoods where they were expected to act a certain way, so
they grew up in that way, and external opinions continued to be accurate. While
it is readily acknowledged that people are influenced by the societal norms in
which they live, it is interesting to consider the origins of these social
constructs.
The creation of categories and
groups in societies may stem from a simple biological fear of that which is
different. In the past, it makes sense that humans would be scared to encounter
groups of people who looked different than their own immediate community.
Foreigners brought with them danger, disease, unpredictability, and a threat to
coveted resources. Reacting as the police officers did and getting rid of the
different group would have made sense millions of years ago.
So, do the social constructs come
from biology? Or does the biological response come from social constructs? I
prefer to believe that the evolutionary explanation is the answer to this chicken-egg
question, but it is hard to come to a definite conclusion because humans have never
existed in isolation without the communal, societal context at play. Regardless,
these social constructs are now such an accepted part of our society that
peoples’ unconscious reactions and neural wiring are actually impacted by them.
The biological response led to a social construct, which led to a biological
response, which led to a social construct…and you can see where I’m going with
this.
What implications does this have
for society? Going forward, one should remember the portion of the study that
explained the frontal cortex’s ability to control the innate, learned response.
Be aware of your biases. The Implicit Association Test is one measure of
unconscious predispositions toward members of specific groups. The tests are
not limited to race, but also to ideas like gender and sexual orientation. You
can take it here. After becoming more cognizant of your own prejudices, use
judgment when acting. Realize that your brain may act in ways that are
discordant with how you actually want to interact with the world, and take that
into account when going through your daily life. Perhaps if the police officers
were more aware of their own states of mind on February 5, 1999, they would
have taken that extra second to realize that a wallet was not a gun.
No comments:
Post a Comment