The Stereotype Content Model This model of social cognition was first proposed by Susan Fiske and then

detailed by Douglas Massey in Categorically Unequal. The model posits that social cognition operates along the two independent axes of warmth and competence, which yields a map of social space with four quadrants.

Pitied outgroup Warmth

Esteemed in-group

Despised out-group

Envied outgroup

Competence

The grid creates one in-group (upper-right quadrant) and three out-groups, the bottom-left of which is of most concern to us. The in-group often associates the despised out-group with the emotion of disgust, sometimes to the point that the out-group is viewed as subhuman. Some neuroimaging studies even suggest that despised out-groups are dehumanized at the neural level, i.e., the regions of the brain that are normally activated in social encounters are suppressed when a member of the in-group encounters members of the despised out-group.1 Because of the way this dehumanization creates social stratification, the despised out-group may be ripe for exploitation. A number of the marginalized groups whose welfare were concerned with, including undocumented immigrants, so-called welfare queens, and formerly incarcerated persons. Envy and Scorn Recent work by Susan Fiske expands the affects associated with the social space described above.

DOUGLAS MASSEY, CATEGORICALLY UNEQUAL 14 (2008).

Fiske shows that pervasive scorn and envy arise when our natural tendency to compare ourselves with others collides with a society that is stratified from top to bottom by race, class, gender, etc.2 Fiske also shows that scorn and envy harm both the agents and targets of the negative affects. For example, powerful people who scorn demeaned out groups are often willfully ignorant of other peoples emotional lives, which leads them to miss important information; from the other direction, insofar as racism is often a direct expression of scorn, there is ample evidence of stress-related harms to health associated with experiencing racism. Potential Responses Allports contact hypothesis. As applied to the social field described above, one way to reduce conflict and negative affects between the in-group and out-groups would be to expos them to each other. Interracial interactions. More recent work in social psychology suggests that, in fact, interracial contact per se can be quite stressful, for both whites and blacks.3 Therefore, a key task for improving race relations is to be mindful of the contexts and conditions that facilitate positive interracial interactions for both minority and majority participants. For

2 3

See generally SUSAN T. FISKE, ENVY UP, SCORN DOWN: HOW STATUS DIVIDES US (2011). See, e.g., Jennifer A. Richeson & J. Nicole Shelton, Negotiating Interracial Interactions: Costs, Consequences, and Possibilities, CURRENT 16 DIRECTIONS IN PSYCH. SCI. 316 (2007).

the majority group, Jennifer Richesons work shows that it is important to create situations in which these participants are not primed to be concerned with avoiding the appearance of being prejudiced. For the minority group, on the other hand, helping minorities avoid the need to employ compensatory strategies to avoid expected racial discrimination reduces the stress of interracial contact. Richeson suggests that, because interracial contact tends to become less stressful the more one experiences it, promoting racially and culturally diverse environments whenever and wherever possible, as early as possible, may . . . be the best prescription for the development of positive interracial contact experience for both majority and minority groups.4 Andersons integration imperative. In her recent book, Elizabeth Anderson argues that as a matter justice and good public policy, it is imperative to end segregation in access to opportunity structures in America. But she goes further and argues for a comprehensive model of integration that proceeds in four steps: (1) formal desegregation, (2) spatial integration, (3) formal social integration, and (4) informal social integration.5 That is, end any remnants of Jim-Crow style racism (e.g., in the criminal justice system), integrate neighborhoods, erase group-based status hierarchies, and break down walls in the domains of trust, cooperation, and intimacy.

A common thread that runs through all these proposals is that the current arrangement of social space in America harms both majority and minority groups. Pervasive structural inequality combines with equally pervasive stereotypes and biases (both conscious and unconscious) to yield a toxic mix of envy and scorn that feeds into existing inequality to reproduce the social system. Evidence suggests that efforts to end this harmful arrangement must include programs designed to bring in-groups and out-groups togetherspatially, emotionally, and otherwise. Changing groups minds about each other is a necessary step on the path to changing the sets of emotional responses they have to each other, which translate into the actions that eventuate in group inequality.

4 5

Id. at 320. ELIZABETH ANDERSON, THE IMPERATIVE OF INTEGRATION 116 (2010).