Do you agree with ALL PORT'?
Answer:
No I do not. Allport wrote the scale of prejudice intoning that it was an increasing scale, and the implication is that one thing is worse than the other.
However, the difficulty with this is that the activities described are upsetting as individual activities, but the true deplorable nature is dependent on the social scale.
For example, very few people ever engage actively in stage 5 (extermination) so even large-scale ethnic-cleansing operations (such as in Rwanda) are often spurred on by a small group while the larger populace passively accepts the circumstance. Furthermore, the instances where this takes place are few, deplorable as they may be.
In contrast, stage 1 (antilocution) involves people making a "joke" out of other's heritage. This is done so commonly that it is practically accepted as a wide-scale behavior. Far more overall damage is done by stage 1 than had been done by more severe stages. Hence the implication that "things get worse" as the scale increases is misleading. I don't believe that it represents the circumstances well.
Finally, I mentioned something else previously that Allport seems to have overlooked. Call it "stage zero": the element of tacit consent. It is indeed supportive of prejudice to allow any incident occur when you can do something about it. It is by far the most common, and most insidious form of prejudice there is.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: