Uncounscious Essentialism Bias as a Tool for Shaping Society

Essentialism is the idea that every being has a true nature or an inner condition that explains the similarities each member of a category has; this “essence” cannot be seen and it is completely unknown, but it grants and constitutes the basis for the identity of the being. There are two ways in which we can interpret Essentialism: philosophically (this is in the metaphysical view) and as a folk belief. Philosophy deals with objective questions as whether essences exist in the world or not, which is more of a metaphysical question, and the folk belief rather approaches people’s representations of the world –society to be more specific- and how this representation is embedded within a belief system, cultural practices, and language. In psychology, essentialism is identified as a pervasive cognitive bias that affects human interactions and that brings alongside with it, harmful practices such as stereotypes and over-generalisations.

When it comes to the origins of this bias, there is a lot of dissension as to how or when it forms on the human minds. Some argue that the need to categorise people in groups is engrained within the human nature, and because of mental commodity, we attribute different actions of certain groups to an essence that defines their identity. Others argue that psychological essentialism is just a by-product of several different cognitive biases that have received the help of generic language to be spread; in other words, essentialism is just the resultant reaction to other psychological and environmental factors. However, evidence points out more to the idea that essentialism results from the interplay of cognitive biases and cultural input, and it is from a very young age (4 years old) that it is formed; children’s cognitive biases lead them to assume there are kinds regulated by essential traits, and generic language serves as a catalyst as to what categories children should apply these beliefs.

As stated before, essentialism as a psychological bias tends to stimulate the creation and spreading of stereotypes and over-generalisation. A famous example of this is a private conversation recently disclosed between president Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, then governor of California. The conversation took place in October 26, 1971, a couple of months after Ronald Reagan had a diplomatic visit to Asia and the Pacific, and came back to the United States with the news that the United Nations General Assembly had voted to bring in the Communist People’s Republic of China and expel Taiwan, which was known in that time as the Republic of China. The context of the situation was that the only representative voice China had in the United Nations came from Taiwan, which had a permanent presence of the United States military forces. Albania advocated for China’s inclusion and regarded it as the real image of the two nations. The Resolution 2758 passed with 76 votes in favour of the Communist People’s Republic of China and Reagan was furious. Later, in his conversation with Nixon, he makes a vigorous comment about the African delegates that participated in the voting saying:

“...to see those—those monkeys from those African countries (President Nixon laughs), damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!”

These comments are obvious racist remarks towards the African delegates, but how is it related to the essentialism bias? Not only the African delegates voted in favour of Nationalist China but also other countries such as Portugal, Rumania, Peru, Sweden, Israel, Italy, and even big allies like France and the United Kingdom, yet Reagan fails to address them and only focuses on insulting the African delegates, not what they had to say but what they are as people, or what he considered them to be. His bias was simple: Africans don’t know how to judge these matters; they are still savage, animals without political or diplomatic voice. It is curious how these African delegates are the only voters with a skin colour that had been stigmatised and demonised for a long time in the American society, particularly with the idea that their essence as black people was to be ignorant, and in an inferior level as humans in comparison to other races.

Instance of Poor Rationality

It is important to understand why this cognitive bias leads to weak and uncogent inductive arguments in people’s minds, and how it can be a medium to control societal interaction. When people engage in essentialism bias, we tend to stereotype and over-generalise. To illustrate this idea, let’s consider when people assume that there is some quality that women have in common that explains patterns of physical features; the problem begins when people start using this belief to produce explanations for women’s abilities or likes without further statistical evidence to prove it so; for instance, the claim that “All girls like pink.” This will constitute heuristics in judgement rather than a solid theory because it is not the claim itself that is faulty but rather the process of concluding that women like pink because it’s part of their essence, without presenting evidence that proves it is true. Also, we know from the experience of talking to girls around us that not every one of them likes the pink colour. In standard form it would look like this:

(P1) My cousins like pink

(P2) My cousins are girls

(C) Girls like pink

Another way to phrase this would be: “My cousins like pink because they are girls.' Or: 'My cousins like pink; therefore, they must be girls.'

This is just a simple form of essentialism, but what happens when we apply this concept to race or ethnical groups, for instance? Say that Anna introduces her Hispanic boyfriend Jose to her friends Lila and Elizabeth. When they leave, Lila says “Anna looks very happy.” “Well, of course,” Elizabeth replies. “Everyone knows Hispanic guys are great lovers.” Elizabeth is relying on a stereotype that all Latino men are great lovers and applying it to Jose deservedly or not. This example is benign, but if the bias becomes unconscious then it can be dangerous. Essentialism can result in the inability to accept characteristics that do not fit our mental standards. In real life, this leads to discrimination: ‘I would never employ, marry, and believe an X, because they are all unreliable.’ Or worst, we can use essentialism when the stereotypes and generalisations have failed by saying that a certain person is not really part of a group because his/her views or lifestyle breaks the code that defines the essence of the group he/she claims to belong. For example, “You are not really African American if you don’t talk Black English.” The inability to understand why someone would have a different behaviour than previously established by its ‘essence’ makes them re-categorise that person, and alas, it comes mostly from within the group which that person belongs to.

In short, it is important to be able to identify when this bias creeps in a conversation or in our own minds, it has an impact on our surroundings and shapes the way we regard and behave with each other, but it also will be often used to manipulate masses. Politics is the art of knowing how the populous thinks, how psychology works for humans, and the best way to use that knowledge for collective or individual ends. Phrases with implicit meanings like “You are not really an American if you believe in Communism” are not unfamiliar to the ears of the American people. During the Cold War and World War II, politicians and propaganda will make use of the existing essentialism bias in the American people’s minds to endorse actions of discrimination towards certain ethnicities, provoking, more than physical, mental barriers in the American society. We regard representational essentialism in a very light way, sometimes excusing it through human nature and making it seem like it can’t be refrained or controlled, but this doesn’t take away the fact that it is a subtle and dangerous tool which, if not identified, can shape the course of future human history and society for good or bad.