Are Implicit Biases More Like Sneezes Or Intentional Actions? A Philosophical Exploration

Discussion

Implicit biases refer to the stereotypes or attitudes that affect people’s understanding, decisions and actions unconsciously. While some consider it as intentional actions of the individuals, others regard it as actions that are activated unwillingly. The latter argue that these biases occur without the awareness of an individual.

The essay aims to present argument in favor of the view that implicit biases are not intentional actions rather, these are like sneezes that is out of an individual’s control. The essay will first provide an explanation of implicit biases. Then, it will discuss Smith’s concepts of Conscious Self View and Complex Self View. Following this are the arguments in favor of the Complex Self View explaining the implicit biases. The essay will then provide objections to the Complex Self View and defense against the objection.

As explained in the above section, implicit biases are those that are not in control of an individual. These biases reside deep in an individual’s subconscious and are distinct from the known biases that are in the conscious mind of the individuals. However, many believe that implicit biases are intentional actions. As Jules Holroyd states, “individuals can and should have observational awareness of discriminatory actions” that happen due to their implicit biases (Holroyd). The author argues that there are no evidences in the philosophical discussions that could prove that individuals are not aware of the implicit biases. In a study conducted by the author, it was found that most participants were able to detect their action’s morally relevant features. Neil Levy on the other hand, puts forward the view that implicit biases are outside one’s conscious awareness and “do not necessarily align with explicit beliefs and stated intentions” (Levy). The author further argues that even when individuals try to treat everyone equally, they unknowingly do actions that are a reflection of their implicit biases.

The Conscious Self View or self-consciousness is the awareness of oneself. The two terms – awareness and consciousness – are often considered synonymous terms. While explaining the moral responsibility of individuals, Smith talks about the Conscious Self View that ground an individual’s responsibility to actions. According to Smith, individuals must be held responsible for the actions they do in complete self-consciousness. The reason is that the Conscious Self View makes an individual aware about the notions and ideas he or she holds about others.  

The main strengths of this view are that it increases self-awareness and enhances mental clarity. Enhancements of these two are sufficient to make an individual have a clear idea about her or him. However, these strengths are not enough to understand others’ perspectives. This fact leads to the weakness that the view has. The view has the biggest weakness of not being able to explain the actions of individuals against a particular race or cast.

As Michael Brownstein note, people are not even aware sometimes, of the implicit biases. They give examples of American physicians in some hospitals that treat African-Americans and Latino people differently than those white Americans (Brownstein). The discrimination however, does not always happen out of conscious Self View. Hence, the conscious Self View cannot clearly explain the implicit biases.  In contrast to this view however, Cheryl Staats et al. hold that implicit biases could be explained from this view because the implicit biases are in the subconscious mind and not in the unconscious mind and thus it can be activated by the individuals.

The Conscious Self View

The Complex Self View, on the other hand, proves to be appropriate in Smith’s views, to explain the implicit biases (Smith). The view refers to the complexity of ideas one has about her or himself. Smith argues that the Complex Self-Value best explains implicit biases and provides three reasons to justify it as well. The first reason, as per Smith is that individuals often hold people accountable for actions of which they were not aware. Second reason is that the Complex Self View makes people discover things about themselves when they learn about their unconscious bias. Lastly, the ones who are the target of implicit biases mostly respond with anger and annoyance.

Elizabeth N. Chapman, Anna Kaatz and Molly Carnes view that self-complexity differs for different individuals; individuals might have “independent ways of thinking about themselves”. An example could be given of a woman who has different self-concepts like a student, a girlfriend, a daughter, a player and so on (Chapman, Kaatz, and Carnes). With such complexity in self-concepts, people are bound to think differently about others without even realizing that it might be resentful.

The view however has some limitations. One of the most visible limitations is that is makes it makes individuals develop inferiority complex or superiority complex. Françoise Baylis explains that when people are low in self-complexity, they tend to feel negative about themselves when one aspect of their self-concept suffers (Baylis). The result of this is that people tend to develop implicit biases.  Daniel C Dennett, however, refutes this view stating that those with higher self-complexity also respond more negatively to negative situations. Overall, the view has more strengths than it has limitations (Dennett). It makes the people aware of their various selves and not just one. In this way, they could develop explicit biases that are positive.

Looking at the three reasons provided by Smith, it is clear that the Complex Self View is apt for defining and explaining the implicit biases. The complex self draws an unintentional biased picture of the other and people judge that self without even knowing what prompted her or him to do that.  Further, the complex self, as discussed earlier, discovers more than one view about the self, which makes the self learn about the unconscious biases.

However, many reject this argument stating that the Complex Self view has no credibility in explaining the implicit biases. At first, the opponents argue that those who face implicit bias do not always respond with anger or fury, that they sometimes tend to ignore it completely. Further, they claim that discovering oneself does not require one to have a complex self-thought; it could be done by having a conscious view as well. In the views of Yvonne ten Hoeve, Gerard Jansen and Petrie Roodbol, self-complexity often leads to vagueness and hence, instead of helping define the implicit biases, it complicates the concept even further (Hoeve, Jansen and Roodbol).

Joseph R. Cohen et al. however refute the argument stating that the view of a complex self assists in explaining the implicit biases. According to the authors, both implicit and explicit biases are related although their mental constructs differ (Cohen et al). The Complex Self view helps in discerning that difference and explains implicit bias clearly.

Implicit biases are all encompassing in the sense that each individual possesses these, even people with affirmed commitments to impartiality. In addition, implicit biases do not essentially align with the acknowledged beliefs of the people and hence these are best explained by the Complex Self view.

Conclusion

In the end, it can be stated that the implicit biases are not intentional actions as many believe but these are like sneezes, mostly out of an individual’s control. The essay has put forward arguments in favor of the Complex Self view as the most effective in explaining implicit biases. it has explained both the views of Conscious and Complex Self and highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of both. It was found that the Complex Self view was more effective in defining implicit biases as Smith had argued.

References:

Baylis, Françoise. ““I am who I am”: On the perceived threats to personal identity from deep brain stimulation.” Neuroethics6.3 (2013): 513-526.

Brownstein, Michael. “Attributionism and moral responsibility for implicit bias.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology 7.4 (2016): 765-786.

Chapman, Elizabeth N., Anna Kaatz, and Molly Carnes. “Physicians and implicit bias: how doctors may unwittingly perpetuate health care disparities.” Journal of general internal medicine 28.11 (2013): 1504-1510.

Cohen, Joseph R., et al. “Self-structures, negative events, and adolescent depression: Clarifying the role of self-complexity in a prospective, multiwave study.” The Journal of early adolescence 34.6 (2014): 736-759.

Dennett, Daniel C. “The self as the center of narrative gravity.” Self and consciousness. Psychology Press, 2014. 111-123.

Hoeve, Yvonne ten, Gerard Jansen, and Petrie Roodbol. “The nursing profession: public image, self?concept and professional identity. A discussion paper.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 70.2 (2014): 295-309.

Holroyd, Jules. “Implicit bias, awareness and imperfect cognitions.” Consciousness and cognition 33 (2015): 511-523.

Levy, Neil. “Consciousness, implicit attitudes and moral responsibility.” Noûs 48.1 (2014): 21-40.

Smith, Angela M. “Attitudes, tracing, and control.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 32.2 (2015): 115-132.

Staats, Cheryl, et al. State of the science: Implicit bias review 2015. Vol. 3. Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, The Ohio State University, 2015.