Editing Discrimination (section)

==Theories and philosophy==

[[Social theories]] such as [[egalitarianism]] assert that [[social equality]] should prevail. In some societies, including most developed countries, each individual's civil rights include the right to be free from government sponsored social discrimination.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/mn/law/concivrig.html#30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19991023101723/http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/mn/law/concivrig.html#30 |url-status=dead |archive-date=October 23, 1999 |title=Civil rights |access-date= March 20, 2019 }}
</ref> Due to a belief in the capacity to perceive pain or suffering shared by all animals, [[Abolitionism (animal rights)|abolitionist]] or [[Veganism|vegan]] egalitarianism maintains that the interests of every individual (regardless of their species), warrant [[equal consideration of interests|equal consideration]] with the interests of humans, and that not doing so is [[speciesist]].<ref name="singerethics-sentience">{{cite book |title=Practical Ethics |last=Singer |first=Peter |author-link=Peter Singer |orig-year=1993 |year=1999 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=978-0-521-43971-8 |edition=Second |pages=[https://archive.org/details/practicalethics00sing_0/page/57 57–58] |chapter=Equality for Animals? |quote=If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. ... This is why the limit of sentience&nbsp;... is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others. ... Similarly those I would call 'speciesists' give greater weight to their own species when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of other species.|title-link=Practical Ethics }}</ref>

Philosophers have debated as to how inclusive the definition of discrimination should be. Some philosophers have argued that discrimination should only refer to wrongful or disadvantageous treatment in the context of a socially salient group (such as race, gender, sexuality etc.) within a given context. Under this view, failure to limit the concept of discrimination would lead to it being overinclusive; for example, since most murders occur because of some perceived difference between the perpetrator and the victim, many murders would constitute discrimination if the social salience requirement is not included. Thus this view argues that making the definition of discrimination overinclusive renders it meaningless. Conversely, other philosophers argue that discrimination should simply refer to wrongful disadvantageous treatment regardless of the social salience of the group, arguing that limiting the concept only to socially salient groups is arbitrary, as well as raising issues of determining which groups would count as socially salient. The issue of which groups should count has caused many political and social debates.<ref name="Altman 2020"/>

Based on realistic-conflict theory<ref>{{Cite book |title=Group conflict and co-operation |last=Sherif |first=M. |publisher=Routledge |year=1967 |location=London}}</ref> and social-identity theory,<ref>{{Cite book |title=The social psychology of intergroup relations |last1=Tajfel |first1=H. |last2=Turner |first2=J. C. |publisher=Brooks/Cole |year=1979 |editor-last=Austin |editor-first=W.G. |location=Monterey, CA |pages=33–47 |chapter=An integrative theory of intergroup conflict |editor-last2=Worchel |editor-first2=S.}}</ref> Rubin and Hewstone<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Rubin | first1 = M. | last2 = Hewstone | first2 = M.|display-authors=etal| year = 2004 | title = Social identity, system justification, and social dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et al., and Sidanius et al | journal = Political Psychology | volume = 25 | issue = 6| pages = 823–844 | doi=10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00400.x | hdl = 1959.13/27347 | hdl-access = free }}</ref> have highlighted a distinction among three types of discrimination:
# ''Realistic competition'' is driven by self-interest and is aimed at obtaining material resources (e.g., food, territory, customers) for the in-group (e.g., favoring an in-group in order to obtain more resources for its members, including the self).
# ''Social competition'' is driven by the need for self-esteem and is aimed at achieving a positive social status for the in-group relative to comparable out-groups (e.g., favoring an in-group in order to make it better than an out-group).
# ''Consensual discrimination'' is driven by the need for accuracy<ref>{{Cite web |title=Prejudice & Discrimination Theories #2 |url=https://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/society/prejudice-discrimination/prejudice-discrimination-theories-2/ |access-date=2023-01-17 |website=Keith E Rice's Integrated SocioPsychology Blog & Pages |language=en-GB}}</ref> and reflects stable and legitimate intergroup status hierarchies (e.g., favoring a high-status in-group because it is high status).

===Labeling theory===

[[File:Zajęcia Akademii Edukacji Antydyskryminacyjnej w Centrum Żydowskim w Oświęcimiu.jpg|thumb|An anti-discrimination education workshop at the [[Auschwitz Jewish Center in Oświęcim|Auschwitz Jewish Center]], Poland, 2019]]
Discrimination, in [[labeling theory]], takes form as mental categorization of minorities and the use of [[stereotype]]. This theory describes difference as deviance from the norm, which results in internal devaluation and [[social stigma]]<ref>{{Cite book| last=Slattery| first=M. | year=2002 | title=Key Ideas in Sociology | publisher=Nelson Thornes| isbn=978-0-7487-6565-2 | pages=134–137}}</ref> that may be seen as discrimination. It is started by describing a "natural" social order. It is distinguished between the fundamental principle of fascism and social democracy.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Skoll |first=Geoffrey R. |date=2010 |title=The Theory of Fear / Chapter 3 / States and Social Control |url=https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/9780230112636_3.pdf |journal=The Theory of Fear|doi=10.1057/9780230112636_3 }}</ref>{{Clarify|date=May 2013}} The [[Nazis]] in 1930s-era Germany and the pre-1990 [[Apartheid]] government of South Africa used racially discriminatory agendas for their political ends. This practice continues with some present day governments.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Adam|first1=Heribert|title=Anti-Semitism and Anti-Black Racism: Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa|journal=Telos|date=July 1, 1996|volume=1996|issue=108|pages=25–46|doi=10.3817/0696108025|s2cid=145360794}}</ref>

===Game theory===

Economist [[Yanis Varoufakis]] (2013) argues that "discrimination based on utterly arbitrary characteristics evolves quickly and systematically in the experimental laboratory", and that neither classical [[game theory]] nor [[neoclassical economics]] can explain this.<ref>{{cite book|chapter=Chapter 11: Evolving domination in the laboratory
|author=Yanis Varoufakis
|page=13
|year=2013
|title=Economic Indeterminacy: A personal encounter with the economists' peculiar nemesis
|series=Routledge Frontiers of Political Economy
|isbn=978-0-415-66849-1
|publisher=Routledge}}</ref>

In 2002, Varoufakis and Shaun Hargreaves-Heap ran an experiment where volunteers played a computer-mediated, multiround [[hawk-dove game]]. At the start of each session, each participant was assigned a color at random, either red or blue. At each round, each player learned the color assigned to his or her opponent, but nothing else about the opponent. Hargreaves-Heap and Varoufakis found that the players' behavior within a session frequently developed a discriminatory convention, giving a [[Nash equilibrium]] where players of one color (the "advantaged" color) [[pure strategy|consistently]] played the aggressive "hawk" strategy against players of the other, "disadvantaged" color, who played the acquiescent "dove" strategy against the advantaged color. Players of both colors used a [[mixed strategy]] when playing against players assigned the same color as their own. The experimenters then added a [[prisoners' dilemma|cooperation]] option to the game, and found that disadvantaged players usually cooperated with each other, while advantaged players usually did not. They state that while the equilibria reached in the original hawk-dove game are predicted by [[evolutionary game theory]], game theory does not explain the emergence of cooperation in the disadvantaged group. Citing earlier psychological work of [[Matthew Rabin]], they hypothesize that a norm of differing entitlements emerges across the two groups, and that this norm could define a "fairness" equilibrium within the disadvantaged group.<ref>{{citation|journal=[[The Economic Journal]]
|author1=Shaun Hargreaves-Heap
|author2=Yanis Varoufakis
|title=Some experimental evidence on the evolution of discrimination, co-operation and perceptions of fairness
|date=July 2002|volume=112
|issue=481
|pages=679–703|doi=10.1111/1468-0297.00735|s2cid=59133304
}}</ref>