Defense of Prejudice

867 Words4 Pages
In the essay, “In Defense of Prejudice”, by Jonathan Rauch, he defines the position opposite to his own as “purism”. He states that the public does not know enough about the term and it has yet to be properly identified. Rauch states that “purism” cannot be justified without the traces of prejudice to be completely removed from society, but that prejudice will never be removed from society due to continuous perceptions that people have. Throughout the essay Rauch defines purism, and it can be attained that the public does not know what pluralism is, what it means to be politically correct, and what society really is without constant prejudice. In this essay, those concepts will be explored with Rauch’s position on them, and what he believes. The definition of purism, in Rauch’s eyes, says that there is nothing wrong with it. He says, “Where there is genuine freedom of expression, there will be racist expression” (Rauch 392). He makes his point clear in this quote by saying that racism and freedom of expression will also be here, because without one, you don’t have the other. Rauch also states that though prejudice may be misguided belief, there is no need to choose sides and that is the beauty of intellectual pluralism. Rauch’s essay states that knowledge is what leads to pluralism and more knowledge is not necessarily a good thing. By saying, “We cannot know in advance or for sure which belief is prejudice and which is truth, but to advanced knowledge we don’t need to know”, (393), he supports his idea. But in order to gain intellect on anything, you have to have knowledge. At the end of the day, we survive on basic knowledge. Though there are many implications of what pluralism is, the public highly misunderstands what it really means. In fact, there is not nearly enough knowledge to define what pluralism is rather than outrageous racial slurs. The “new
Open Document