FREE INQUIRY In Creative Sociology Volume 9, No 2 November 1981 149 NORMALIZATION OF THE BIGOT: THE CASE OF ARCHIE BUNKER Marilyn Ray Raney, University of Alabama, Birmingham

EXPLAINING PREJUDICE for him, and through his own selective In our society, prejudiced attitudes are perception, his beliefs were validated. widespread. In certain regions and subcul­ He saw only what he wanted to see, based tures in the United States, it has become on his internalized conceptions. This theory institutional, informally through verbal is at least partly supported. cliches, and formally in organizations such as Another theory on a societal level involves the Ku Klux Klan. Some people, however, the use of prejudice to maintain dominance regard prejudice as bad, wrong, and deviant, and power of one group over another. and as unjust to its victims. Psychologists Because we live in a fairly competitive have offered explanations for prejudice such society, with competition for jobs and social as: 1) Scapegoat theory, which takes the and economic resources, prejudice toward a frustration or inability to achieve as due to group may permit the dominant group to another, as the lIcausell of the problem; 2) maintain control. The use of stereotypes and Projection theory, which refers to the assign­ cliches helps to promote a derogatory image ing to others the characteristics of oneself of those groups, thereby making the domin­ ll that cannot be acknowledged, with condem­ ators seem IIbetter than their victims. nation of the others for. having such unac­ For Archie, this means that since he must ceptable characteristics; 3) Authoritarian­ compete with black people on the job, by personality theory, which held that a high ridiculing them he maintains a relatively score on an authoritarian-personality scale higher social rank where he works on the could measure prejudice (DeFleur et al1971 loading dock. In a historical sense, this 339). Such theories may be valid for indivi­ theory holds true with racial slurs about duals, but they do not appear adequate to black people in the South, but it fails to explain bigotry on abroad scale. Because explain why all white males do not hold bigotry is so pervasive, it seems to be a these attitudes toward all black males. normal attitude. Here we will examine the normalization of the bigot (Wilson & Collins PHENOMENOLOGICAL THEORY 1979). According to phenomenological theory, individuals create their prejudices through SOCIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS their individual perceptions of the world Most sociological theor.ies about prejudice (Wrightsman 1977 336). In order.for Archie include some mention of socialization pro­ to cope with the complex world, he creates cesses. An individual learns either the norms prejudicial attitudes that enable him to to be prejudiced or the norms to avoid reject whole groups of people"and thereby prejudice thro,ugh the process of differen­ make life simpler for himself. His responses tial association. This concept assumes that become simplified, and do not require the individual has internalized those preju­ reinterpretation for individuals. This theory dices which thus become part of the person­ is consistent for Archie, Who is poorly ality structure (Frazier 1976 12). This has educated, and who appears to have trouble been used mainly to describe criminal coping with social change. He constructs his deviance, but can well be applied to bigotry. own reality, which is less difficult to deal In the case of Archie Bunker, in the tele­ with because he has reduced the number of vision series, All in the Family, one might stimuli to which he must respond. This speculate that during Archie's childhood, theory is more broadly applicable than those those who were significant-others to him cited above. It is also a deterministic explan­ held highly prejudicial attitudes. At least ation because it relies on the Iife-h istory during the first few years of the television model. Archie's beliefs and attitudes develop series, Archie seemed to maintain these from the social categories to which he beliefs in spite, of overwhelming evidence belongs. This enables him either to have against them. He did, this because it worked or to avoid certain experiences which give FREE INQUIRY In Creative Sociology. Volume 9, No 2 November 1981 150 him the framework for his beliefs. Archie's that prior attitudes will predict attitudes framework is simple: good-bad; black­ about the program, and a selective-exposure white. It eases tension for him and allows hypothesis that viewers select programs that him to be confident of where he stands in reinforce th'ir attitudes. relation to others. Archie may be seen as similar to the pre­ The use of stereotypes in language serves judiced view,r, and may be liked by him. to objectify and reify Archie'sworlP.• I~'~~~ . \\~ isa considerable body of evidence in keeping the number of categor~~'li ~,;a person is influenced by a persuasive and in typing people to fit those.cat~i~~ ""~tothe extent that he perceives it as (Berger & Luckman 1967 30). This ""fiijnd $lIrlin found that the type of individual that regular viewers are more Iikely.tOFbe ..agrted with Archie was highly dOgrnatk1, highly prejudiced, identify with Archie, of low educational level, low-status.~ 8rldcondone his racial and ethnicslurs;Thi's ti~n,.low income,· and middle-ag!I(t~r~\j supPorted a selective-perceptionhYf,'lC)the$is ~se who are closed-mindedatsofotlMBit FREE INQUIRY In Creative Sociology Volume 9, No 2 November 1981 151 harder to see humor in the character than could I say "No"] open-minded individuals (Surlin & Tate Archie: This way, Edith, "Nol" But 1976). The closed-minded did not see the maybe that's too much for you. It's got a fallacies in Archie's logic. Archie is better whole syllableI liked by high authoritarians than by low Further, Archie affirms his belief that he authoritarians (Chapko & Lewis 1975). is a "decent" person, but usually for the Bigotry is made real through Archie. "In wrong reasons. He moralizes. on topics other a sense, All in the Family is a projective than those directly related to himself. For test: one sees and doesn't see in Archie, in instance, he does not attack men who spend other members of the cast, and in the their time at the local. bar·-as he, himself, dynamics, what one chooses to attend and frequently does--as being immoral in any not to attend. Those who identify with way. But behavior in which he does not Archie see themselves, their hopes, their engage is immoral. This neutralizes the fears, their plight, and their ambivalence verbal attack. In this example he appeals to a mirrored in him. For them, the dramatiza­ higher loyalty, the almightly dollar: tions express, not affront, their feelings." Archie: Look, I know you'se kids go by (Stein 1974301) what you call this new morality~skirtsup In that sense, Archie exists only as we to hete, hot pants up to even further, see­ interpret him to exist. We choose to label through blouses, movies .with people in him a bigot or not, just as he labels a Polack bed, sometimes three, four o'them. or a Commie Pinko. Such reliance on typo­ Mike: But Archie, peoples' bodies-the logy on both sides further normalizes bigotry. fact that they go to bed-they make love-it's We cannot even label someone a bigot part of Iifel without relying on the same techniques used Archie: So is throwing upl But I ain't by them to label others. This pervasive use paying three bucks to see it. of category labels to type people places the Archie's attacks are all the more accept· bigot well within the range of normal able to us because the humor softens the behavior. The only differen!::8is in the quality attack. It excuses the behavior. Archie's of the labels. And the fact thatthe bigot was convoluted logic is what makes it funny, and presented weekly. over a period of years on the fact that it is funny makes it less bad. the national media makes it seem more Archie: I never said that a man that wears normal. If we do not experience bigotry glasses is a queer. A man that wears glasses is often in our own lives, we are exposed to it a four-eyes. A man that is a fag is queerl week after week in our homes via television. The "reason" behind Archie's verbal This tends to make it commonplace and attacks is mainly resources of power. Archie normal. is a relatively powerless person. He had a poor education. He worked at a low-prestige THE PUT-DOWN PROCESS job. He made low wages, and his social class When we look aUhe interactions between was low. He has very little control over the Archie and other membets of his family, we direction of his life. His only source of can see why he does not view himself as power is through bigotry. By placing people deviant. An excellent example is when he on levels he considers lower than himself, he gives his wife Edith directions and tells her maintains a certain amount of self-respect. how unimportant her opinions are. By doing He has to remind himself constantly that he this he objectifies her into the status of a is in fact better than everyone else. It is his non-person, which neutralizes his attacks own constructed reality, and he must toward her. She usually agrees with him to maintain and reinforce that reality. Bigots his face, though usually she appears to are both justified •and normalized in this disagree with him when confronted by manner. They are normalized to themselves another member of the family. By doing this through maintaining their reality, and to she reaffirms his belief in being right. others through the perva$iveness of the Archie's power is Edith's lack of power. techniques they use to maintain their reality. Edith: He's your cousin, Archiel How FREE Ir·JQUIRY In Creative Sociology Volume 9, No 2 November 1981 152

PARTIAL ACCOMMODATION Miller, R. 1966. Speech Communication: In the more recent episodes, Archie gains A Behavioral Approach. New York, Babbs· some control over his own life. He has$Ocial Merrill. position as co-owner of a bar,.$nd this Powell. Fredric. 1962. "Open- & Closed­ position allows him some freedom of choice. Mindedness & Ability to Differentiate It is not surprising then, to find thatArchie Source & Message." Journal Abnormal is softening on some issues. With a/little Psychology 65 61-64. power, he is able to accept a Jewas~~~­ $Win.H.F.. 1974. "All in the Family as a ness partner. He has now broad~~·ilti~ Mirror ofContemporary American Culture.'·' categories to good Jews and bad ~'~r~· Fi"!lrPfl)C8SS. 13 179-316 sept. his previous single category Ofb.t~~i)~~ .tStmi~; S. 1974. "Bigotry on Air and in Jews. And he has a personal identitytf1~ ti$W.:TheArchie Bunker Case.uPublic Tel. with the·category, Jew. Through thlsbl'i~ CiiltlmunlCatlon. Rev 2 34-41. gains a sense of security, becau~'.,~W );,s.rdinS., and D. Tate. 1976. "All in the knows how to interact with a Jew'~ffllji4 fJIrnily:ls Archie Funny?" Journal of still perceives himself as having. ~;~ CtJrrJmunication. 1661-68. Fall. power, and as being better in~i~: "tate. E., and S. Surlin. 1976. "Agreement than the Jew. This view shows howt."I1t,r.. With ,ii. Opinionated Television Characters: actions are dominated by a controliof'~\N.r. er-'Cultural Comparison.1I Journa/·Quar­ In our society, prejudice in the form of terly.53199..203. bigotry is a normal reaction tOad~f~~J~ Vidmar, N., and M. Rokeach. 1974. power. It is a means of expressing superiOrity; "Afcbie Bunker's Bigotry: A Study in selee­ and is quite pervasive. tivecperception and Exposure." Joumal of Communication. 24 36-47. Winter. REFERENCES Wilhoit, G.C., and J. deBrock. 1976. "All Berger, P., and T. Luckman.19f}1,'~l~1. ih th, Family in Holland." Joumal of Construction of Reality. New YorlqO..It..-' ~nit:lJtion.26 75-84. Fall. day. >'Wilson, .M., and G. Collins. 1979. Normal­ Brigham, J., and Linda Giesbrecht.t~~~.. Wlonof R•. Paper, Mid-South cSocio­ "All in the Family: Racial Attitudes""~" logical iAsSociation Meeting, Memphis, Ten- nalCommunlcatlon. 2669-14. Fall:. nessee. . Chapko, M., and H. Lewis.1$~~."~i~~; ~~i9ht$man, LS. 1977.Social Psychology. thoritarianism in 'All in the~,,"if~~'" 2l'1ded. Monterey, California, Brooks Cole. Journal Psychology. 90 245-248.Uuly. DeFleur, M., and w.~'Antonj()'ancI;~I. DeFleur. 1971. Sociology: Man inSOClt1tY-. (Rossman, from p 148) Glenview, Illinois, Scott Foresman. Frazier, C.E. 1976. Theo1iJtit:lJf'A.jJ.. Wright, E. 1975. "Alternate P&rspectives proaehes to Deviance: An Evalua(;fJn~ Inft.landst Theory of Accumulation."Insur­ Columbus, Ohio, Merrill. gentSociologist 4, 5-39. Hano, A. 1972: "Why We Laugh at~hat 1977 "Marx'st Clas. Bigot, Archie." Detroit, FreePrtNJ$,Marc;h. Oat 'es and Income Inequatity:'Amerl. 19. can ci%glcal Review 42, 32-55. Hobson, L.Z. 1971. "As I List4ne