10 treatment toward a group which intends to create a disadvantage of some sort”
p.126. Hraba 1979 then attempts to define the disadvantage as the attempt to limit a group’s access to any social opportunity. These opportunities can occur
“with reflect of employment, adequate housing, and all sorts of public services, including publication
” p. 126. Zanden 1988
defines discrimination as “the arbitrary denial of privilege, prestige, and power to members of a minority group whose qualifications are
equal to those of members of the dominant group” p. 259. Two definitions of discrimination above imply that discrimination is an act in which a minority group
has unequal rights and is denied access to any social opportunity due to differences that this group has.
c. Types of Racial Discrimination
This section deals with the types of racial discrimination. The types of racial discrimination presented in this study are proposed by Zanden 1988,
Schaefer 1986 and Rose 1997. Zanden and Rose come up with institutional discrimination. In addition to institutional discrimination, Rose and Schaefer also
identify other types of discrimination, namely insult, denial, segregation, and antilocution
.
1 Institutional Discrimination
If a particular group is the object of discrimination, then this group is experiencing institutional discrimination. Schaefer 1986 defines institutional
discrimination as a type of discrimination which “is practiced not only by
11 individuals in one-to-
one encounters but also by institutions in daily operations” p. 230. He further explains that institutional discrimination refers to a denial of
equal rights and opportunities that a particular group receives as a result from “the
normal operations of a society.” Carmichael and Hamilton 1967 in Zanden 1988 attempt to define the opportunities by mentioning businesses, schools,
hospitals, governments, and other key institutions as some of the opportunities which “need not to be staffed by prejudiced people in order for discrimination to
occur” p. 259.
Institutional discrimination has practically been characterized as a daily habit. Rose 1997 clarifies the statement by referring to institutional
discrimination as an accepted part of everyday life p. 138. The statement implies that hatred is no longer the main reason for people to practice institutional
discrimination. They practice institutional discrimination since they know that it is something that is expected to be practiced in the society.
2 Insult and Denial
Both denial and insult involve avoidance of the discriminated people. These acts are also acceptable in everyday life. Rose 1997 mentions insult as
“one of a range of actions we call discriminatory” p. 138. Furthermore, he explains that insult is an unequal treatment given to a discriminated group and is
accepted to everyday life. He further clarifies the definition by providing an example of African American domestic servants working for middle- and upper-
class whites in the south area. The job of African American servants involve
12 “intimate contact with the family, such as cooks, maids, even wet-nurses for the
children”, however the servants have to face reality that the employers are reluctant to allow them to receive equal treatments, namely swimming in the same
pool and drinking from the same water fountain p.138. Regarding the fact that this kind of insult is accepted in everyday life, Rose adds that many discriminators
may not insult due to hatred that they have against the discriminated people. As a matter of fact, those discriminators only subscribe to that kind of behavior as it is
“acceptable according to the society and culture” p. 139.
Almost similar to insult, denial is defined as a discriminatory act which involves “establishing and maintaining some measure of physical and social
distance from minori ties” Rose, 1997: p. 146. The statement means that most
discrimination existing in this world involves the avoidance of physical and social contact with minority groups. Rose further says that the avoidance can involve
avoiding contact as much as possible and limiting the chances for minority groups to access any social opportunity that everyone can enjoy. This habit of avoidance
has been learnt since the early life. According to Rose 1997, children are taught by their parents and playmates about “with whom they should or should not
associate” p. 146. Thus, on their adulthood, they manifest themselves in any attitude
to “prevent” or “minimize” the contact with the minority groups p.146. Rose then adds the attitudes as “being low repute, unpleasant, or even
untouchable” p. 146.
Denial is frequently made in the form of boycott. Rose 1997 says that in the United States, discriminatory boycott is frequently practiced in public spaces,
13 namely schools, playgrounds, parks, and even beaches p. 146. The boycott
imposed frequently makes discriminated people decide to withdraw themselves from accessing or enjoying any facilitiy.
3 Segregation
Schaefer 1986 defines segregation as the “physical separation of two groups of people in terms of residence, workplace, and social functions” p. 232. This is
frequently imposed by majority groups to minority groups. He then attempts to clarify the definition by providing the example of housing system in the United
States. He notes that the housing system in the country forces “subordinate racial”
to live in the neighborhoods, which are usually “undesirable” ones. In addition,
many members of the subordinate racial groups voluntarily seek to live separately from the majority groups because they fear violence committed against them
p.232. Even though many white families show preference to live together in one
neighborhood with black families, the blacks worry that they will not be welcomed by the society. They are afraid of receiving violent treatment for living
together in one neighborhood with white families. In relation to the matter, Schaefer notes down that there are many blatant attempts directed against the
black families living in white n eighborhood, namely “suspicious fires, cross
burnings, and bombings” p. 232.
14
4 Antilocution
Rose 1997 refers antilocution as a the act shown of slurring the discriminated people by using Ethnophaulism. He then explains the action by
defining the word Ethnophaulism: Ethnophaulism is a technical word for a derogatory term used by the members
of one ethnic group to describe the member of another. Ethnophaulism are often at the core of prejudice, and when openly expressed, become a form of
discrimination called antilocution, a fancy word for name-calling. p. 139
From the explanation above, antilocution is then defined as a discriminatory act in which the members of an ethnical group verbally give slurs
against another ethnical group. Antilocution has damaged reputation of the recipient’s personality. Besides, antilocution is often used by certain people to
indicate “unfriendliness” p. 140. The worst impact of showing antilocution is the bad label which is always attached to the discriminated people. This is
supported by Richard Wright in Rose 1997 who states that antilocution has created a “stain that leaves indelible imprint on the recipient’s personality” p.
139. Antilocution has been characterized as a non-direct discriminatory act since this action is not addressed directly to the discriminated people. Rose supports this
statement by saying that people who become the object of antilocution are aware of the fact that they are “being said behind their backs”, however they can only
seethe at the action p. 140. This means that the object of antilocution will definitely be angry of the action but they are unable to express their anger as the
act is acceptable to their society. Antilocution
has been eventually shown in various expressions. Rose 1997 gives examples of some expressions which refer to antilocution by
15 mentioning “boy” as an antilocution to an adult black man and “miss” to a
married black woman. Other examples provided as antilocution are sayings that are frequently directed by white people to non-
white people, namely “You may be black, but your heart is white as mine” p. 139 and “You’re good as I am” p.
140.
3. Theory of Gender Discrimination
