I don’t know if such a term as “positive prejudice” is even recognized by English speakers. As far as I know, I made it up myself. So, if it does exist already, I may be defining it significantly differently. Don’t bother with the term itself or what its supposed to mean, I am trying to argue an observation here as I perceive it.
Positive prejudice is not the same as reverse prejudice. Reverse prejudice is the implementation of policies that force the “evening-out” of the demographic statistics – such as forcing employers to hire minorities and such. It’s a social and legal construct by which prior prejudices are compensated for by giving undeserved privileges to the individual. It is quite literally prejudices legally enforced upon the majorities to give minorities opportunities that they, as individuals, dont necessarily deserve over the majority potential competitors. That is essentially the jest of Reverse Prejudice.
Most people think of prejudices in a very specific way. Most peoples ideas of what prejudice is involves the words undermining, subjugation, hatred, segregation, and etcetera. This is the negative side of prejudice. Typical prejudice is seen as thinking other groups of people are lesser to ones own.
Positive Prejudice, on the other hand, is another observation entirely. I have noticed that often times people will claim to “not be” prejudice. Their justification for it is that they are minorities who have observed that the majority has in fact given them every respect and opportunity that they deserve, and that they have no animosity toward the majority. It is great that they don’t think “lowly” of the majority. But… and here is where the positive prejudice comes into play… they still think highly of their own groups.
They are excessively proud – for no justifiable, objective or individualistic reason. They stick together to defend their group, no matter how just or unjust they may be in any given scenario. They think their group “deserves” opportunity… instead of each individual earning and working for his success.
This is a prejudice that, instead of undermining other groups, supports and elevates their own. Its a sort of supremacy… where other groups aren’t necessarily subjugated or hated or treated as “less than equal.” There is a social bond, an affiliation that defeats true equality in the overall community of people. Positive Prejudice is literally a prejudicial bias that favors and benefits ones own group without the stigma of being an obvious disadvantage or bias against anyone else.
You see this occuring all of the time. I could list some particulars, but then I may come off as someone with negative prejudices. Take, for example, the police force. Do they write one another traffic tickets? Take any group whatsoever, do they not favor those that are a part of that group already? Whether its a sports team, the math or debate club at your local high school, or the African American of Hispanic American communities.
We tend to favor kin, even if unjustifiably. This is prejudice. This is a bias that is rooted in a superficial and arbitrary quality. Regardless of the fact that no one can be cited for hatred, necessarily. Even something as innocent as pride – taking pride in your ethnicity though your ethnicity is intrinsically/objectively no more special than any other – is that not, at least, an irrational sense of uniquness and specialness, a source for bias found in self-elevation by association with a larger group?