The Right to Feel Comfortable: Implicit Bias and the Moral Potential of Discomfort

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

The Right to Feel Comfortable : Implicit Bias and the Moral Potential of Discomfort. / Munch-Jurisic, Ditte Marie.

In: Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 23, 01.2020, p. 237–250.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Munch-Jurisic, DM 2020, 'The Right to Feel Comfortable: Implicit Bias and the Moral Potential of Discomfort', Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol. 23, pp. 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-020-10064-5

APA

Munch-Jurisic, D. M. (2020). The Right to Feel Comfortable: Implicit Bias and the Moral Potential of Discomfort. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 23, 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-020-10064-5

Vancouver

Munch-Jurisic DM. The Right to Feel Comfortable: Implicit Bias and the Moral Potential of Discomfort. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 2020 Jan;23:237–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-020-10064-5

Author

Munch-Jurisic, Ditte Marie. / The Right to Feel Comfortable : Implicit Bias and the Moral Potential of Discomfort. In: Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 2020 ; Vol. 23. pp. 237–250.

Bibtex

@article{65a7257e9bc844aba0bb646e65f75149,
title = "The Right to Feel Comfortable: Implicit Bias and the Moral Potential of Discomfort",
abstract = "An increasingly popular view in scholarly literature and public debate on implicit biases holds that there is progressive moral potential in the discomfort that liberals and egalitarians feel when they realize they harbor implicit biases. The strong voices among such discomfort advocates believe we have a moral and political duty to confront people with their biases even though we risk making them uncomfortable. Only a few voices have called attention to the aversive effects of discomfort. Such discomfort skeptics warn that, because people often react negatively to feeling blamed or called-out, the result of confrontational approaches is often counterproductive. To deepen this critique, I distinguish between awareness discomfort and interaction discomfort, developing a contextual approach that draws on recent research on negative affect and emotions to chart a more complete picture of the moral limits of discomfort. I argue that discomfort advocates risk overrating the moral potential of discomfort if they underestimate the extent to which context shapes the interpretation of affect and simple, raw feelings.",
author = "Munch-Jurisic, {Ditte Marie}",
year = "2020",
month = jan,
doi = "10.1007/s10677-020-10064-5",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "237–250",
journal = "Ethical Theory and Moral Practice",
issn = "1386-2820",
publisher = "Springer",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Right to Feel Comfortable

T2 - Implicit Bias and the Moral Potential of Discomfort

AU - Munch-Jurisic, Ditte Marie

PY - 2020/1

Y1 - 2020/1

N2 - An increasingly popular view in scholarly literature and public debate on implicit biases holds that there is progressive moral potential in the discomfort that liberals and egalitarians feel when they realize they harbor implicit biases. The strong voices among such discomfort advocates believe we have a moral and political duty to confront people with their biases even though we risk making them uncomfortable. Only a few voices have called attention to the aversive effects of discomfort. Such discomfort skeptics warn that, because people often react negatively to feeling blamed or called-out, the result of confrontational approaches is often counterproductive. To deepen this critique, I distinguish between awareness discomfort and interaction discomfort, developing a contextual approach that draws on recent research on negative affect and emotions to chart a more complete picture of the moral limits of discomfort. I argue that discomfort advocates risk overrating the moral potential of discomfort if they underestimate the extent to which context shapes the interpretation of affect and simple, raw feelings.

AB - An increasingly popular view in scholarly literature and public debate on implicit biases holds that there is progressive moral potential in the discomfort that liberals and egalitarians feel when they realize they harbor implicit biases. The strong voices among such discomfort advocates believe we have a moral and political duty to confront people with their biases even though we risk making them uncomfortable. Only a few voices have called attention to the aversive effects of discomfort. Such discomfort skeptics warn that, because people often react negatively to feeling blamed or called-out, the result of confrontational approaches is often counterproductive. To deepen this critique, I distinguish between awareness discomfort and interaction discomfort, developing a contextual approach that draws on recent research on negative affect and emotions to chart a more complete picture of the moral limits of discomfort. I argue that discomfort advocates risk overrating the moral potential of discomfort if they underestimate the extent to which context shapes the interpretation of affect and simple, raw feelings.

U2 - 10.1007/s10677-020-10064-5

DO - 10.1007/s10677-020-10064-5

M3 - Journal article

VL - 23

SP - 237

EP - 250

JO - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

JF - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

SN - 1386-2820

ER -

ID: 279128899