A Very Short Essay: Do Written Laws Fail to Rewrite Deep-Seated Biases?
"Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced." — James Baldwin
On the surface, it may seem that the introduction of a new law solves the problem it addresses. A group once marginalised is now "accepted"; the system appears corrected. But this perception is detached from reality. Society isn't shaped primarily by written rules; it's shaped by unwritten ones—internalised beliefs, collective biases, and inherited scripts about who belongs, who deserves respect, and who doesn't. These internal structures are passed down through culture—through humour, habits, language, silence, and subtle social cues. They shape how people think, how they interact, and how they subconsciously judge. The law may discourage visible hostility, but it cannot dismantle the invisible framework of inherited bias. You can't read people's minds, but you can observe behaviour, speech patterns, systemic disparities, and statistical imbalances—these give insight into the underlying architecture of prejudice that still governs social interaction.
A court ruling can shift institutional norms, but it cannot rewrite childhood conditioning or dissolve deep-rooted disgust. You can pass a law that aims to protect a particular group, but if society still holds implicit resentment, ridicule, or discomfort toward that group, the law changes little more than surface aesthetics. It's a structural edit, not a cognitive rewrite. That's the difference between legal progress and cultural evolution. While a law may be the first step toward recognising the existence of a problem, awareness is not the same as resolution. Generational change takes decades—if not centuries. True cultural shifts occur when collective internal models evolve; not just when governments declare it so. The page may turn, but the script remains—unless the unwritten rules are reauthored through time, pressure, and repeated confrontation with truth.