The Origins of Cultural Ethnocentrism, Racial and Ethnic Stereotypes - Coursework Example

 Introduction Considering cultural distinctions in thinking, opinions, and behaviour, it is easy to be open to cognitive and emotional reactions to the material, to start to generalize, to create negative stereotypes concerning other people, and even to give judgment to these distinctions and people in advance. Such processes and reactions are widely spread in the contemporary world, and for their description are often used notions of “racism”, “stereotype”, “prejudice”, “discrimination”. Unfortunately, these terms are frequently used, without precise understanding of their meaning that only aggravates the issues they should clarify. Some of today's most essential social issues are connected with these processes, as borders between the countries and cultures become more and more clear as a result of development of means of communication, technology and business. Nowadays it is impossible to take the newspaper or magazine or to watch the news on TV and not to run against the information concerning the issues of ethnocentrism, racial or national stereotypes, discrimination, etc. These issues spread from the international commercial activity up to the violence and wars caused by racial and ethnic distinctions. The given questions are going to become even more topical in the future when technological progress will unite various cultures of the world more and more tight. Substantial discussion of these notions is impossible without their preliminary careful definition. Most of differences in opinions arise actually not because of disagreements in the understanding of value or importance of these terms in our daily life, but because of distinctions in definitions. The concepts of Race and Ethnicity It should be stated that racial categories are variable and depend on the meanings inserted by contemporaries. According to some scholars, it is wrong to consider the concept of race politically neutral. It always contain, even if just implicitly, the idea of conflict of interests. Omi and Winant (1994, p. 55) state “race is a concept, which signifies and symbolizes social conflicts and interests, by referring to different types of human bodies”. Some sociologists state that the notion of race has always been filled with some socio-cultural meaning, demonstrating an attitude towards ‘aliens’, expressed through the emphasizing of their most observable physical differences. In other words, sociologists consider that physical marks reflect not the objective reality, but subjective attitude. According to Robert Park (1964, pp. 237-239, 315), a racial mark has become the symbol of the suspense, in the ground of which has laid the sense of self-vulnerability. He writes that a sociologist is interested not in physical distinctions, differentiating one race from another, but in less evident lineaments of inner apprehensions. And physical distinctions are just the symbols of these inner apprehensions. Park claims that historical process in the issue is predetermined by the ideological factors, not by the biological ones. The more important is to realize what people believe in and look for, than to know who they are. In other words modern sociologists, considering race as an artificial construct and one of means of creation and description the identity, emphasize that race remains to be rather important notion, which determines and legalizes social and political actions of people. At the same time they are sure that race is a product of racism, and not contrariwise. From this point of view groups, which are called racial, turn out to be racialised. It means that social, political, or economical state of these groups is described with the help of racial categories. A lot of scholars for decades have oppugned against scientific racism, which has tried to ground the idea of racial inequality. They have proved that human capabilities do not depend on the colour of the skin or type of eyes. One of the most outstanding representatives of this stream is Ashley Montague (1952), who from 1940s has insisted that race is just a scientific phantom. However a lot of scholars as before have considered race and ethnos as some biological reality, underestimating the paramount role of social factor. Nonetheless some of these scholars have understood that race is rather social construct then the biological reality, and that the concept of race implicates relationship of dominance and submission. The development of genetic studies has approved that several different genes determine so-called ‘racial marks’. This fact has originated the basis for the true scientific approach and has given a possibility to claim that there are no races, only clines (Livingstone, 1962). During last decades this approach has been widely accepted by majority of scholars. During 1960 – 1980 it has been noticed some decline and loss of interest in studying the concept of race. In the mean time we have to confess that unfortunately even in the twenty first century mankind failed to get rid of racism. Just the other way round during last decades of the twentieth century it has got the new, even more ‘fastidious’ forms. As a result it has become very difficult for scholars to define the notion of ‘racism’. And what even worst is that modern racists make use of such uncertainty and declare themselves as intransigent fighters against racism. It should be said that contemporary criminal justice turned out to be just not ready to such metamorphoses of racism. Modern antiracists very often fall short of knowledge about its essence and history, and accordingly they do not take into consideration significant peculiarities, which can be very helpful in struggling against it. In fact antiracism time and again is based on the same prejudices as racism, being just its mirror reverberation (Gilroy, 1990; Solomos & Back 1996, p. 115, 118-119; Wieviorka, 1997). Antiracists, like racists, often consider the race as some objective biological category, and sometimes even attribute biological qualities to ethnical groups. At the end of nineteenth century – the beginning of the twentieth century many scholars followed the idea of psychological differences between particular ethnical groups. Mostly it has respected to wild men. Some scholars have considered that brain of these people has had some other psychological structure, than brain of representatives from “civilized world” has had. Based on the concepts of ‘collective identity’ and ‘primitive mentality” this approach has facilitated the derivation of the notion of ‘national character’. One of the followers of this concept is English psychologist, William MacDugle, who has drawn a conclusion that there are some intellectual differences between people of various races. On working out the notion of ‘psychological’, or ‘cultural distance’, he has warned that in case this distance is too considerable, the relationship between contacting groups necessarily get catastrophic character. In other words groups, which psychologically differentiate, have no chance to agree with each other. Nowadays such an approach is definitely considered as racist (Thompson, 1999). Denying of biological basis of race by modern geneticists facilitates an interest to its populist definitions. Nowadays have arisen new approaches, supposing an opportunity to define race in terms of culture, and being completely released from its biological basis. In this case in the notion of ‘race’ are reflected the special historically developed forms of cultural adhesion and solidarity. Supporters of this point of view suppose that in the contemporary world race is nether more nor less than the form of expression of ethnicity (Goldberg 1992, p. 551, 553). Other researchers categorically object, specifying, that racial categories either absorb, or ignore ethnicity (Bashi, 1998). Besides some authors insist, the concept of race includes both social, and cultural components. That is why to reduce it only to one of these aspects, ignoring another, would be wrong. So the concept of race, unlike the concept of ethnicity, always assumes attitudes of domination-submission, direct or indirect discrimination. For this reason many experts believe that racial experience cardinally differs from ethnic. In 1996 ‘Theories of Ethnicity: a Classical reader’ was published. It has collected all studies published during the twentieth century, which has obtained world recognition. Instead of the foreword it has had an article of Werner Sollors published in 1981 in The American Quarterly magazine. In the article the author has chosen six central, to his opinion, issues of American ethnicity, around which the studies of modern scholars are concentrated. One of theses issues is ‘Race and Ethnicity’. For the USA, occupied by representatives of various races, the question of interrelation between the concepts of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ is extremely topical. Sollors in detail considers opinions of various researchers, and makes a conclusion about discrepancy of the content of the concept of ‘ethnicity’ and the concept of ‘race’ (Sollors, 1996, p. XXIX). He gives a number of examples of opinions of researchers regarding this issue. So, Nathan Glazer considers ‘ethnicity’ and ‘race’ to be homogeneous concepts, but different in their applicability. The author notices, that terms ‘ethnicity’ and ‘race’ are included into the family of concepts defining social identity, where alongside with racial and ethnic notions exist religious (as in Holland) and language (as Belgium) groups, which can be united under the name of ethnic groups, as their representatives have common real or mythical ancestors, share one history and experience (Sollors, 1996, p. XXX). For Gordon the meaning of the term ‘ethnic group’ is much more wider, than the term ‘racial group’, which also can be subsumed to an ethnic group. He associates physical attributes of the representatives of a group with race, and cultural attributes - with ethnicity. But such authors as Michael Omi, Howard Winant, etc. hold the opposite opinion. They believe, that racial groups are also culturally and socially determined, as if to follow Gordon’s positions, all black population should be referred to one ethnic group as all the population belongs to one race (Sollors, 1996, p. XXXI-XXXIV). Besides races can be ethnically determined (for example, Afro-Americans and Jamaicans in the USA), as well as ethnic groups can be differentiated by race (Spanish speaking Americans). According to the neat statement of Stewart Hall, the categories of "race" and "ethnicity” play in hide-in-sick with each other, but they play hide-and-sick also with researchers, who have not arrive to a common opinion. At the same time, many scholars support the idea that the difference between race and ethnicity does not lay in differences between physical attributes as describing race and cultural, inherent to ethnicity. Authors of the monograph ‘Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a Changing World’ Hartman and Cornell have devoted their work to the problem of correspondence of the subject-matter of concept of ‘ethnicity’ and the concept of ‘race’ in modern conditions. They have conducted the deep analysis of all opinions stated by all predecessors, having noticed the occurrence of new streams. Authors have drawn a conclusion that now these concepts underlie the life of society. By means of these concepts it is possible to explain such phenomena as genocide, discrimination, prejudice, opposition of various forces, the requirements put forward by various forces. At the same time, these categories are invented, however, as well as all the others. The only important is the meaning, which people put in them, and the way they use them in their actions. In the twenty first century the special value gets not the theoritisation of these notions, but real effect of matters of ethnicity and race, as representatives of ethnic and racial groups understand them. Racism Nowadays it is rather difficult to define the notion of racism. In fact this concept has an extraordinary ability to mimicry, changing itself in accordance with the circumstances. Besides attitudes to race in the different countries are different, moreover different people of the same country may take it differently. Therefore the definition of racism has become rather complicated issue for the researches. Some researchers associate racism with real behaviour, both social, and political, which comes from the racial doctrine. The social behaviour is expressed in reaction to "another" on the part of employers, journalists, men on the street, etc., and political is marked by the legislation and other discrimination actions of authorities (Vasta 1993, p.93). For example, according to the definition of American sociologist Winant, we can call racist the actions, which create and reproduce the social structure based on the absolutisation of racial categories, and cultivate racial inequality, or consider racial identity and marks to be natural and primordial (Winant 1998, p. 760-761). French researcher Balibar pays attention to "social structure of discrimination ", without which racism would lose its ground. Moreover, he states that in contemporary world such structure is pretty often set by the policy of the state (Balibar, 1991). Wodak and Reisigl (1999, p. 178-179) suggest regarding racism as: 1. Everyday racism, represented in behaviour of common people; 2. Racism as a political program; 3. Racism in legal norms (in particular, definition of citizenship by birth); Racism as a state policy (apartheid, etc.) Stereotypes Jack Nachbar and Kevin Lause (1992), authors of work ‘Popular Culture: An Introductory Text', state that stereotypes are the constituent of mass culture. They can be formed on the basis of age (young people listen to rock-and-roll), gender (all men want the only thing from women), race (Japanese look the same), religion (Islam is a religion of terrorists), profession (all lawyers are cheats) and nationality (all Jews are greedy). There are also geographic stereotypes (for example, living in small towns is much more safe then in megalopolises), goods stereotypes (for example, all German cars are of high quality) and so on. Stereotypes may be neutral, but on transferring from some concrete person to some group of people (social, ethnical, religious, racial, etc.) they often get negative meaning. Stereotypes lay in the ground of racism. The term ‘stereotype’ was for the first time used in the book ‘Public Opinion’ written by the classic of American journalism, Walter Lippmann (1922). Using this term he was trying to describe the method, by means of which community tries to categorize people. As a rule, public opinion just put stamps basing upon some characteristics. Lippmann marked out four aspects inherent all stereotypes. First of all, stereotypes are always much simpler then reality. They manage to paste the most multiple characteristics in two-three sentences. Secondly, people get stereotypes (from friends, relatives, co-workers, mass media, etc.) rather then formulate them grounding on their own experience. As an example we may take the image of a perfect woman. She must be blond, tall, skinny, with blue eyes, and long legs. But it is not a secret that a lot of men on becoming older and getting own experience realize that they like women with dark hair or plump women. The third aspect is that all stereotypes are more or less false. They usually arrogate some specific characteristics to a concrete person, just because of his/her belonging to a certain group. The fourth aspect is that stereotypes are extremely tenacious of life. The point is that in case people realize that some stereotype is at odds with true reality, they are ready to insist that the exception proves the rule, rather then to refuse from this stereotype. For example, meeting a tall Chinese just assure the victim of stereotype in the fact that all the other Chinese are petite. Stereotypes are happening to mutate or to transfer from one group of people to another. Saera R. Khan, the professor of University of San Francisco, has published the article in Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, in which she claims that it is rather dangerous to have trust in stereotypes. The reason is that a stereotype has cognitive and motivational functions. From the cognitive point of view any stereotype is a double-edge weapon because it presents information in simple and easy form. However such information is hugely far from true reality and is able to disorientate a person. From the point of view of motivation stereotypes are even more dangerous. A person, who makes own decisions, built upon mass public opinion, rather then upon facts, skates on thin ice. Fred E. Jandt (2003), the author of book ‘An Introduction to Intercultural Communication: Identities in a Global Community’, notes, that generally stereotypes are used with evil intent. They often are the weapon of racism, propaganda and xenophobia. For instance, there was an anti-Semitic propaganda based on stereotypes in Germany in 1920-1930. As a result German people treated holocaust of 6 million Jews rather indifferently or even approvingly. For a long period of time in US in mass-media prevailed negative stereotypes with respect to black people (there are also a variety examples in literature, cinema etc.), that is why the struggle of African-Americans for their civil rights has been mostly followed by the struggle against habitual stereotypes. Prejudice In the scientific literature there are some ways of classification of prejudice. Traditionally classification is made on the basis of objects, with respect to which prejudice shown: racial, ethnic, gender, age. It is necessary to note, that the majority of researches of prejudice is focused on definite areas: race, religion, sexual orientation, and categories of groups are limited. However such approach, to opinion of Crandall, Eshleman, O`Brien (2002, p. 359—378), is rather limited as it provides studying of only one kind of prejudice, instead of studying it as general psychological phenomenon. In any society there are the social groups taking a lower position in society. With respect to members of such stigmatised groups exist negative attitudes, stereotypes, judgments and discrimination in scales of all society. Studying of mechanisms of prejudice and discrimination formation will allow developing the strategy, which will be able to work towards providing psychological health of a society. One of the most topical issues in the concept of prejudice is racism. Clark et. al (1999, p. 805—816) define racism and an ethnic prejudice as judgments, attitudes, institutional divisions and actions, which purpose is connected with humiliation of individuals or groups by phenotypic characteristics or an ethnic accessory. Discrimination Discrimination can be defined as any form of submission or a negative altitude to certain persons or groups, based on characteristics, which are not comprehensible and suitable grounds in conditions they take place in. Discrimination means any distinction, exception or preference, which denies or belittles equal realization of human rights. It should be mentioned that all international regulations concerning protection of human rights is based on the principle of denying of discrimination. In the international conventions of human rights it is provided that the country, which ratifies a convention is obliged to respect and provide all people, being in its territory and within the limits of its jurisdiction, human rights without any distinctions, such as race, colour of skin, sex, language, religion, political or other views, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Deprivation of separate persons, groups, or the whole communities of the equal social, political, or economic rights, and prosecution owing to ethnic origin, nationality, outlook, or other social factors refer to as discrimination. In the international relations the concept of discrimination also covers the attitude to a state (or group of the states) as defective in comparison with other states. The Statute of the United Nations Organization excludes racial, political, religious and other kinds of discrimination in international relations (item 55, 62 and 73). Moreover in 1948 the General declaration of human rights has forbidden all forms of racial and other discrimination. Discrimination can be represented as some action made against other people on the basis of their belonging to certain group. For example it may be the refusal to give to members of other group opportunities, which could be given to members of own group. Discrimination has two basic forms: discrimination de jure (or legal), fixed in laws, and de facto (or informal), set in social customs. Discrimination de facto takes place in situations when the dominating group takes priority of minority. In contradiction to de jure discrimination, which can be destroyed by the change of laws, it is not so easy to eradicate de facto discrimination. Discrimination of ethnic groups is the basic source of political conflicts and secession of the state. Conclusion Display of racism, prejudices, stereotypes, and discrimination has become apparent on a wide spectrum of the social and psychological phenomena, in the first instance in intergroup and interpersonal conflicts, stigmatisation, and aggressions against the certain groups. The question of self-identification of a person with some ethnical group takes special place in international relations, as this choice becomes for a person a ground for making decisions, comprehension of values, and acceptability of the certain style of behaviour, readiness to support the selected public or political movement. One of the first steps of improving of our understanding of intergroup relations may become more accurate studying and understanding of cultural and historical processes, and especially their influences on basic psychological processes. However perfection of our understanding of culture, history, and their influences is only one step. It is necessary to analyse critically own culture and behaviour in order to find out the reasons why stereotypes continue to exist. It is necessary to accept existence of significant individual variability inside of groups and cultures, and also vices of own cultural ethnocentrism and negative stereotypes. On accepting group and individual distinctions instead of to ignore them, we get an opportunity to communicate with people on the general platform, instead of judging in advance their actions, behaviour and reasons by means of the stereotypes based on ignorance and intolerance. There is no doubt, that studying of our cultural environment, upbringing and heritage, and also their influence on our behaviour has a huge value and benefit for all society. The recognition of the contribution of culture of different ethnic groups in actions, behaviour and its reasons, helps us to understand, to respect and to estimate these distinctions when we observe them in real life. References Balibar, E 1991, ‘Es gibt keinen Staat in Europa: Racism and Politics in Europe Today’ New Left Review. No. 186. Bashi, V 1998, ‘Racial Categories Matter because Racial Hierarchies Matter: A Commentary’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 21. №5. Clark, R, Anderson, NB, Clark, VR, & Williams, DR 1999, ‘Racism as a stressor for African Americans: A biopsychosocial model’, American psychologist, Vol. 54, p. 805—816. Cornell, S & Hartmann, D 1998, Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a Changing World, Thousand Oaks, CA/London, Pine Forge Press. Crandall, Eshleman & O`Brien 2002, ‘Social Norms and the Expression and Suppression of Prejudice: The Struggle for Internalization’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 82, p. 359—378. Gilroy, P 1990, ‘The End of Anti-racism’, Race and Local Politics, Basingstoke. Goldberg, DT 1992, ‘The Semantics of Race’, Ethnic and Racial Studies. Vol. 15. No. 4. p. 551, 553. Jandt, FE 2003, An Introduction to Intercultural Communication: Identities in a Global Community, London: Sage Publications, Inc. Khan, SR 2002, ‘Stereotyping from the perspective of perceivers and targets’, Center for Cross-Cultural Research, Unit 15, Chapter 3.2002. Lippmann, W 1922, Public Opinion, New York: Macmillan. Livingstone, FB 1962, ‘On the Non-Existence of Human Races’, Current Anthropology. Vol. 3. Montague, A 1952, Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race, N.Y. Nachbar, J & Lause, K 1992, Popular Culture: an Introductory Text. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press. Omi, M & Winant, H 1994, Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York. Park, RE 1964, Race and Culture, L. Sollors, W 1996, ‘Foreword: Theories of American Ethnicity’, Theories of Ethnicity: a Classical reader. N.Y. Solomos, J & Back, L 1996, Racism and Society, L. Vasta, E 1993, ‘Rights and Racism in a New Country of Immigration: The Italian Case’, Racism and Migration in Western Europe, Oxford. Wieviorka, M 1997, ‘Is It Difficult To Be an Anti-racist?, Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multi-cultural Identities and the Politics of Anti-racism. L. Winant, H, 1998, ‘Racism Today: Continuity and Change in the Post-Civil Rights Era’, Ethnic and Racial Studies. Vol. 21. No. 4. p. 760-761. Wodak, R & Reisigl, M 1999, ‘Discourse and Racism: European Perspectives’, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 28. p. 178-179. Read More