Главная Случайная страница


Категории:

ДомЗдоровьеЗоологияИнформатикаИскусствоИскусствоКомпьютерыКулинарияМаркетингМатематикаМедицинаМенеджментОбразованиеПедагогикаПитомцыПрограммированиеПроизводствоПромышленностьПсихологияРазноеРелигияСоциологияСпортСтатистикаТранспортФизикаФилософияФинансыХимияХоббиЭкологияЭкономикаЭлектроника






IDENTITY, STEREOTYPES AND PREJUDICE

* Identity * A dialectical approach to understanding identity * Perspectives of identity (social, psychological, communication, critical) * Types of identity (gender, racial and ethnic, religious, class, national, regional, personal) * Identity and communication * Stereotypes * Problems in stereotyping * Prejudice * Expressions of Prejudice

 

Key words:

Antilocution, ascription, avowal, core symbols, cultural conventions, discrimination, distortions, ethnic, ethnicity, femininity, gender, gendered notions (of attractiveness), hostility, identity, label, masculinity, “melting pot”, preconceived notion (idea), prejudices, positivity, process of identity development, rigid preconceptions, self-identification, self-reliance, sharing, stereotyping, target group, untrue premises.

 

 

We are born without a specific identity. However, as we interact with other people, we begin to develop a variety of identities.

Identity is a bridge between culture and communication. It is important because we communicate our identity to others and we learn who we are through communication. It is through communication with our family, friends, and others that we come to understand ourselves and form our identity. Issues of identity are particularly important in intercultural interactions.

In this lecture, we are going to examine the relationship between communication and identity and the role of identity in intercultural communication. The identity issues are considered in the context of stereotyping and prejudices.

 

A DIALECTICAL APPROACH TO IDENTITY

 

How do we come to understand who we are? What are the characteristics of identity? There are three main contemporary perspectives on identity. The social psychological perspective views the self in a static fashion, in relation to the community to which a person belongs. The communication perspective is more dynamic and recognizes the role of interaction with others as a factor in developing the self. Finally, the critical perspective views identity even more dynamically – as the result of contexts quite distant from the individual.

Social Psychological Perspective

 

The social psychological perspective emphasizes that identity is created in part by the self and in part in relation to group membership. This perspective recognizes that the self is composed of multiple identities, and that these notions of identity are culture bound.

How do we come to understand who we are? One helpful perspective comes from the notion of self-concept. Identities are not created in one smooth process. They are created with some events providing good insights about who we are and interrupting long periods during which we may not think much about ourselves or our identities. The process of identity development involves an exploration of one's abilities, interests, options, and values, which often occur in relation to group membership.

We identify with many groups as we are growing up. Groups may be based on gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, religion, and nationality (Tajfel). By comparing ourselves and others to such groups, we come to understand who we are. Gender identification seems to occur early (between 1 and 3 years of age); racial and ethnic identification occurs later (between 7 and 9 years of age). Members of minority groups seem to develop a sense of identity earlier than majority group members.

Because we belong to various groups, we develop multiple identities that come into play at different times, depending on the context. A religious identity may be highlighted in when going to church. A sexual orientation identity may be highlighted in going to clubs and bars. A gender identity is highlighted by women who join social groups exclusive to women or men who attend social functions just for men.

In the United States, young people are often encouraged to develop a strong sense of identity, to "know who they are," to be independent and self-reliant. However, this emphasis on developing identity is not shared by many societies. In many African and Asian societies, the experience of childhood and adolescence revolves around the family experience. In these societies, then, educational, occupational, and even marriage choices are made not only by the individual but also with extensive family guidance.

These cultural differences demonstrate that identity development does not occur in the same way in every society (Roland).

A Communication Perspective

A communication perspective emphasizes that identities are not created by the self alone but are co-created through communication with others. A communication perspective recognizes that identities emerge when messages are exchanged between persons. exchanged between persons. This means that presenting our identities is not a simple process. Does everyone see you as you see yourself? Probably not. To understand how these images may conflict, let's explore the processes of avowal and ascription.

Avowalis the process by which an individual portrays him- or herself. In contrast, ascriptionis the process by which others attribute identities to an individual.

Different identities are emphasized depending on the person we are communicating with and the topic of conversation. In a social conversation with someone we are attracted to, our gender or sexual orientation identity is probably more important to us than other identities (ethnicity, nationality). And our communication is probably most successful when the person we are talking with confirms the identity we think is most important at the moment. So, we can think of intercultural communication competence as communication that affirms the identity that is most salient in any conversation (Collier & Thomas). For example, if you are talking with a professor about a research project, the conversation would be most competent if the interaction confirms the salient identities (professor and student), rather than other identities (for example, those based on gender, religion, or ethnicity).

How do you feel when someone does not recognize the identity you feel is most salient? For example, suppose your parents treat you as a child (ascription) and not as an independent adult (your avowal). How does the conflict affect communication?

Central to the communication perspective is the idea that our identities are expressed communicatively. They are expressed in core symbols, labels, and norms.

Core symbolstell us about the fundamental beliefs, the central concepts that define a particular identity. Communication scholar Michael Hecht has identified the contrasting core symbols associated with various ethnic identities. For example, core symbols of African American identity may be positivity, sharing, uniqueness, realism, and assertiveness. Individualism is often cited as a core symbol of European American identity. Core symbols are expressed through communication but also are created and shaped through communication. Labels are a category of core symbols. They are the terms we use to refer to particular aspects of our own and others' identities (for example, African American, Latino, White, European American).

Critical Perspective

The driving force behind a critical approach to identity is the attempt to understand identity formation within the contexts of history, economics, politics and discourse. To grasp this notion, ask yourself: How and why do people identify with particular groups and not others? What choices are available to them?

A French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan gives the example of two children on a train that stops at a station. Each looks from the window and identifies the location: One child responds that they are in front of the door for the ladies' bathroom; the other says they are in front of the gentlemen's. Both children see and use labels from their seating position to describe where they are; they are on the same train, but they describe their locations differently. Just as we are never "out" of position, we are never "outside" of language and its system that helps define us. And, like the two children, where we are positioned – by language and by society – influences how and what we see and, most importantly, what it means.

The identities that others may ascribe to us are socially and politically determined. They are not constructed by the self alone. We must ask ourselves what drives the construction of particular kinds of identities. For example, the invention of the label "heterosexual" is a relatively recent one, less than a hundred years old. Today, people do not hesitate to identify themselves as "heterosexuals." A critical perspective insists on the constructive nature of this process and attempts to identify the social forces and social needs that give rise to these identities.

 

Gender Identity. We often begin life with gendered identities. When newborns arrive in our culture, they may be greeted with clothes and blankets in either blue or pink. To establish a gender identityfor a baby, visitors may ask if the baby is a boy or a girl. But gender is not the same as biological sex. This distinction is important in understanding how our views on biological sex influence gender identities.

What it means to be a man or a woman is heavily influenced by cultural notions. For example, some activities are considered more masculine or more feminine. When people hunt or sew or fight or read poetry, it can transform the ways that others view them. Similarly, the programs that people watch on television— soap operas, football games, and so on—affect how they socialize with others, contributing to gendered contexts.

As culture changes, so does the notion of what we idealize as masculine or feminine. Even the popular imagery of a perfect male body changed. In the 1860s, for example, the middle class had seen the ideal male body as lean and wiry. The male body, as well as the female body, can be understood not in its "natural" sense but in relation to idealized notions of masculinity and femininity. To know that this man or that woman is particularly good-looking requires an understanding of the gendered notions of attractiveness in a culture.

Our notions of masculinity and femininity change continually, driven by commercial interests, advertising, and other cultural forces. Our expression of gender not only communicates who we think we are but also constructs a sense of who we want to be. We learn what masculinity and femininity mean in our culture. Through various media, we monitor how these notions shift. Consider, for example, the contemporary trend against body hair on men. The ideal male body is with little body hair. Many men view their own bodies in relation to this ideal. Of course, at one time a hairy body was considered more masculine, not less. The dynamic character of gender reflects its close connection to culture. Society has many images of masculinity and femininity; we do not all seek to look and act according to a single ideal. At the same time, we do seek to communicate our gendered identities as part of who we are.

 

Age Identity. As we age, we also play into cultural notions of how someone our age should act, look, and behave. This phenomenon is age identity.As we grow older, we sometimes look at clothes in shops and feel that we are either too old or too young for that “look.” These feelings stem from an understanding of what age means and how we identify with that age.

Some people feel old at 30; others still feel young at 40. There is nothing inherent in age that tells you that you are young or old. Our notions of age and youth are all based on cultural conventions. These same cultural conventions also suggest that it is inappropriate to engage in a romantic relationship with someone who is too old or too young.

Our notions of age often change as we grow older ourselves. When we are quite young, someone in college seems old. When we are study at the university, we often do not feel old. Yet, the relative nature of age is only one part of the identity process. Social constructions of age are also part of the process. Different generations often have different philosophies, values, and ways of speaking. For example, slang ways of speaking create in-groups among generations. Although not all people in any generation are alike, the attempt to find trends across generations reflects our interest in understanding age identity.

 

Racial and Ethnic Identities

Racial Identity is largely a modern phenomenon. Most scientists have abandoned a strict biological basis for classifying racial groups. They prefer a social science approach to understanding race. They recognize that racial categories like White and Black are constructed in social and historical contexts.

Thus, racial categories are based to some extent on physical characteristics, but they are also constructed in fluid social contexts. It probably makes more sense to talk about racial formation than racial categories. This term considers race as a complex of social meanings rather than as fixed and objective. How people construct these meanings and think about race influences the ways in which they communicate with others.

Ethnic Identity may be seen as a set of ideas about one's own ethnic group membership. It typically includes several dimensions: self-identification, knowledge about the ethnic culture (traditions, customs, values, and behaviors), and feelings about belonging to a particular ethnic group. Ethnic identity often involves a shared sense of origin and history.

Ethnic identity means having a sense of belonging to a particular group and knowing something about the shared experience of the group.

It is interesting to think about what an American means and whether there is just one meaning or many different meanings. A similar interested presented the notion Soviet and all the non-Russians calling themselves (or called by others) Russians. Another issue of ethnic identity is a very common case of those born in mixed ethnic families.

 

Racial Versus Ethnic Identity. Scholars dispute whether racial and ethnic identity are similar or different. Some scholars emphasize ethnic identity to avoid any racism inherent in a race-centered approach. Others reject this interpretation (Spindler & Spindler). On the one hand, discussions about ethnicity tend to assume a “melting pot” perspective on U.S. society. On the other hand, discussions about race as shaped by U.S. history allow for racism. If we never talk about race but only ethnicity, can we consider the effects and influences of racism?

Our sense of racial or ethnic identity develops over time, in stages, and through communication with others. The stages of development seem to reflect phases in the development of understanding who we are. They also depend to some extent on the type of group to which people belong. Many ethnic or racial groups experience the common forces of oppression. As a result, they may generate attitudes and behaviors consistent with a natural internal struggle to develop a strong sense of group and self-identity in response to this oppression. For many groups, these strong identities have been successful in ensuring the survival of the cultural group.

Religious Identitycan be an important dimension of many people's identities, as well as an important site of intercultural conflict.

Drawing distinctions between various identities – racial, ethnic, class, national, regional – can be problematic. Italians and Irish are often viewed as Catholics, for example, and Episcopalians are frequently seen as belonging to the upper classes.

Religious differences have been at the root of conflicts from the Middle East to Northern Ireland, and from India and Pakistan to Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the United States, religious conflict led to the Mormons leaving the Midwest in the early 1800s. For some people, religion is a very serious topic and some people.

People of some religions communicate and mark their religious differences by their clothing. Hassidic Jews or Muslims of Arab countries are one example. Of course, most religions are not identified by clothing. For example, you may not know if someone is Buddhist, Catholic, Lutheran, or atheist based upon the way that person dresses. Because religious identities are less salient, everyday interactions may not show religious identity.

Class Identity. We don't often think about socioeconomic class as an important part of our identity. Yet, scholars have shown that class often plays an important role in shaping our reactions to and interpretations of culture. Quite often the kinds of magazines we read, the foods we eat, and the words we use often reflect our class position. At some level, we recognize these class distinctions. But we consider it impolite to ask directly about a person's class background, so sometimes people use communication strategies to place others in a class hierarchy. These strategies aren't always very accurate. For example, people may try to guess the person’s class background by asking where he or she went to college.

Most people in the United States can often recognize class associations. But we often don't really know the criteria for class. Is class determined by financial assets? By educational level? By profession? By family background? These factors may or may not be indicators of class. The class identity situation is very contradictory in the post-Soviet area, with a great polarization of the society into the “newly-rich” and those barely surviving (even with a solid educational background).

Another insight into this apparent contradiction is that people in the majority or normative class (that is, the middle class) tend not to think about class, whereas those in the working class are often reminded that their style of communication and lifestyle choices do not belong to the norm. In this respect, class is like race. People assume that with hard work and persistence, individuals can improve their class standing, even with convincing evidence that proves otherwise. The reality shows that classless society is a myth. The working-class and poor are locked into a class-based system and given a false hope that they can have different opportunities in life. Another outcome of this myth is that when poverty persists and spreads, the poor are blamed. They are poor because of something they did or didn't do: They were lazy or didn't try hard enough, or they were unlucky. It is a classic case of blaming the victim. The media in often reinforce these notions. Leonardo DiCaprio's character in the movie Titanic shows us that upward mobility is easy enough –just a matter of being strategic, charming, and a little bit lucky.

The point is that, although class identity is not as clearly identifiable as, say, gender identity, nevertheless it does influence our perceptions and communication with others just as much. Race, class, and sometimes gender identity are interrelated. Statistically speaking, being born African American, poor, and female increases one's chances of remaining in poverty. But, of course, race and class are not synonymous. There are many poor Whites in the USA, and there are increasing numbers of wealthy African Americans. So it is important to see these multiple identities as interrelated but not identical.

National Identity. Among the many identities that we may have, we also have a national identity.This identity is often confused with racial or ethnic identity, but it is different. Nationality, unlike racial or ethnic identity, is one's legal status in relation to a nation, i.e. a country. So, no matter what your ethnic origin is, your nationality is your citizenship.

Although nationality may seem a clear-cut issue, this is not the case when the nation's status is unclear. For example, bloody conflicts erupted over the attempted separation in the mid-1800s of the Confederate States of America from the United States. Similar conflicts erupted in more recent times when Eritrea tried to separate from Ethiopia, and Chechnya from Russia. Less bloody conflicts that involved nationhood led to the separation of Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

Contemporary nationhood struggles were played out as Quebec attempted to separate from Canada, and as Corsica and Tahiti attempted to separate from France, for example. Sometimes nations disappear on the political map, persist in the social imagination, and re-emerge later. Examples of such nations include Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Some people feel their ethnic identity more strongly than their national identity. For other people, their nationality is more important than their ethnicity. The relationship between ethnicity and nationality is complex and dynamic.

Regional Identity. Closely related to nationality is the notion of regional identity.Many regions of the world have separate, but vital and important, cultural identities. The Scottish Highlands is a region of northern Scotland that is distinctly different from the Lowlands. Regional identity remains strong in the Highlands.

In the United States, regional identities remain important, too. Southerners, for example, often view themselves and are viewed by others as a distinct cultural group. Texas advertises itself as "A Whole Other Country," promoting its regional identity. Although some regional identities can lead to national independence movements, they are often cultural identities with distinctive cuisines, dress, manners, and sometimes language or dialect. These identities may become important in intercultural communication situations. For example, suppose you meet someone who is Chinese. Whether the person is from Beijing, Hong Kong, or elsewhere in China may raise important communication issues.

Personal Identity. Many issues of identity are closely tied to one's notion of self. Each of us has a personal identity, but it may not be unified or coherent. A dialectical perspective allows us to see identity in a complex way. We are who we think we are; at the same time, contextual and outside forces constrain and influence our self-perception. We have many identities, and sometimes these various identities are in conflict. A dialectical perspective sees these contradictions as real and presenting challenges in communication and everyday living.

Our personal identity is important to us, and we try to communicate it to others. We are more or less successful depending on how others respond to us. We use the various ways that identity is constructed to portray ourselves as we want others to see us.

 

Identity and Communication. Identity has a profound influence on intercultural communication processes. We can employ some of the dialectics identified in earlier chapters to continue examining this relationship. First, we can use the individual-cultural dynamic as we examine the issues that arise when we encounter people whose identities we don't know. In intercultural communication interactions, mistaken identities are often exacerbated and can create communication problems.

Sometimes we assume knowledge about another person's identity, based on his or her membership in a particular cultural group. When we do so, we are ignoring the individual aspect. Taking a dialectical perspective can help us recognize and balance both the individual and cultural aspects of another's identity. This perspective can guide the ways that we communicate with that person (and with others). The question here is one of identity: Who am I perceived to be when I communicate with others? My identity is very much tied to the ways in which others speak to me and the ways in which society represents my interests.

Think about the assumptions that you might make about others based on their physical appearances. What do you "know" about people if you know they are from the South, Mexico, Australia, or Pakistan? Perhaps it is easier to think about the times that people have made erroneous assumptions about you, based on shallow information – assumptions that you became aware of in the process of communication. Only focusing on someone's nationality, place of origin, education, religion, and so on can lead to mistaken conclusions about the person's identity.

Now let's turn to the static-dynamic dialectic. The problem of erroneous assumptions has increased during the information age, due to our enormous amount of information about the world – the extreme dynamic nature of the world in which we live. We are bombarded daily with information from around the world about places and people. This glut of information and intercultural contacts have heightened the importance of understanding identity in a more complex way.

Given the many identities that we all negotiate for ourselves in our everyday interactions, it is clear how our identities and those of others make intercultural communication problematic. We need to think of those identities as both static and dynamic.

We live in an era of information overload, but we are also furnished with a wide array of communication media that multiply the identities we must negotiate. Consider the relationships that develop by E-mail, for example. Some people even create new identities as a result of online interactions. We change who we are depending on the people we communicate with and the manner of our communication. Yet, we also expect some static characteristics from the people with whom we communicate. We expect others to express certain fixed qualities, which is why we tend to like or dislike them and how we can establish particular communication patterns with them. The tensions that we feel as we change identities from E-mail to telephone to mail to fax and other communication media demonstrate the dynamic and static characters of identities.

Finally, we also have emphasized the personal-contextual dialectic of identity and communication. Although some dimensions of our identities are personal and remain fairly consistent, we cannot overlook the contextual constraints on our identity.

The identity group characteristics described above sometimes form the basis for stereotypes, prejudice and racism. The origins of these lie in both individual and contextual elements.

 

Stereotypes

Stereotyping represents a problem that is often easier to talk about than to stop it, as it often lies (like culture) below the level of awareness.

Defining stereotypes. Stereotyping is a complex form of categorization that mentally organizes our experiences and guides our behavior toward a particular group of people. W. Lippman in his “Public Opinion” back in 1922 indicated that stereotypes were a means of organizing our images into fixed and simple categories that we use for the entire collection of people. Stereotyping is found in nearly every intercultural situation. The reason for this widely spread nature of stereotypes is the human beings have a psychological need to categorize and classify. The world you confront is too big, too complex, and too transitory for you to know it in all its detail. Hence, you want to classify. Stereotypes, because they tend to be convenient, help you with your classifications.

Developing Stereotypes. How do you acquire stereotypes? You are not born with them. Stereotypes (they may be positive and negative), like culture itself, are learned in a variety of ways:

- first, people learn stereotypes from their parents, relatives, and friends;

- second, stereotypes develop through limited personal contact;

- third, stereotypes can develop from negative experiences;

- finally, many stereotypes are provided by the mass media.

The so-called ethnic jokes (about Poles in the USA, about Belgians in France about Chukchi men in Russia, and so on) are an example and a result of stereotyping.

 

Below is a U.S. student’s description of her parents’ stereotype:

My parents always explained to me that the Native Americans were the ones who committed the crimes in the city and for me to stay away from them. When I entered junior high school, I started meeting these so-called "bad" Native Americans. At first, I had a preconceived notion that they were all had people. But as time went by, I started realizing that they were not bad people. You just had to get to know them first before you could actually judge them. I explained this to my parents and they understood this concept but said that every Native American that they had ever met before had done something wrong to make my parents not like them. Eventually, I started bringing home some of my Native American friends and proved to my parents that all Native Americans are not bad people and that they do not commit crimes.

(Source: Martin, J. & Nakayama, Th. Intercultural Communication in Contexts. – Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2000, p. 128.)

 

Stereotypes become dangerous when they are negative and held rigidly. Research shows that, once adopted, stereotypes are stubborn. In fact people remember information that supports a negative stereotype, but may not keep information that contradicts it (Hamilton et al.)

Because stereotypes often operate at an unconscious level and are so persistent, people have to work consciously to reject them. Then they must seek individual information that can counteract it.

Problems in Stereotyping. As indicated above, in most instances, stereotypes are the products of limited, lazy, and misguided perceptions. Their harmful effect on intercultural communication is clearly described by Adler:

Stereotypes become counterproductive when we place people in the wrong groups, when we incorrectly describe the group norm, when we inappropriately evaluate the group or category, when we confuse the stereotype with the description of a particular individual, and when we fail to modify the stereotype based on our actual observations and experience (Adler, 1990:74).

Let us look at a few additional reasons why stereotypes, as a form of negative classification, hamper intercultural communication.

First, it is not the act of classifying that creates intercultural problems, rather, it is assuming that all culture-specific information applies to all individuals from the cultural group (Lynch & Hanson, 1992:44). That is to say, stereotypes assume that all members of a group have exactly the same traits. They are rigid preconceptions which are applied to all members of a group or to an individual over a period of time, regardless of individual variations. This is the main reason to remind you that culture is one of the characteristics that determines attitudes, values, beliefs, and ways of behaving.

Second, stereotypes also keep us from being successful as communicators because they are oversimplified, overgeneralized, and/or exaggerated. They are based on half-truths, distortions, and often untrue premises. Therefore, they create inaccurate pictures of the peo­ple with whom we are interacting.

Third, stereotypes tend to impede intercultural communication in that they repeat and reinforce beliefs until they often become taken for "truth." For years, women were stereotyped as a rather one-dimensional group. The stereotype of women as "homemakers" often keeps women from advancing in the workplace.

Finally, stereotypes can serve as a "self-fulfilling prophecies." Once the stereotype is in place there is a tendency to perceive the stereotyped person engaging in behavior that corroborates our stereotype—even when the behavior is not present. That is to say, negative stereotypes confirm your expectations whether they are valid or not.

 

Prejudice

 

Prejudice is a negative attitude toward a cultural group based on little or no experience. Whereas stereotypes tell us what a group is like, prejudice tells us how we are likely to feel about that group.

The French philosopher and essayist Voltaire knew of the dangers associated with prejudice when he wrote that "Prejudices are what fools use for reason." His rationale for this observation was simple—deep felt prejudices cause serious problems. Let us examine the nature of prejudice and some of the problems associated with this destructive activity.

 

Defining Prejudice. J. Macionis (1998) offers a detailed definition of prejudice while explaining its damaging effect on intercultural communication:

Prejudice amounts to a rigid and irrational generalization about a category of people. Prejudice is irrational to the extent that people hold inflexible attitudes supported by little or no direct evidence. Prejudice may target people of a particular social class, sex, sexual orientation, age, political affiliation, race or ethnicity.

When applied to the interpersonal and intercultural setting, prejudice often includes various levels of hostility. This hostility dimension is explained by J. Levin, who believes that prejudice deals with negative feelings, beliefs, and action-tendencies, or discriminatory acts, that arise against human beings by virtue of the status they occupy or are perceived to occupy as members of a minority group.

 

Expressions of Prejudice. Prejudices, like stereotypes, are learned. For some people, prejudices offer rewards ranging from feelings of superiority to feelings of power. Prejudice is expressed in a variety of ways – at times hidden and on other occasions overt.

Knowing how prejudice is manifested will help you identify your own prejudices and in so doing will greatly improve the manner in which you perceive, approach, and interact with other people. The following five forms of prejudices were identified by G. Allport.

(1) Prejudice can be expressed through antilocution. This level of prejudice involves talking about a member of the target group in negative and stereotypic terms. Someone would be engaging in this form of prejudice if he or she told a friend, “Those Germans did it once, so we can never trust any of them ever again.” Another example of antilocution prejudice is the statement “Don't pay the Mexicans very much. They don't have any education and will work for almost nothing.”

People act out prejudice when they avoid and/or withdraw from contact with the disliked group. The problems associated with this form of prejudice are obvious. How do you interact, solve problems, and resolve serious conflicts when you are separated from other people? You can no longer learn from, support, or persuade people if you avoid them and close all of the channels of communication. On both the international and domestic levels, avoidance and withdrawal often have marked the intercultural exchange. History is full of examples of how one nation or group of people refused to attend (withdrew from) an important peace conference. For decades, the political leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union, East and West Germany, and Israel and its Arab neighbors rebuffed each other, only to discover decades later that talking benefited both parties. What is true with regard to governments is also characteristic of individual behavior.

Have there been occasions when you, like governments, withdrew from communication because a person was a different color or spoke a different language? When this happens, there can be little communication.

(2) When discrimination is the expression of prejudice, it may be based on race (racism), gender (sexism) or any of the other identity groups. Discrimination may vary from very subtle nonverbal behavior (lack of eye contact or excluding someone from conversation) to verbal insults, exclusion from jobs or other economic opportunities, to physical violence and systematic exclusion. The prejudiced person also undertakes to exclude all members of the group in question from residential housing, political rights, educational and recreational opportunities, churches, hospitals, or some other type of social institution. Often in cases of discrimination, we observe ethnocentrism, stereotyping, and prejudice coming together in a type of fanaticism that completely obstructs any form of successful intercultural communication.

(3) When discrimination replaces communication, we see overt and covert (hidden) expressions of anger and hate that restrict one group's opportunity or access to opportunities that rightly belong to everyone. When a real-estate agent will not show certain homes to African Americans, we have discrimination. When businesses promote less qualified males instead of competent women, we have discrimination.

(4) When prejudice moves to the next level of expression, we often see physical attacks. This form of prejudice often accelerates in hostility and intensity if it is left unchecked. From the burning of churches to the writing of anti-Semitic slogans in Jewish cemeteries, physical acts occur when minorities are the target of prejudiced activity.

(5) The fifth, and most alarming, form of prejudice is extermination. This expression of prejudice leads to acts of physical violence against the out-group. History is full of examples of lynching, massacres, and programs of genocide. In such cases as Hitler's "master plan," the former Serbian "ethnic cleansing," and the current situation in Rwanda, an attempt is made to destroy an entire racial or ethnic group.

It is important to remember that deep prejudice and hatred not only hurt the out-group but can destroy the prejudiced person and culture. The Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega у Gasset advanced much the some observation when he wrote, "Hatred is a feeling which leads to the extinction of values."

 

 

SUMMARY

 

- Discussed are some facets of identity and the ways that identities are problematic in intercultural communication.

- Identities are both static (as described by social psychologists) and dynamic (as described by communication scholars).

- Identities are created by self and by others in relation to group membership.

- Identities are multiple and reflect gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, race, religion, class, nationality and other aspects of out lives.

- Identities also develop in relation to minority and majority group membership.

- The identity group characteristics sometimes form the basis for stereotypes, prejudice and racism.

- Stereotypes are widely held beliefs about a specific group of people.

- Prejudice is a negative attitude to a cultural group. Prejudice is expressed in a variety of forms.

 

 

s DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND IDEAS

1. What is the role of identity in the context of culture and communication?

2. What are the main perspectives of studying identity?

3. Present each of the contemporary perspectives on identity.

4. How do your perceptions of your own cultural identity influence your communication with others?

5. What are some ways in which we express our identity?

6. What are the roles of avowal and ascription in the process of identity formation?

7. What are some of the ways in which members of minority cultures and members of majority cultures develop their cultural identities?

8. How do ethnic and national identity differ?

9. What communication problems are caused by stereotyping?

10. Discuss the negative role of prejudice (both covert and overt)

11. How is prejudice expressed?

12. How can stereotypes and prejudice be overcome?

REFERENCES

Adler, N. J. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 2nd ed. – Boston, MA: PWS-KENT, 1991.

Allport, G.The Nature of Prejudice. – Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1954.

Collier, M. J. & Thomas, M.Cultural Identity: An interpretive Perspective. In: Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.). Theories in Intercultural Communication. – Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988, pp. 99 – 122).

Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J. & Ruvolo, C. M.Stereotype-Based Expectancies: Effects on Information Processing and Social Behavior. In: Journal of Social Issues, No. 46, 1990, pp. 35 – 60.

Levin, J.The Functions of Prejudice. – New York: Harper & Row, 1975.

Lynch, E.W. & Hanson, M. J.Developing Cross-Cultural Competence: A Guide for Working with Young Children and Their Families. – Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., 1992.

Martin, J. & Nakayama, Th.Intercultural Communication in Context. – Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co., 2000.

Roland, A.Identity, Self and Individualism in a Multicultural Perspective. In: E.P. Salett & D.R. Koslow (Eds.). Race, Ethnicity and Self: Identity in Multicultural Perspective. – Washington, DC: National and MultiCultural Institute, 1994, pp. 117 – 142.

Spindler, G. & Spindler, L.The American Cultural Dialog. – London, Falmer Press, 1990.

Tajfel, H.Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.


LECTURE SIX

Последнее изменение этой страницы: 2016-06-10

lectmania.ru. Все права принадлежат авторам данных материалов. В случае нарушения авторского права напишите нам сюда...