Ethnocentrism and stereotyping

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

AKTOBE UNIVERSITY NAMED AFTER S. BAISHEV

REPORT

ETHNOCENTRISM AND STEREOTYPING

Cheked by: Sideshova Z.G.

Made by: Tulebayeva A.Ye.

AKTOBE 2015

Content

Introduction

The definition of ethnocentrism

The definition of stereotyping

Are positive stereotypes a good thing?

Stereotyping is not the cause of racism

Conclusion

References

Introduction

Race and racism have been and continue to be major factors in the politics of many nations. Gaining an understanding of racism is therefore one of the major tasks confronting political psychology. A notion that seems to figure prominently in most explanations of racism is the notion of stereotyping. It certainly seems to occur in almost all elementary psychology and social psychology textbook accounts of racism. It will be submitted here, however, that even a desultory reading of the social cognition literature pushes us towards the view that stereotyping neither causes racism nor has any useful role in its explanation.

Ethnocentrism theory suggests that anti-outgroup prejudice is a product of ingroup favoritism and that the view of outgroups will be monolithic -- i.e. only their "in-out" status will matter. The literature on stereotyping, however, shows that attitudes to outgroups are highly complex and differentiated -- particularly among prejudiced people -- and it also shows that attitude towards the ingroup is a poor predictor of attitude towards outgroups. Both major postulated aspects of ethnocentrism theory are thus undermined. It is further shown that there is considerable evidence for the view that stereotyping is adaptive and that stereotypes can have considerable truth value. Stereotyping is seen as a strategy of successive approximations towards valuable generalizations in an environment of restricted information. Stereotyping does not cause racism.

Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism refers to the wide-ranging belief in the cultural superiority of one's own ethnic group or, more loosely, an unusually high regard for one's own ethnic ,religious, cultural group. This method of using one's own culture is superior to all other cultures is called ethnocentrism (Samovar et al., 2010; DomNwachukwu, 2010). Ethnocentrism has been defined by some scholars (Cushner &Brislin, 1996,273-78; Kottak, 1996,69) as “the making of judgments” based on the criteria's of one's cultural groups by applying those criteria's in judging others behavior and beliefs of people who may be from different cultural backgrounds. Bennett (1993:30) defines ethnocentrism as “assuming that the worldview of one's own culture is central to all reality”. Bennett suggests that people tend to use their own worldview to interpret other's behavior and that the idea of a „universal truth? is usually based on one's own values. Ethnocentrism is not only the tendency to view the world from the standpoint of one's own culture, but also the failure to understand, cultures that are different from one's own.

The central research question regarding the concept involves the assumption that ethnocentrism universally involves a rejection of out-groups in any of its aspects. Samovar et al (2010:331) emphasizes that “every culture, whether consciously or unconsciously, tends to glorify its historical, scientific, economic, and artistic accomplishments, frequently minimizing the achievements of other cultures. In this way, schools in all culture impart ethnocentrism.” In many ways, this is a natural human tendency. The difficulty, however, is that ethnocentrism also sets up standards of good and bad when in fact the issue should merely be noting differences. racism political stereotype ethnocentrism

Hence, the central themes of ethnocentrism are “the view” (Gudykunst: 2003; Kottak:1996 ;Gish et al.,2007), “the attitude” (Gish et al., 2007), “the judgment” (Cushner, 2003), “the belief” (Harris & Jonson, 2007), and “the description and judgment” (Edgar & Sedgwick, 2002) of one's own cultural values, traditions, customs and behaviors of others with regard to their cultural backgrounds. In other words, the in-group and out-group distinction is one of the core themes in ICR. Some definitions of ethnocentrism emphasizes on its negative aspects towards culturally different people.

The different perspectives of ethnocentrism is stated by Sculpin (Cited in Kushner, 2004:13).

Ethnocentrism is popular perceptions about other cultures have often been based on ethnocentric attitudes. Ethnocentrism is the practice of judging another society by the values and standards of one's own society. As humans learn the basic values, beliefs and norms of their society, they tend to think of their own culture as preferable, ranking other cultures as less desirable. Members of a society may be so committed to their own cultural traditions that they cannot conceive of any other way of life. They often view other cultural traditions as strange or alien, perhaps even inferior, crazy, or immoral.

Ethnocentrism is stated as cultural universal phenomena (Cushner,1996: 273-78; Kottak ,1996:69) that contributes to social cohesiveness, a sense of value and community among people who share a cultural tradition.

Some of the consequences of ethnocentrism (Gudykunst, 2003; Harris &Jonson, 2007; Jandt, 2004) are as follows:

I. leads to an almost complete misunderstanding of values, intentions, statements, and actions of others, thereby, turning attempts at ICC into serious miscommunications.

II. accepts ones group's norms, values and behaviors seen as moral, good and proper where as those of groups that differ from one's own often are seen as immoral, wrong, and improper.

III. leads people to exaggerate group differences. Ethnocentric cultural groups see themselves as superior to other groups, which are treated, as inferior.

IV. complicates ICIs and it creates ICRs problems in part because people expect others to think and behave as they do.

V. hinders our understanding of the customs of other people, and at the same time, keeps us from understanding our own customs.

VI. brings about negative affective reactions to out groups such as distrust, hostility, and contempt.

VII. leads to intolerance of other cultures and is used to justify the mistreatment of others.

VIII. leads to a rejection of the richness and knowledge of other cultures. Furthermore, it impedes communication and blocks the exchange of ideas and skills among peoples. According to Harris et al (2007: 12), however, “a certain degree of ethnocentrism is natural for people raised in single culture; their values and ways of behaving appear disable and superior to all others.” The positive functions of ethnocentrism for the in-group are understandable. High morale, group cohesiveness, devotion, pride, and loyalty often linked to a sense of in-group superiority. To Jandt (2004:54) “it is difficult to free oneself of all ethnocentrism”; however, overcoming ethnocentrism demands “conscious and continuing effort.”

Stephan and Stephan (Gudykunst, 2003) indicates that ethnocentrism is lower in countries with strong belief in tolerance of others, harmony with others than in countries with a sense of cultural superiority, respect for tradition. The concept has two components: (a) an exaggeration of the in-group's position and cultural superiority and (b) a criticism of all out-group cultures. To Novinger (2001:43) “the quality of ethnocentrism probably relates to the complex psychological development of a tolerant and strong personality. According to student's response, another problem associated with ethnocentrism is a phenomenon called ethnopaulism, using name calling or slurs for members of the out-group. The consequence of all this is greater social distance among cultural, religious, ethnic groups and less mutual understanding.

In general, ethnocentrism has been described as an individual psychological disposition which has both positive and negative outcome (Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997). On the one hand, ethnocentrism serves as an antecedent towards “patriotism and willingness to sacrifice for one's central group” (Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997:389) and helps in constructing and maintaining one's cultural identity (Chen & Starosta,2004). On the other hand, ethnocentrism leads to misunderstandings (Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997) and reduced levels of overcoming ethnocentrism intercultural-willingness-to-communicate (Lin & Rancer, 2003).

Stereotypes

Stereotype can have a potentially detrimental impact on ICR. Ganon (2004: 16) defines this element as “it represents a distorted view or mental picture of groups and their supposed characteristics, on the basis of which we tend to evaluate individuals from each other.” Sue and Sue (1990:47-8) on the other hand, defines stereotype as “rigid preconception we hold about all people who are members of a particular group.” Another scholar (Samovar et al., 2010:170-1) states stereotype as “a complex form of categorization”, “a cognitive structure Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies Volume: 3 - Issue: 4 - October - 2013 © Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies 133 containing the perceiver's knowledge, beliefs, and experiences, and expectancies about some human social group”, “a collection of false assumptions that people in all cultures make about the characteristics of members of various groups.” Samovar & Porter (1991:280) also define stereotypes as “the perceptions or beliefs we hold about groups or individuals based on our previously formed opinions or attitudes”. As the definition suggests, stereotypes do not develop suddenly but are formed over a period of time by our culture. They are made up of bits and pieces of information that we store and use to “make sense” of what goes on around us.

Psychologists (Jandt, 2004: 40) have tried to explain stereotyping as “mistakes our brains make in the perception of illusions”. When the information is ambiguous and limited, the brain reacts in the wrong conclusion. In most general sense, the word stereotype refers “any summary generalization that obscures the differences within a group.” (Cushner & Brislin, 1996:58).

The stereotype, hence, is an important concept (Pickering, 2001) in contemporary cultural analysis. Particularly in the field of communication, the processes and effects of stereotyping have long been of concern. Therefore, it is important to understand stereotypes as elements of broad cultural practices and processes, carrying with them quite definite ideological views and values. Most stereotypes end up as negative labels placed on individuals simply because they are members of particular group. These stereotypes, especially the negative ones, do have a negative out comes on the communication environment of diverse groups. It narrows our perceptions; they usually jeopardize intercultural communication and take on a negative tone. The agent of stereotype is socialization process. Many stereotypes are provided by the mass media and widely disseminated through a variety of media forms such as ads, movies, and TV sitcoms and soap opera.

Stereotypes can be either positive or negative and as (Barna,1997) points out they help us to “make sense” of the world by categorizing and classifying people and situations we encounter. We may revert to stereotyping, for example, when we are overseas and are faced with people and situations we are not accustomed to. While stereotyping may reduce the threat of the unknown, it interferes with our perceptions and understanding of the world, when applied to individuals or groups. When a person upholds the rigid negative stereotypes, they meant to discriminate and keep a person or a group at a distance. This may occur because the person behind feels threats, fear, and lack of security and self-confidence, or simply holds prejudices and biases. According to Harris et al (2007) regardless of the cultural stereotypes every society, many individuals have personalities that deviate widely from the most frequent types. Stereotyping considered a natural human survival mechanisms as a generalization based on limited information, limited interaction, and limited experience with a person, group or situation.

On one hand, function of stereotype (Stephan & Stephan, 1996) is the creation of order out of the social reality. Moreover, stereotypes provide guidelines for ICRs and expectations for the behavior of others. In such cases, people base their behavior toward out-group members on stereotype related expectancies.

On the contrary, stereotypes are harmful to people because the stereotyped, person is not treated as a person with unique qualities (Fong et al., 2004). Particularly cultural stereotypes (Gudykunst et al., 2003:146) are “used to dominate, criticize, or dehumanize members of outgroups.” In broader term (Jandt, 1998: 70) stereotype “commonly used to refer to negative or positive judgments made about individuals based on any observable or believed group.” Moreover, the other consequence (Gudykunst, 2004:115) of stereotype is “ineffective communication.” It occurs when the person who with whom they are communicating comes from another culture, religion and ethnic more than when the person comes from their own culture religion and ethnicity. One reason for this is that their stereotypes of groups in their cultures tend to be more accurate and favorable than their stereotypes of other cultures. In accurate and unfavorable than their stereotypes of other cultures and ethnic groups, cause them to misinterpret the messages they receive from members of those cultures and ethnic groups.

This problem of communication not only results in out-group members but also in the ingroup members. Stereotypes are, however, less problematic in-group communication because the in -group stereotypes usually are more favorable and accurate than stereotypes of the outgroup members. In order to improve, (Gudykunst, 2004) the effectiveness in communication with out-group members, we must understand how unfavorable and/or inaccurate stereotypes affect the way we communicate. Ganon (2004:16) also states, “the well known phenomenon of culture shock does occur and, if not handled properly, can lead to major problems.”

The impact of stereotypes on unconscious processes reveals that are aspects of prejudice and discriminatory actions that may take place beyond the conscious there knowledge of the individuals who harbors the stereotypes (Greenwald et al., 1995). Further, it leads to societal impressions regarding the violent behavior of other groups. Moreover, the consequence of being stereotyped as a cultural or ethnic minority has also been depicted particularly in regard to stereotype threat and its impact on academic performance.

The consequence of stereotype (Fong et al., 2004) is “when a person holds rigid negative stereotypes they are meant to discriminate and to keep a person or a group at distance.” This may occur because the discriminated person feels intimidation, fear, and lack of security and self- confidence, or simply holds prejudicial biases.

Jandt (2001) identified a number of ways in which stereotypes are harmful and impede communication. First, stereotypes can cause us to assume that a widely held belief is true, when it may not be. Second, the continual use of stereotypes reinforces our beliefs and can also cause us to assume a widely held belief is true of any one individual in the group. If a group is stereotyped as dishonest, for example, we tend to apply that stereotype to all members of that group, regardless of individual differences. Third, when we use negative stereotypes to interpret the behavior of individuals within a group, this further impedes intercultural communication by reinforcing those negative stereotypes. Such negative stereotyping can become a “self-fulfilling prophecy” for those who are stereotyped and hence place them at risk. An example of this would be the prevalent stereotype that women are not good at math and science, which in turn may cause women to internalize such beliefs and avoid studying or pursuing maths or science related professions. In general, in effective ICC, culture shock, impermeable to logic, or experience prejudice and discriminatory actions, societal impressions, impact on academic performance, inter-cultural misunderstanding and discrimination are the expected consequences of stereotypes. The summative results of the above consequences often lead to a breakdown in communication and deterioration in relationship among culturally or ethnically diverse groups. Gudykunst (2004) asserts that stereotyping as a natural result of the ICC process. It argued that people in all societies exposed to the widespread cultural stereotypes during socialization. In turn, it affects the current attitude of the individuals (Devine & Zuwerink, 1989).

Are positive stereotypes a good thing?

Perhaps the greatest element of complexity introduced to research on race-relations by stereotyping studies, however, is the role of positive stereotypes. One would think that a positive stereotype of a group would mean that all sorts of negative attitudes toward such a group would be minimal. This appears not to be so. Viljoen (1974) found that South African Blacks thought higher of English-speaking whites than they did of themselves yet those same blacks still liked their own group best in other ways. In particular, blacks preferred more social distance from the English-speaking whites than from other blacks. To put it plainly, the blacks thought that the English- speakers were admirable but still did not like the thought of their daughters marrying one. A positive stereotype went with greater rather than lesser social distance. Similarly, Miller (1985) found that older Australian schoolchildren (whites) who had large numbers of blacks (Australian Aborigines) in their classes resented black welfare programs most when they had positive stereotypes of blacks. Far from a positive stereotype of blacks implying that positive discrimination by the government in favour of blacks would be applauded, it meant that such interventions were resented. Conversely, the people who accepted affirmative action programs uncritically were those whites who thought very poorly of blacks (i.e. those whites who stereotyped blacks most unfavorably). It was "prejudiced" people who most accepted the need to help blacks overcome their handicaps!

The simple idea that positive stereotypes are good and negative stereotypes are bad is thus revealed as an oversimplification. After all, if you think that blacks are "pretty good", why should you think that they need help? Only if you think that blacks are "in a mess" would you think that the government should help them. Negative judgments of blacks can have positive results as far as black welfare is concerned.

This does tend to suggest that the characteristic American policy of stressing that blacks are basically equal to whites but still in need of special help from the government is in trouble. The two arms of policy may be pulling in opposed directions. It may be possible in the long run to gain public acceptance of only one of the policy arms -- not both at the same time. In other words, if you really wish to succeed in causing blacks to be perceived as basically equal to whites you may not be able to have affirmative action programs. Your insistence on the need for affirmative action programs, on the other hand, might tend to be seen as implying that you do not really at heart accept black equality. People do sometimes seem to have the habit of behaving in ways that do not suit theorists.

Stereotyping is not the cause of racism

We are now in a position to say, then, that the old mention of stereotyping in our psychology textbooks as one of the causes of racism is quite incautious. Stereotyping may be involved as a step in the formation of racially antagonistic attitudes but it is involved as a step in the formation of all attitudes. To say that stereotyping causes negative racial attitudes is to confuse the cause with the process. It is not only those who dislike other races who are stereotypers. We are all stereotypers.

Interesting support for this conclusion is to be found in a recent paper by Devine (1989). Devine showed that "tolerant" people do not differ in their awareness of stereotypes from non-tolerant people but that the tolerant people deliberately suppress their use of stereotypes. Tolerance has to be learned and deliberately practiced.

Perhaps one final paper that should be mentioned is that by Smith, Griffith, Griffith & Steger (1980). These authors studied stereotypes of Germans held by American students who had been living in Germany for some time. They found that the students had stereotypes that were realistic and positive and concluded that stereotyping is of little use in explaining racial and ethnic antagonisms.

Given the lack of usefulness that stereotyping may now be seen as having in explaining racial attitudes, it is reasonable to ask what the alternatives are. How do we explain racial attitudes? It must be conceded that all the theories that have been advanced so far do have serious problems (Record, 1983; Studlar, 1979; Ray, 1984). Perhaps the most hopeful line of enquiry for psychologists, however, may be those theories and findings which portray racial preferences as just another instance of a more general human tendency to prefer the familiar and thus to prefer people who are similar to themselves (Rokeach, 1960; Stein, Hardyck & Smith, 1965; Levine & Campbell, 1972; Liebowitz & Lombardo, 1980; Taylor & Guimond, 1978; Byrne, Clore & Smeaton, 1986; Marin & Salazar, 1985; Ray, 1983).

The present paper has of course been only one in a long line of studies that have moved towards revision of our notion of stereotyping. It is, however, perhaps the most radical of the theory papers in that it finally urges the complete irrelevance of stereotyping to any understanding of racial conflict. This is a decisive break with the past but one that may be long overdue. An example of the tenacity with which the old views are clung to is the paper cited earlier by Driedger & Clifton (1984). These authors interpreted correlations averaging around .1 as support for the notion that dislike of outgroups is the mirror of liking for the ingroup! With friends like that, the older theories hardly need enemies!

Conclusion

In the presence of so much evidence against the traditional view of how stereotypes work, someone might wonder whether this paper has any point at all. Is it not simply rehashing what has gone before? It is. Unfortunately, however, such "rehashing" seem needed. Let us in closing look at what some of the elementary textbooks are telling our students about stereotyping.

What we find is that the large band of people who write introductory psychology and social psychology textbooks seem generally not yet to have integrated well the findings discussed in the present paper. They seem generally to be like Pettigrew (1979) in seizing on any small sign of resistance to change in beliefs as an indication that stereotypes are hopelessly rigid. They tend to have "stereotyped" (in their sense, i.e. rigid) views of stereotyping. Two of the worst offenders write as follows: "In-group/out-group biases lead us to conclude that we are better than they are. Our stereotypes reinforce these biases, stand resolute against disconfirmation, and function as self-fulfilling prophecies" (Forsyth, 1987, p. 233); and "Stereotypes are a major mechanism in sustaining prejudice. Once people agree on prejudicial labels, such labelling becomes resistant to change" (Gergen & Gergen, 1986, p. 146).

While obsolete views are being purveyed to our students, therefore, there will surely be a continuing need for papers such as the present one.

References

1. Adorno,T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. & Sanford, R.N. (1950) The authoritarian personality. N.Y.: Harper.

2. Bond, M.H. (1986) Mutual stereotypes and the facilitation of interaction across cultural lines.International J. Intercultural Relations 10, 259-276.

3. Johnson, J.T. & Judd, C.M. (1983) Overlooking the incongruent: Categorization biases in the identification of political statements. J. Personality & Social Psychology 45, 978-996.

4. Locksley, A., Hepburn, C & Ortiz, V. (1982) On the effects of social stereotypes on judgments of individuals: A comment on Grant & Holmes's "The integration of implicit personality theory schemas and stereotypic images". Social Psychology Quarterly 45, 270-273

5. Miller, B. (1985) Resource competition, authoritarianism and contact as determinants of attitudes to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. Dissertation for the Diploma of Sociology, James Cook University of N. Queensland, Townsville, Australia.

6. Newman, M.A., Liss, M.B. & Sherman, F. (1983) Ethnic awareness in children: Not a unitary concept. J. Genetic Psychol. 143, 103-112.

7. Pettigrew, T.F. (1979) The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport's cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 5, 461-476.

8. Weber, R. & Crocker, J. (1983) Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. J. Personality & Social Psychology 45, 961-977.

Размещено на Allbest.ru