Despite adamant claims to the contrary, racism continues to plague many individuals across the world. The initial step in solving problems of racial intolerance and bias would be to create an understanding of the underlying theories and their labels.
This (rather long) article touches about the following subjects:
• Stereotypes, Race, and Racism
• Culture and Cultural Imperialism
• Nationalism and National Imaginary
That I hope that you find this article useful.
Based on Stroebe and Insko (1989), the expression’stereoptype’ originated in 1798 to characterize a printing procedure that included casts of pages of kind. The expression was first utilized in regard to the political and social arena in 1922 from Walter Lippman, speaking to our understanding of distinct classes.
Ever since that time, the significance of the expression was vigorously debated. Stereotyping was believed by some because the oversimplified, biased cognitive representations of”undesirable rigidity, permanence, and absence of variability in application to program” (ibid, 1989, p.4). Others, like Brown (1965), believed it’s a natural fact of life just like any other generalisation;”several generalisations obtained by heresay are authentic and useful” (mentioned in Stroebe & Insko, 1989, p.5).
Stroebe and Insko (1989) settle on a very simple definition that sits somewhere in between both of these schools of thought. They specify a stereotype as the”set of beliefs concerning the personal characteristics of a bunch of individuals” (p.5). They clearly accept that stereotypes aren’t necessarily rigid, permanent, or invariable, however they do nevertheless distinguish between stereotypes as well as other classes, asserting that stereotypes are overrun by a bias to the ingroup and off in your outgroup (p.5).
Yzerbyt, et al (1997) try to explain the occurrence of stereotypes, indicating that stereotypes supply not just a group of (often unjustified) characteristics to describe a bunch, but a rationale for preserving this pair of traits. This permits individuals to”incorporate incoming information in accordance with their particular perspectives” (p.21).
If used in regular speech in relation to multiculturalism, the term’race’ has come to mean some of these:
• nationality (geographically determined) – e.g. the Italian race
• ethnicity (reluctantly decided, occasionally in combination with geography) – e.g. the Italian race
• skin color – e.g. the white race
The most frequent use of’race’ is debatable since it’s esoteric, also because it indicates what Bell (1986) calls”biological certainty” (p.29). When we speak about race, there’s almost always a frequent understanding that we’re also speaking about shared genetic traits that are passed from generation to generation. The idea of nationality is usually not so intensely tarred with the genetics brush. Likewise, ethnicity permits for, and gives equal weight to, causes besides genetics; race doesn’t. Skin color is merely a description of bodily appearance; race isn’t. The idea of race could masquerade as a mere substitution for all these conditions, but in reality, it’s a reconstruction.
Further, there’s the question of level. Are you currently really black if you had a black grandma? Are you currently really black if you grew up in a black area? Are you black from time to time, but not other people? Who makes those decisions?
Having recognized the issues linked to the term’race’, we are now able to talk about how these issues contribute to problems of racism.
Jakubowicz et al (1994) define racism as”the set of values and behaviors related to groups of men and women in battle over bodily looks, genealogy, or cultural differences. It includes an intellectual/ideological frame of justification, a negative orientation towards’the Other’, along with a dedication to some activities that place these values into practice” (p.27)
This definition fails to address is that the frame of explanation. Maybe it should say”…frame of justification based on several theories of race and racial stereotypes…”. This will bring us back into our discussion of the notion of race.
Since race is practically impossible to specify, racial stereotypes are much more unsuitable than other sorts of stereotypes. Racism is an infuriating occurrence because, no matter the, behavior remains clarified, and activities continue to be conducted, dependent on those racial categorisations.
“Culture” is a phrase we are all comfortable with, but what exactly does it mean? Does this reflect your nationality? Does this reflect your own race? Does this reflect your color, your accent, your social circle?
Kress (1988) defines culture as”the domain name of purposeful human action and of its consequences and consequent items” (p.2). This definition is quite wide, and not particularly meaningful unless analysed in context. Lull (1995) talks of civilization as”a complicated and dynamic ecology of individuals, things, world views, actions, and preferences that basically endures but can also be changed in regular communication and social interaction. Culture is circumstance.” (p.66)
Much like other categorisation methods, nevertheless, cultural labels are inherently innaccurate when implemented at the individual level. No culture is comprised of one culture just. There are multitudes of sub-cultures that kind as a result of different living circumstances, areas of birth, upbringing, etc.. The idea of civilization is helpful as it distinguishes between various groups of individuals on the grounds of learned characteristics instead of hereditary characteristics. It”suggests that no culture is inherently superior to any other and that cultural richness with no way derives from economical status” (Lull, 1995, p.66).
This past may be one motive for the so-called”intellectual aversion to the notion of civilization” (Carey, 1989, p.19) that’s been encounted in America (likely the West generally, also I would say, undoubtedly in Australia). Other reasons suggested are individualism, Puratinism, and also the isolation of science in civilization.
In 1971, Johan Galtung released a landmark paper called”A Structural Theory of Imperialism”. Galtung conceptualises the planet for a system of centers and peripheries where the centers exploit on the peripheries by extracting raw materials, processing those materials, and promoting the processed goods back to the peripheries. Since the processed products are purchased at a much greater price compared to raw materials, the periphery finds it extremely tough to find enough funds to develop the infrastructure required to process its own raw materials. Because of this, it’s always running in a reduction.
Galtung’s version isn’t confined to the exchange of raw materials like metals, coal, oil, etc.. On the contrary, it’s intended to integrate the transformation of almost any raw significance (for instance, natural disasters, violence, death, cultural distinction ) to a valuable processed merchandise (for instance, a news story, or even a tourism business ).
Galtung’s strategy is inherently debatable, though, since it superimposes a centre-periphery connection on a planet where no such connection really physically exists. To put it differently, it’s a model which tries to make sense of their complicated relationships between civilizations, but from the fact it is a model, it’s restricting. Ironically, all concepts are necessarily versions, or structures, of fact, but Galtung’s is possibly detrimental because:
A) it places underdeveloped nations and their cultures at the periphery. In order for these countries/cultures to Attempt to change their standing, They Need to first admit their standing as peripheral; and
B) it suggests that the planet will always comprise imperialistic centre-periphery connections;”A Centre nation may slip in the Periphery, and vice versa” (Galtung &Vincent, 1992, p.49), but no allowance is made for the prospect of a world without imperialism. Consequently, if a country/culture wants to alter its position it has to turn into an imperialistic center.
Recently, the term’Cultural Imperialism’ has come to imply the cultural ramifications of Galtung’s imperialism, instead of the procedure for imperialism as he sees it. By way of instance, Mowlana (1997) asserts that cultural imperialism happens when”the dominant centre overwhelms the underdeveloped peripheries, sparking fast and unorganized cultural and societal change (Westernization), that is arguably harmful” (p.142).
The problem of language decrease because of imbalances in media arrangements and circulation is frequently claimed to be caused by cultural imperialism. Browne (1996) theorises that
“the speedy growth of the digital media throughout the twentieth century, Together with their dominance from the Vast Majority culture, have introduced a huge challenge to the ongoing ethics, as well as the very existence, of native minority languages… (p.60)”
He indicates that indiginous languages decrease as:
• new native terminology takes more to be invented, and might be more challenging to utilize, thus’bulk’ language has been utilized;
• press monopolies have historically ascertained acceptable language use;
• colleges have promoted using the’bulk’ terminology;
• indigenous populations around the globe have a tendency to rely fairly heavily on digital media since they have higher literacy issues. Because of this, they’re more heavily affected by the’bulk’ vocabulary than they cautioned;
• the digital media are improper for communicating in several native languages since most such languages use pauses as signals, and the digital media eliminate violates because they’re considered”time wasted and as an indicator of lack of professionalism” (Browne, p.61); and
• tv reinforces bulk civilization visual conferences, like direct eye contact.
Likewise, Wardhaugh (1987) discusses the way the vast majority of health and scientific articles are printed in English. “While English doesn’t completely monopolize the scientific literature, it’s hard to comprehend how a scientist who can’t read English can aspire to keep up with current scientific action.” (p.136) More books are printed in English than any other language, also
“much of higher education in the world is performed in English or demands some understanding of English, and also the educational systems of several nations admit that pupils ought to receive some instruction in English if they are to be adequately prepared to satisfy the requirements of the late twentieth century”
(Wardhaugh, 1987, p.137)
There are undoubtedly uncounted cases of a single civilization suffering in the hands of the other, but there are still difficulties with describing this in relation to Cultural Imperialism. In addition to those outlined above with terms of Galtung, there are a range of different issues. The Cultural Imperialism strategy:
• Doesn’t permit for the appropriation or select cultural values from the’minority’ civilization so as to enable, or in some other way, advantage, that civilization;
• presupposes a certain amount of organic change, it doesn’t talk where the line between normal shift and imperialism could be attracted. (When is your shift that a essential part of the compromise of residing in a multicultural society) ; and
• overlooks the alterations ‘dominant’ civilizations that inevitably happen as it learns about the’weak’ culture.
Atal (1997) asserts that”[f]orces of shift, impinging in the outside, haven’t succeeded in altering the [non-West] civilizations into societies that are senile. Cultures have demonstrated their resilience and have survived the onslaught of technological modifications ” (p.24) Robertson (1994) talks of Glocalisation, together with the local being viewed as an element of the international, not because its reverse. As an instance, we could see”the structure of progressively distinguished consumers… To put it rather simply, diversity sells” (p.37). It’s his contention that”we shouldn’t equate the communicative and interactive linking of… cultures together with the idea of homogenisation of cultures” (p.39).
This article doesn’t imply that we should be educated about the ramifications civilizations might have on each other. Instead, it indicates Cultural Imperialism is somewhat flawed as a tool for social and cultural criticism and change. Rather, each problem ought to be identified as a single issue, not as part of an overall occurrence known as cultural imperialism.
In his talk of identity and culture, Singer (1987) asserts that nationalism is a fairly modern phenomenon that began with the American and French revolutions. Singer asserts that”[a]s the quantity and significance of identity groups which people discuss increase, the more likely they are to possess a greater amount of group identity” (p.43). Using this assumption, he indicates that nationalism is a really strong identity since it unites a bunch of different identities, such as”speech, ethnicity, faith, and long-shared historical memory as one individuals attached to a certain bit of property” (p.51).
It is not surprising then, that Microsoft’s Encarta Online (1998) defines nationalism as a”movement where the nation-state is seen as the most significant force for the understanding of social, economic, and cultural aspirations of a people.”
Anne Hamilton (1990) defines domestic fanciful as
“the way by which modern social orders can create not only images of these but pictures of these from others. A picture of itself implies at once a picture of another, where it could be distinguished (p.16)”
She asserts it may be conceptualised as appearing in a mirror and believing we see somebody else. By this, she suggests a social order transplant its (especially bad) traits on a different social group. This manner, the social arrangement can see itself in a favorable manner, helping”combine the collectivity and preserve its own sense of cohesion from outsiders” (Hamilton, 1990, p.16).
It sounds, however, the procedure may also work in the opposite way. Hamilton indicates that in the case of Australia, there’s a scarcity of pictures of itself. She claims that the social arrangement has appropriated facets of Aboriginal culture consequently. Concerning the mirror analogy, this could be the self looking at the other and believing it sees itself.
Atal, Y., (1997)”One World, multiple Centres” in Media & politics in transition: cultural identity in the era of globalization, ED. Servaes, J., & Lie, R., (pp.19-28), Belgium: Uitgeverij Acco.
Bell, P., (1986) “Race, Ethnicity: Meanings and Media”, in Multicultural Societies, ED. Bell, R., (pp.26-36).
Browne, D.R., (1996) Digital Media and Indigenous Peoples, Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Galtung, J., (1971) “A Structural Theory of Imperialism” in Journal of Peace Research (8:2, pp.81-117).
Galtung, J., & Vincent, R.C. (1992) International Glasnost, Hamptom Press, USA.
Hamilton, A., (1990) “Fear and Desire: Aborigines, Asians and the National Imaginary” in Australian Perceptions of Asia (No.9, pp.14-35).
Jakubowicz, A., Goodall, H., Martin, J., Mitchell, T., Randall, L., & Seneviratne, K. (1994) Racism, Ethnicity and the Media, Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Kress, G., (1989) Culture and Communication: An Introduction, New South Wales University Press, Australia.
Lull, J., (1995) Media, Communication, Culture: A Global Strategy. Polity Press.
Mowlana, H., (1997) Global Information and World Communication: New Frontiers in International Relations, Sage Publications Ltd..
Robertson, R., (1994) “Glocalisation” in The Journal of International Communication, 1,1, (pp.32-52).
Singer, M.R., (1987) Intercultural Communication: A Perceptual Approach, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Stroebe, W., & Insko, C.. A., (1989)”Stereotype, Prejudice, and Discrimination: Transforming Conceptions in Theory and Research” at Stereotyping and Prejudice: Transforming Conceptions, ED. Bar-Tal, D., Graumann, C.F., Kruglanski, A.W., Stroebe, W., (pp.3-34), Springer-Verlag New York Inc..
Wardhaugh, R., (1987), Languages in Competition: Dominance, Diversity, and Decline, Basil Blackwell Ltd., Oxford, UK.
Yzerbyt, V., Rocher, S., & Schadron, G., (1997)”Stereotypes as Explanations: A Subjective Essentialistic View of Group Perception” at The Social Psychology of Stereotyping and Group Life, ED. Spears, R., Oakes, P.J., Ellemers, N., & Haslam, S.A., (pp.20-50), Blackwell Publishers Ltd..