How can you write a proper work
certificate for the local workers when they cannot do their jobs properly? A
Finnish business student working as a trainee in an industrial project situated
in the
This
situation illustrates in a tangible way the question I want to address in this
paper, namely that of cultural
stereotypes. Prejudice and suspicion against all that is perceived of as
‘different’ are aspects that in an obvious way affect the special context, from
which this example is taken, i.e. the international project industry where
cultural diversity is one of the most prominent features. How can it be, we
might ask, that this trainee regards all the engineers in the given country as
losers in their own occupational branch? Why is it so hard to tolerate that
different opinions and values prevail in other corners of the world? And why
does it to the trainee go without saying that his way of looking at things
represents “common sense” and the view of the local engineers the opposite?
With
its starting point in these questions, this paper aims at discussing the notion
of cultural stereotypes as it appears in the empirical material analysed. I
want to suggest that a deeper understanding of stereotypes and their role in
cultural encounters can be achieved if an analysis of their contents (what?)
and functions (how?) is connected to a more comprehensive existential question
of how people in general create their world-views[ii]
and interpret their reality (why?). To enhance our understanding of the form
and function of cultural stereotypes, I want to propose an alternative
perspective in which to interpret them. In this article, I view stereotypes from
the humanistic and theological perspectives of intercultural hermeneutics[iii] and
as structuring components in the symbolic
construction of reality (symboliska verklighetsbygget)[iv].
This can, I believe, contribute to a more dynamic and comprehensive understanding
of the stereotypes and their significance in a world where cultural encounters
have become everyday experiences.
The thoughts of the business student expressed above
constitute a sample from the empirical material I currently work with. The
context of the study consists of industrial sites around the world where a
Finnish multinational company carries out projects limited in time. The project
activity and the industrial sites – the scene of action in projects – form an
extraordinary working environment (Wikström & Gustafsson 1999). We face a both interesting and lively
context that gives abstract terms like ‘multicultural’ and ‘globalisation’ a
tangible, ordinary face. In many ways, the material sheds light on the role of
stereotypes in intercultural encounters, as these sites are multicultural
milieus in the highest degree[v].
On site, the Nordic members of the project-team work together not just with
people from the country that hosts the project, but also with experts, workers,
consultants and clients from several other countries. Contact over the cultural
boundaries is unavoidable in these surroundings and, thus, a successful project
demands more from the participants than just the ability to cope with
confrontations with what is foreign and perhaps strange; understanding, trust
and co-operation is also demanded. The question of otherness and understanding
is constantly in the air. Consequently, I define cultural encounters here as
encounters crossing the boundaries of our personally constructed categories
(i.e. as a form of stereotypes) rather than externally formed, once and for all
given, universal boundaries between cultures (Jensen 1998). Thus, the reports
of the trainees from the field on their engagement, observations and reflections
on life and work at the site provide a splendid material for cultural research
of this kind.
More
specifically, the research material[vi]
used for my analysis consists of approximately 25 field diaries written by
students (in economy and technology) who have participated as trainees in such
international industrial projects. Out of these, I have chosen twelve diaries
as key informants for a qualitative, hermeneutically directed analysis. These
written accounts are personal representations on a daily basis covering periods
of in average six months of life and work abroad. The diaries can be viewed as
tangible elucidations of the individual experience and frame of reference in
connection to cultural encounters in the given context, global economy. In my
analysis, I treat the diaries solely as texts. Thus, I do not view them as more
or less correct descriptions of an external reality that could be checked
through other forms of information, but as descriptions in the sense depictions of
different persons’ experiences of cultural encounters. Regarding the texts
themselves as the field of the study, not as a source of information on some
other field, I want to place the trainees’ ways of writing as well as my way
own of reading the material in focus (Stanley 1999)[vii].
As I have earlier conducted a pilot
study on five field diaries belonging to this empirical data (Illman 2000) and published some articles based on the
material (Illman 2001; Lillhannus
2001, 2002), I knew from before that my simple presupposition that cultural
stereotypes occur in the material held true. Different scholars have defined
the concept of cultural stereotypes in rather different ways. To clarify the
starting-point of my own thoughts, I will start by accounting for my usage of
the concept. For a researcher interested in stereotypes; the literature on the
subject available is abundant. Therefore, I do not wish to make a comprehensive
review of the term here but only state the most important issues connected to
my usage of the term[viii].
Stereotypes
were defined as “pictures in our heads” by Walter Lippmann
([1922] 1949) who was the first to use the concept as a description of human
categorisation of fellow beings[ix].
I want to stress, though, that creating stereotypes is far more complicated
than simply dividing up the world into categories. It also involves connecting
the created categories with values, equipping the categories with an ideational
label and an emotional charge (Allport 1986; Berting & Villain-Gandossi
1995). Thus, stereotypes often contain the presupposition that one’s own group
represents the normal, or even universal and that one’s own culture and its
socially construed concepts of reality is superior and normative in relation to
other cultures and world-views, as in the example given in the beginning of
this article (Argyle 1991; Kylmänen 1994). A useful
definition of stereotypes, which serves as my starting point, has been given by
Arthur Asa Berger (1999: ?), who regards stereotypes
as:
[…] an
image of a category commonly shared by a certain group, a grossly simplified
notion of how individuals that are members of a group are constituted.
An important point highlighted in
this quotation is the social character of the stereotypes: they are not just
one person’s private attitude but are always shared with a larger
socio-cultural group: they constitute a form of social cognition inherited
through socialisation (van Dijk 1987; Geels & Wikström 1993).
Berger also emphasises that stereotypes consist of suppositions of other groups
as lacking in diversity and nuance; i.e. one regards all the persons as cast in
the same mould (Argyle 1991). They are simplifications that prevent people from
seeing individuals as they truly are (Berger 1999)[x].
Once such simplifications have become part of ones way of thinking, they are
hard to change as they often serve as self-fulfilling prophecies (Adu-Gyan et al
2000; Bennett 1998; Brown 1995). Hence, the view of reality is guided by the
stereotype, not the other way around. The research on stereotypes has hitherto
quite heavily rested on the basic premise, presented by Berger & Luckmann ([1966] 1975), that our reality is socially
constructed. With my analysis, though, I want to add another individually based
dimension to this general view[xi].
Individuals are different, and therefore, so are also our views of reality,
which are affected by factors like personal experience and self-reflection.
This also influences our perception of the stereotype and of ‘the other’.
Many researchers
view stereotypes as undesirable and superficial demonstrations of ignorance
(Hofstede 1994; Hanvey 1976; Berting
& Villain-Gandossi 1995). Nevertheless, I, like
many others, choose to view stereotypes as necessary tools in the human effort
to categorise: the process by which we try to sort out the flow of phenomena
and experiences we encounter and structure it into manageable wholes (Adu-Gyan et al
2000, Allport 1986; Brislin
1981; Brown 1995). It is an indispensable way of getting along and a way to
prevent chaos from breaking loose in our inner world and in our relations. In
research, stereotypes can be separated from concepts such as prejudice,
categorisation and generalisations (Dahl 1995). This conceptualisation,
however, has been criticised for a somewhat confusing usage of the central
terminology (Williamson 1987): Sometimes, stereotypes are said to be a part of,
but different from, prejudice. At other times, they are seen as similar to
generalisations or prejudice. In the cognitive linguistic tradition presented
by Lakoff (1987), the terminology is even more complicated: a stereotype is seen as a
special kind of category included as a part of the very complex system that
forms our cognitive categorisation ability[xii].
As for
myself, I consider stereotypes as a broader phenomenon than prejudice but
similar to categorising and generalising when the objects are human beings and
the groupings of these objects are connected to value judgements. I do not wish
to present a new definition of the term stereotypes here but only hint at
fundamental criteria that in my opinion should be included in our understanding
of the concept. These are: their simplifying nature, their social foundations,
their connection to values and emotions and their normative character in the
cultural encounter. I also want to stress that stereotyping is a necessary tool
for the mind in processing and interpreting reality. Without drawers to sort
our experiences into, we can neither manage our everyday life nor find meaning
in the world around us. It is when these images become locked and too
emotionally charged that problems arise.
In this analysis, I
have found it
problematic to draw a line between e.g. types, stereotypes and prejudices in
the actual texts. Actually, I have found it more haltering than elucidating for
the analysis to try to sort out what passages in the texts could be seen as
notions belonging to what categorising category. Instead, I have chosen to
emphasise larger wholes in the assertions of the students to see what means
they use to further their argumentation in a larger perspective. As this bigger
picture has become more relevant than the thin lines between different abstract
terms, I thus intend to use only the concept of image when referring to stereotypical argumentations
in the texts – but according to the way of expression in the field diaries and
the context of the individual statement call them either open, closed or
locked. My intention is thus to show how different kinds images interplay in the
descriptions of the self and of the other in the texts of the trainees.
In the field diaries discussed above, abundant
description is offered on various aspects of cultural encounters, quite often
with the help of generalised images that vary from rather open ones to closed
and even locked ones. As Edward Said has pointed out in his analysis of orientalism as a western construct (Said [1978] 1980); by
creating an image of the other we also confirm our own identity as a contrast to
this. There is hence a considerable bond between our self-image and our image
of other, to us foreign people, which is important to note in this context.
Aided by stereotypic characterisations, these trainees namely create and depict
self-images[xiii] as
well as images of the other in their texts, but due to rather different
personal outlooks, focuses and aims, these result in different interpretations
of reality. Here, I will concentrate on the images of the other in the text
(even though it can rightly be said to be hard to separate the two as a
self-depiction often is implicitly contained in our descriptions of others).
The field diaries
presented here are written by Swedish-speaking as well as Finnish-speaking
Finns and Swedes (the translations into English are my own). The trainees are
of both sexes, but as the females are very few I choose to refer to all of them
as “he” as the women would be easy to recognise otherwise. Furthermore, I want
to clarify that my presentation of the various attitudes related to the people
and country of the different sites does not entail any value judgements.
All
of the trainees use some kind of generalising images in the field diaries when
depicting the persons they meet during their time on site, people they consider
to be other. For some, their belonging to the Nordic team on site is taken for
granted, these Finns and Swedes become a natural “we” and the rest (i.e. the
local work teams) a natural “they”. For others again, being Finnish or Swedish
has something of a negative ring, it represents narrow-mindedness and
prejudices. These trainees view themselves rather as internationalists than
“typical Finns” or “typical Swedes” and thus, also the Nordic group on site
becomes an image of the other. Furthermore, there are also trainees who have
more varied views on otherness, not drawing the lines strictly along national
criteria but rather along lines such as age, education, sex, interest and
experience – being other is not dependent on one single denominator but several
different ones (and national belonging might not be the decisive one). The most
interesting aspect revealed in this analysis is in my opinion the great
variety; open, closed and locked images are being mixed by the trainees in
their depictions that changes over time.
Open
images are those views on cultural belonging that are tentatively held; if
experience shows that they are not accurate as explanations to the reality
experienced on site they can be changed without any greater problems. The
awareness that theses images are precisely images and not eternal facts can be
seen in a comment made by one of the trainees in connection to his first
experience of what he considers to be the chaotic traffic in the country where
he is staying. To me, the drivers seem either mad or drunk, he writes, but
probably the reason to their driving is simply that they have just grown up
with this kind of unruly traffic. Another trainee gives an example of open
images as he in his field diary notes that both a Finnish colleague and a local
colleague are characterised by their conscientious attitude towards work. Here,
it is not the nationality but the individual and the situation that defines a
“conscientious” work.
This
openness in the images of the other also allows for some ambivalence in the
depictions, an ambivalence that can be seen as a natural part of a world that
is not seen only in black and white. The following quotation was written down
by a trainee in
When N had left, I mostly kept
myself occupied with feeling sorry for myself at the same time both admiring
and loathing the ant-like Indian way of building.
In other parts of the field diaries again, one finds
images of the other that are much more closed; at these times, the trainees use
generalisations concerning the preferences and opinions of the other as well as
her character and mental disposition when they try to describe and interpret
the happenings around them in their diaries. Thus, the closed images are
central in the texts as they serve as explanatory models for the trainees.
These closed images of the other can be both positive and negative. The
following quotation, where a trainee working on a site in
In these countries, people are just
like us - only more. I mean, when one is joyful, angry, happy, in love etc, one
is even more of that here than a standard Finn. I like the people here very
much. They are humane and sensitive.
The “standard Finn” in this quotation seems not to be
a positive image to the writer, but among the trainees under study in this
article one can also find positive closed images of the Nordic group and the
people belonging to it. A Swedish trainee in
For me, it is always easier to deal
with people that don’t talk so much bullshit but really do something instead.
That’s why I like all the Finns and Swedes here. There is no one who feels
uncomfortable when it is all quiet for a long time, rather the opposite.
These closed images can also be negative to their
character, thus revealing characters and traits that the trainees regard as a
general, but negative part of the image of the perceived other. Culture forms
the personality of the individual, one of the trainees seems to imply in the
following quotation concerning the inhabitants of the Asian country where he is
staying:
[People of this nationality] (not
all of them of course) are greedy to their nature and try to fool money off
foreigners as soon as they get the chance. If you give in the first time, they
crave more the next.
As we see in the quotation, by putting in an
extenuating circumstance in brackets, the trainee is still letting the reader
know that he knows that this image is not always true. But still it seems to be
such a general characteristic that he finds it worth writing down in his diary
as an explanation of how people are constituted in this part of the world.
Nevertheless, we can also find locked and very harsh images of the perceived
other in the diaries, images that qualify as prejudices if not even racism.
Concerning his experience of leading a local work team on an Asian site, one of
the trainees writes:
They [the local workers] are like
chess pawns; you have to move every single one yourself because nobody moves
automatically or can take an initiative. […] The game is lost if you get angry,
they do even less then. You can’t coordinate their work if you get angry at
their apathy. Actually, you should lead them like a sheep dog tends the sheep.
You have to explain all the time and signal if something goes wrong just like
the sheep dog bites the sheep if they don’t obey. When they do take an
initiative themselves, it often goes wrong, so that is not desirable.
These locked images of the other and
her character can also be conveyed back in history as explanations of how the
unequal situation regarding economy and political power in the world has
arisen, or into the future giving the trainees rather hopeless images of the
future possibilities for dialogue and understanding:
Already the traffic
behaviour in this country shows that they can’t think far into the future. And
when they can’t prepare and plan for the future, it all results in chaos.
Nobody is interested in following any rules or in thinking that what benefits
the larger society might perhaps one day also benefit oneself. As these people
have grown up as illiterate and uneducated, as adults they cannot learn and
take in anything new either.
As established above, the analysis
of the research material brings about several different ways of understanding
and making use of the concept of stereotypes in these field diaries. One cannot
say that stereotypes function in one certain way or another but in several
different ways; they have different importance in different situations; they
differ on a scale from open to locked images. Hence, we can ask why the
perceptions of the trainees vary so greatly – between the different trainees as
well as in the writings of every single person. I suggest that the explanation
to these differences might lie in what was hinted at in the propositions I
presented earlier in this chapter: not just social constructionist notions and
collective value judgements should be taken into our accounts of the
stereotypes as parts of cultural encounters – the individual as an experiencing
subject needs to be analysed too.
The
attitude-based dimension of stereotypes as a common, socially formed dimension
of experience building on shared symbolic universes and social constructions
(Berger & Luckmann 1975) is important indeed. But
the perception of the individual is diminished if only this collective dimension
of the stereotypes is acknowledged. We can either conceive of the individual as
a fairly simple product of her context, of her social and cultural milieu. In
this case it follows, that if we know the categories within which she belongs,
we also know how she thinks, feels and lives. Or; we can prefer to conceive of
humans as many-sided compositions of external as well as internal factors and
qualifications, as subjects constantly reflecting upon their identity. Thus,
she is always becoming, always on her
way (Lindgren & Wåhlin 2001). Indeed, the view
that human beings are constantly both formed by their lives and also form their
existence and their circumstances is what I find to be close to reality the way
I see things (Lillhannus 2002). Many characteristics
we do share with others: nationality, education, socioeconomic background -
even family and important values, attitudes and interests might be shared. But
in addition to many common cultural elements, we are endowed with internal
qualities and processes which are person-specific – feelings and memories,
experiences and interpretations – that make us into unique and complex
individuals (Holm 1995; 1997).
As the individual is seen as formed both by her
external, social milieu and by her inner world, we need to include another
dimension in our analysis of stereotypes to get a more comprehensive picture of
the ongoing process of experiencing and interpreting life and events. This
dimension concerns emotional aspect of the encounter. It is psychologically oriented
and touches the individual as an experiencing subject. In this perspective, the
individual is not just a product of her context; she actively forms her views
and meanings in negotiations related to her life experience and her
self-conscious sense of reality. She experiences, interprets and expresses her
views of this context in a unique way, a process depicted e.g. in the concept reflexive identity construction
(Lindgren & Wåhlin 2001).
Intercultural
Hermeneutics
The active and dynamic view of man presented above can
be linked to a perspective on intercultural issues that Peter Nynäs (2001) has called Intercultural
hermeneutics. With humanities, theology and especially hermeneutic theory
as their point of departure, scholars in this emerging perspective want to
develop a more dynamic and humane way of understanding cultural encounters, as
an alternative to the deterministic views on culture and man that characterise
many contemporary discussions on interculturality.
The tendency to treat rational aspects of the encounter as the whole solution
has lately met critique in this field. Besides knowledge and intellectual
perspectives, how we interpret, understand and express encounters is also of
great importance, emphasises Nynäs (2001).
Encountering always includes establishing an interpersonal relationship – it
comes down to an attitude of openness and interest towards the other. In this
perspective, differences on the outside are not definitive and measurable –
actually, these say rather little about how different we are as such and to
each other (Lillhannus 2001). Thus, an encounter is
always an interpretation: people experience them in different ways and value
them differently. Confidence and reciprocity, respect, empathy and the
willingness to understand hence become keys in the actual encounter (Dahl
2001).
This humanistic
perspective, which I too use in my analysis, places the individual in the focal
point. Interest is directed towards the experience of estrangement and the
quality of meeting, towards questions concerning understanding and
interpretation of reality. Such aspects are more interesting than assumptions
based on predetermined cultural differences. Abstract boundaries between
people, like ethnicity or colour, are not as exiting as the views on how they
are interpreted and experienced by different persons. Thus, personal attitudes
based on experienced estrangement and understanding, or self-image and image of
those we consider other – coloured by the experience of encounter - replace the
systems. Nynäs (2001) suggests five points of
departure for intercultural hermeneutics:
Peter Winch can also be quoted in
support for this hermeneutical position: we do not only absorb a culture, he
states; we also react on it (Winch 1958). Culture and religion shape human
behaviour in society - and values and meanings are being shaped by the
individual in society.
Reijo E. Heinonen (1997), another scholar in this field, proposes
the term arvomuisti, value memory, as the foundation of our attitude to experienced
others. Heinonen, too, underlines the importance of
regarding the cultural encounter as involving elements of knowledge, attitude
and commitment (Heinonen 1997). Self-knowledge, he
underlines, should also be taken into account: a consciousness of the value
judgements and conceptions that form the foundation of one’s personal
motivation. Therefore, an encounter is characterised by much more than just
certain knowledge and predictable (and controllable) components – our
prejudgements and world-view are entities that to a far greater extent form our
encounters (Lillhannus 2001).
Heinonen suggests the concept value memory
(arvomuisti), as the perspective in which we always
regard people from other cultures and religions. In the holy scriptures of the
religions, in their traditions, rituals and myths, fundamental values are being
expressed - thoughts that have grown over centuries. These constitute what Heinonen calls a culture’s value memory. Also for persons
who do not actively practise religion, these fundamental values embedded in
culture are central to the apprehension of reality. In new situations that urge
us to take a stand and to find new ways of orientating ourselves - in the
contact with representatives of other cultures and religions - we usually
without reflecting that much take refuge to these basic values and the general
outlines they offer. The term bears many similarities with the symbolic
universe proposed by Berger & Luckmann (1975),
but in this context, I feel that the value memory as a term offers advantages
in our strivings for a deeper understanding of stereotypes in cultural
encounters. The value memory, namely, should not only be seen as a frame
forming us from the outside. It is also strongly connected to the personal
emotional life, which gives this interpretative frame priority in the encounter
(Heinonen 1997). This requires us to take in yet
another perspective to supplement the theoretical framework being built in this
article.
The Symbolic
Character of Reality
In Heinonens view, it
obviously makes a difference what kind of values we have stored in our memory-bank
and what the mental representations are which underline and motivates our
actions and reactions. This notion corresponds to Nils
G. Holm’s (1997) psychological analysis of human interpretation of reality. In
presenting some terms from this academic field, my aim is to form a more
substantial theoretical perspective in which to understand the attempts of the
trainees to create meaning in situations full of not just differing working
methods but also altering values and opinions. This terminology could perhaps
be of use also in a broader intercultural research effort.
Holm
underlines the important role emotional aspects and symbols play in the
individual processes of interpretation, the
symbolic creation of reality, especially in complex situations such as the
experience of an encounter. A symbol,
as this many-sided concept is used by Holm, refers to a way of thinking and
perceiving that comes in touch with such aspects of reality that cannot be
expressed in any other way. A symbol can simply be defined as something that points to a reality beyond
the immediately given (from the Greek word symbolon,
unite) (Holm 1997: 18). In order to understand the symbols fostered by our own
culture and to create a personal use of these, we need to be able to think in
terms that surpass the immediately given. This requires abstract thinking that
allows for concepts and items to obtain a deeper significance than the ordinary
and immediate. The symbols are of great importance in our lives; through our
ability to use them we build up our reality and without them our thinking would
be impoverished, suggests Holm. The term symbolic
universe[xiv] coined
by the social theorists Berger & Luckmann is an
essential component in this theory.
In
psychology, symbols are often seen as unconscious, mental constructs that
surpass cultural differences. For linguists, a symbol might be a linguistic
form embedded in the speech act and for anthropologists again a material object
with a collectively created meaning structure held alive by a cultural group (Leppäkari & Lillhannus 2001).
In the perspective chosen for this analysis, with its roots in comparative
religion, the symbol is seen as including all of these different qualities,
united in one single form with both a function and a content. The external form
of the symbol might be e.g. a geographical location (Leppäkari
1999); a special situation (an encounter, a ritual), a person or the role this
person is seen to fill: the priest or the mother, but also e.g. the role of the
stranger, or the other, can be interpreted in symbolical terms (Illman 2000; 2001), which is of interest in this particular
article.
These
symbolic components of our reality creation have two sides: an external and an
internal – a commonly shared and a personal (Holm 1997). On one hand, we create
our image of reality with the help of external, culturally shared material
embraced directly through learning or indirectly through the society we live
in. In the religious traditions and culture as such, for instance, the structured
experiences of generations have formed patterns including norms and habits,
linguistic and behavioural forms. This reality made tangible by material
symbols, such as texts, pictures, behavioural structures, Holm (1995) calls the
external existence space (yttre existensrum). But our
interpretations are also influenced by inner, personal factors and treatment of
this material from the outside world: the experience has an inside
characterised by traits of the unique experiencing individual. This important
inner world is the inner existence space (inre existensrum). Here, the
symbols from the outside are worked through.
In the
process of bringing together the inner and the outer worlds symbols play a
crucial role. Through this treatment, the new impressions are joined to
previous remodelled memories, emotions and experiences. Thus, the external
culturally shared norms and attitudes get personal interpretations
characterised by the complicated composition of the innermost being of every
individual. With this view, Holm connects the dynamic inner world with the
frames and contents provided by an external socio-cultural context and
describes the importance of contents and functions of symbols in the vital
interaction between the two.
After this presentation of an alternative theoretical
frame for the interpretation of cultural encounters, and specifically the
stereotypical images included in the descriptions of these encounters, it is
now time to analyse what advantages these lines of thoughts can offer in this
particular study. Turning back to the research material and the question of the
richly varying forms and functions of the stereotypes found in the diaries; we
find that there might not be just one
correct answer to the question asked in the beginning of the article: why do we need these stereotypes, why do we need structures and categories
in our minds? Regarding the subjects under study, i.e. the trainees, as active
and reflecting actors in a hermeneutical process of meaning creation, we can
observe that much of the literature within the field of intercultural
communication is of little use in trying to understand the complex processes
involved. Many interculturalists
draw up fairly simple pictures of cultural encounters, suggesting as the
solution to the problem different kinds of communication models for
intercultural situations[xv],
diagrams of national characteristics[xvi],
step-by-step models for the development of cultural encounters and handbooks
(or so called “how to” books) on specific cultures (Bennett 1998; Dahlén 2001). According to this view, success in the
intercultural arena depends solely on intellectual knowledge; differences are
predetermined so that your own cultural belonging defines how far from another
given culture you stand. The cultural encounter is thus compared to a game: She
who knows the rules is an unerring winner.
But as we has
been mentioned before in this article; the tendency to treat encounters as
rational and predictable events has lately met critique from researchers
positioned in the field of hermeneutics (Nynäs 2001).
Encountering always includes establishing an interpersonal relationship; it
involves complex human beings with complex views on reality. Thus, encountering
comes down to an attitude of openness and interest towards the other – human
beings are not just objects prearranged in categories and groups – they have
the ability to surprise. By the help of these hermeneutical notions of interculturality, thus, I believe that a more thorough
understanding of the images of the other portrayed in the research material can
be obtained. The images are dynamic – they change from time to time in the
particular field diaries and they vary greatly from one person to another.
Therefore, a dynamic theory of man, of culture and knowledge that gives room
for human interpretation and understanding is needed.
The
fact that stereotypes might have something to do with cognitive structures in
the human mind, and hence are indispensable, has been suggested before[xvii],
but the implications of this turn to a more profound way of regarding the
function, prerequisites and content of the stereotypes that my proposition
implicates must now be taken seriously. If we deepen our conception of the
stereotypes and their central features and regard them as fundamental
structures with important functions in the construction of reality, hence, we
must also strive to deepen our understanding of the significance they have for
us. In this situation, I find it elucidating to connect the stereotypes in the
material to Nils G. Holms theory on symbolic reality
creation, regarding the different images in the material as symbols in Holm’s
sense of the word. Holm’s introduction of the symbolic dimension into the
process of meaning creation (Holm 1995; 1997) takes the interplay of personal
and cultural perspectives into account - a vitally important correspondence for
the individual[xviii].
This symbolical perspective is both elucidating and thought provoking in
connection to the categorical images found in the research material as it is a
fusion of a psychological and a phenomenological[xix]
view on the character and function of the symbol.
According to this
symbol theory, presented in general earlier, we learn in an early stage of life
to separate between good and evil as basic dimensions of our social reality.
Consequently, we learn to name our experiences and arrange them into these two
fundamental categories (Holm 1995). The link to attribution theory[xx]
is clear; our lives are seen as accompanied by constant searches for meaning.
Our memory does not work as a camera but has both cognitive and
emotional sides. Hence, we actively mould events and emotions in our mind – we
forget, reinterpret, repress and enlarge. We also fuse our experiences into
categories and sort them into “memory-drawers”[xxi].
This is done by means of symbols. Hence, in our inner existence space we create
a personal image of e.g. the evil or the good, the heroic, on the basis of
social material. As already stated, this symbol has not just knowledge and
experience but also emotions and values connected to it (Holm 1997). Forming
an opinion on how the individual treats the external symbols in her inner
existence space is a delicate task depending on intra-psychic components, and
hence, this cannot be the striving of this article. It is possible to
implicate, though, that this process is what we encounter in the field diaries;
the personal use of stereotypes can be seen as inner treatments of external
symbols of the stranger, the other – sometimes as a positive feature (the
adventure) but sometimes also as a negative one (the evil, the strange). When
external and internal symbols interplay we experience a symbolic reality with
strong legitimating power – thus the strong validity that these stereotypical
explanations hold to some of the trainees in some situations.
The
symbolic dimension discussed here is connected not just to religion and culture
but has a vital function in our everyday lives, in contemporary, secularised
world-views. The use of symbols provides us with meaning on a profound,
existential level. Due to this wide range, this specific symbol theory is of
interest when studying the world-views of the trainees and the position held by
cultural stereotypes in this construct. Our ability to pick up symbols and
comprehend their meaning gives us the possibility to bring forth a chain of
associations embracing centuries and generations by using only one single word[xxii].
Therefore, the symbol is a convenient tool in our inner world and in
communication: ”Through the symbolic
function, a major psychic memory can be preserved and instantly actuated for
the individual” (Holm 1995, 136). These categorising, mediating and
meaning-rendering functions of symbols could, in my opinion, be connected to
the cultural stereotypes and their occurrences in the research material. Consequently, my argument is that cultural
stereotypes, to some extent, can be understood as expressions of a symbolic way
of approaching reality, a way that is perceived as meaningful by the trainees
in the specific situation. The stereotype images presented by the informants
about people form other cultures might become a little bit more comprehensible
when interpreted in the terminology of symbols.
According
to the theory, we create an object of projection representing e.g. everything
evil or everything beautiful with the help of a symbolising function connected
to intra-psychic structures as well as to reactions to and influences from
surrounding society. A specific character may in this way become the symbol of
all the thoughts, emotions, experiences and teachings we choose to attribute to
it. My suggestion is that such objects of projection is involved in some of the
cultural encounters presented in the field diaries. The symbolical stranger is
brought to the fore in encounters with people they feel they do not know and
feel incapable of understanding, people who live and dress in strange ways,
whose world-views they neither share nor accept. On the other hand, the
symbolical ideal - the hero, the idol - is awaked in encounters with people
that the trainees perceive as attractive and engaging, in contexts that have a
flavour or exotism, adventure – an idealised
otherness.
Concluding
Remarks
When the views of intercultural
hermeneutics are connected with the concepts of external and inner existence
space, I believe we have a framework that facilitates an interpretation of the
stereotypes found in the material, at least partially. My aim in this paper was
to show that (1) the images of the other portrayed in the research material
cannot be explained by any simple templates or schemes: the trainees whose
field diaries have been analysed here must be regarded as conscious actors,
actively reflecting their experiences and encounters. Thus, the need for a
hermeneutically based theory on interculturality. I
also aimed at showing that (2), stereotypes can be viewed as symbolical
notions, constructed through an external as well as an internal process of
reality creation performed by the individual, thus explaining the emotional
evaluations of the images in the texts. The cultural stereotypes could,
consequently, be apprehended as explanations of reality connected to emotional
factors and cognitive structures in our inmost world of experience. These
suggestions were made along the lines of Nils G.
Holm’s theory of the symbolical creation of reality I also want to suggest,
that in our cultural tradition, perhaps in every individual, there exists a
symbolic creation of “the other”. It can therefore be a fruitful approach to
regard the stereotyped judgements of the trainees as reactions to the
association chains connected to symbolic structures of e.g. “the stranger” or
“the outsider” actualised by the unfamiliar situation.
Finally,
I want to turn back to the example given in the beginning of this article. If
we can understand more of the symbolic dimension in the encounter between our
business student and the local work force, many of the attached fears, negative
thoughts and commonly shared xenophobic stories that go with it can be noticed
as well. We may then better understand what it is all about – and it is
possible to give the phenomenon a theoretical description to a larger extent.
This could be a way of comprehending and gaining a deeper understanding for the
harsh reaction of the trainee and the difficulty he finds in carrying out the
task of writing recommending work certificates when reality, in his eyes,
appears so diametrically different.
Adu-Gyan, Kems &
Ahmad Ahmadi, Vedran Omanovic, Gill
Widell (2000): Om (stereo)typifieringars (ir)rationalitet – utveckling av en
teoretisk ansats. In: Mångfald, diskriminering och stereotypier: tre forskaruppsatser om mångfald.
Halmstad: Rådet för arbetslivsforskning.
Alasuutari, Pertti (1995): Researching Culture. Qualitative Method and Cultural Studies.
Allport, Gordon ([1954] 1986): The Nature of Prejudice.
Argyle, Michael (1991): Cooperation: The Basis of Sociability.
Bennett,
Berger, Arthur Asa
(1999): Kulturstudier. Nyckelbegrepp för
nybörjare. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Berger,
Peter & Thomas Luckmann ([1966] 1975): The Social Construction of Reality.
Berting, J & C. Villain-Gandossi
(1995): The Role and Significance of National Stereotypes in International
Relations: An Interdisciplinary Approach. In: Stereotypes and Nations ed. by Teresa Walas.
Björkqvist, Kaj &
Nils G. Holm (eds.) (1996): World Views in Modern Society. Empirical
Studies on the Relationship between World View, Culture, Personality and
Upbringing. Åbo: Religionsvetenskapliga
skrifter nr 29, Åbo Akademi.
Brislin, Richard W. (1981): Cross-cultural Encounters: Face to Face Interaction.
Brown,
Rupert (1995): Prejudice – its Social
Psychology.
Dahl,
Øivind (2001): Møter mellom mennesker.
Interkulturell kommunikajson.
Dahl,
Æyvind (1995): The Use of Stereotypes in Intercultural
Communication. In: Essays on Culture and
Communication ed. by Torben Vestergaard.
Dahlén, Tommy (2001):
Hantera kulturkrockar: hur ett transnationellt yrke växer fram och hålls ihop.
In Flera fält i ett. Socialantropologer
om translokala fältstudier ed. by Ulf Hannerz. Stockholm: Carlssons
Bokförlag.
van
Dijk, Teun A (1987): Communicating Racism. Ethnic Prejudice in
Thought and Talk. London: Sage
Publications.
Geels, Anton & Owe
Wikström (1993): Den religiösa människan
– psykologiska perspektiv.
Gudykunst, William B. (1988): Culture and Interpersonal Communication.
Hacking,
Ian (1999): The Social Construction of
What?
Hall,
Edward T (1969): The Hidden Dimension.
Hanvey, Robert (1976): An Attainable
Global Perspective.
Heinonen,
Reijo E. (1997): Arvomuisti
kehitysyhteistyössä. Åbo: Painotalo Gillot.
Hofstede,
Geert (1994): Cultures
and Organizations, Software of the Mind. Intercultural co-operation and its
importance for survival.
Holm, Nils G. (1997): Människans symboliska verklighetsbygge. En
psykofenomenologisk studie. Åbo: Religionsvetenskapliga skrifter nr. 40,
Åbo Akademi.
Holm,
Nils G. (1995): Religious Symbols and Role Taking. In
Sundén’s Roll Theory. An Impetus
to Contemporary Psychology of Religion ed. by N. Holm & J.A. Belzen.
Åbo: Religionsvetenskapliga
skrifter nr. 27, Åbo Akademi.
Illman, Ruth (2001):
Myt, rit och möten i internationell projektindustri - Mystiken kring några
motorer i Indien, Finsk Tidskrift
4-5/2001.
Illman, Ruth (2000): Kulturer i allmänhet. Stereotypin som
verktyg i kulturmötet. Åbo: Meddelanden från
Ekonomisk-statsvetenskapliga fakulteten vid Åbo Akademi.
Illman, Ruth &
Gill Widell (2001): Concepts that Make a
Difference.
Illman, Siv (1992): Vere Adest – Religionspsykologisk tolkning
av närvarotemat i Olov Hartmans romaner. Åbo: Åbo Akademis Förlag.
Jensen, Iben: (1998): Interkulturel kommunikation i komplekse
samfund. Roskilde: Roskilde Universitetsforlag
Kylmänen, Marjo (1994): Me ja muut. Kulttuuri, identiteetti, toiseus. Tammerfors: Vastapaino.
Lakoff,
George (1987): Women, Fire, and Dangerous
Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Leppäkari, Maria
(1999): Sion och det eviga fredsriket: en fallstudie i samtida millenarism. In:
I förgården till tusenårsriket.
Religionsvetenskapliga perspektiv på millenarism ed. by Maria Leppäkari
& Tomas Mansikka. Åbo: Religionsvetenskapliga skrifter nr. 45, Åbo Akademi.
Leppäkari, Maria &
Ruth Lillhannus (2001): Symbolanalys. Metodkarta och kompass för
symbolorientering. In: Metodkompendium
för studerande i folkloristik och religionsvetenskap ed. by Lena
Marander-Eklund. Åbo: Åbo Akademi.
Lindgren, Monica &
Nils Wåhlin (2001): Identity Construction among Boundary-Crossing Individuals, Scandinavian
Journal of Management.
17/2001.
Lippmann, Walter ([1922] 1949): Public Opinion.
Lillhannus, Ruth (2002): Cultural Encounters on International
Grounds. The multidimensional Experience. In: Reflecting
Diversity – Perspectives from
Lillhannus, Ruth
(2001): I arbetets tecken. Kulturmöten på internationella byggarbetsplatser. Finsk Tidskrift 7/2001.
Nynäs, Peter (2001): Bakom Guds rygg. En hermeneutisk ansats till
interkulturell kommunikation och förståelse i industriella projekt. Åbo:
Åbo Akademis förlag.
Nynäs, Peter (1999): Ich kann
Nynäs, Peter (1998): Kultur och förståelse. En studie av
interkulturell kommunikation mellan säljare och kund inom industriell
projektbaserad industri. Åbo: Meddelanden från Ekonomisk-statsvetenskapliga
fakulteten vid Åbo Akademi.
Proudfoot, Wayne & Phillip Shaver (1997): Attribution
Theory and the Psychology of Religion. In:
Psychology of Religion. Theoretical Perspectives ed. by B. Spilka & D.
McIntosh.
Said,
Edward ([1978] 1980): Orientalism.
Singer,
Marshall R. (1998): Culture: A Perceptual Approach. In: Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication ed. by Milton
Bennett.
Spears,
Russell & Penelope
J. Oakes, Naomi Ellemers, S. Alexander Haslam (eds) (1997): The Social Psychology of Stereotyping and
Group Life.
Spilka, Bernard & Daniel McIntosh (1995): Attribution Theory and Religious
Experience. In: Handbook of Religious
Experience ed. by Ralph W. Hood et al.
Stanley, Liz (1999): On Auto/Biography in Sociology. In: Qualitative Research vol
II ed. by Alan Bryman & Robert G. Burgess. London:
Sage Publications.
Wikström, Kim &
Claes Gustafsson (1999): Ett skapande kaos. Projektitoiminta. Vol. XXII. 1/1999.
Williamson,
C: Prejudice and Generalisations. International
Journal of Moral and Social Studies. Vol. II. 2/1987.
Intercultural
Communication, ISSN 1404-1634, 2002, issue 5.
Editor:
Prof. Jens Allwood
URL:
http://www.immi.se/intercultural/.
[i] The writer is MA and researcher at the
Department of Comparative Religion,
[ii] Here, the English terminology is admittedly problematic. In Swedish we have the term livsåskådning, ‘life-view’ which would be more appropriate in this context, as it refers to a personal dimension within the individual. The term world-view is actually too general and unspecific, as it comprises both cosmogony and anthropogony. But it is the one word used in English. Further comments in Björkqvist & Holm (1996).
[iii] Nynäs
(1998, 2001), for English terminology Nynäs (1999).
[iv] Holm (1997), for English terminology Holm (1995).
[v] Regarding the use of the terms
intercultural and cross-cultural in this article, as a rule of thumb I use
intercultural when human action over perceived boundaries of culture is
involved and cross-cultural when referring to a milieu as such.
[vi] The
material has been gathered by the Research
Institute PBI (Project-Based Industry), based in
[vii] This of course does not imply that there is no ”real” world in which these projects are carried out or that the interpretations of the trainees have nothing to do with ”reality” (Alasuutari 1995: 69). This is a choice of focus, though, where the depictions, how the trainees express their experiences of cultural encounters are focused.
[viii] The
researchers I have found interesting chiefly belong to the fields intercultural
communication and (social)psychology. The term stereotype is often used also by
sociologists and in the humanities, such as (symbol)anthropology, linguistics, folkloristics, and many more. For a thorough review of the
term, see Illman & Widell
2001 and Spears et al 1997.
[ix] The word ‘stereotype’ originates from the book and newspaper printing houses where it signifies a printing form used in duplicating signs and pictures.
[x] According to Berger (1999), stereotypes can be positive, mixed or negative. van Dijk (1987) again regards cultural stereotypes as primarily negative and Allport (1986) states that stereotypes also can include a favourable attitude.
[xi] Other researchers have naturally also presented adaptations of the concept, e.g. Hacking (1999).
[xii] Besides stereotypes, this cognitive
system includes also i.e. types, prototypes, metonymic models, polysemy as categorisation, centrality gradience,
which all are separated from each other.
[xiii] An analysis
of the different self-images portrayed in this research material has been made
in Lillhannus 2002.
[xiv] In this
context it is defined as a cognitive and behavioural structure formed and
distributed by society or a social group (Holm 1997, 23).
[xv] See e.g. Hall (1969), Gudykunst (1988).
[xvi] See e.g. Hofstede
(1994).
[xvii] Especially by Singer (1998).
[xviii] Siv Illman (1992) previously presented a similar integrated theoretical approach to give theoretical description to more specific life situations.
[xix] It is important to distinguish between the philosophical tradition called phenomenology, with e.g. Husserl and Heidegger as prominent figures, and the tradition deriving from comparative religion with the same name that was formed by e.g. Otto and Schleiermacher. This context refers to the latter.
[xx] Especially, I want to connect to interpretations of this theory where implications for questions
relating to world-view, religion and the view of reality as culturally
conditioned have been furthered; see Geels & Wikström 1993; Proudfoot &
Shaver 1997; Spilka & McIntosh 1995.
[xxi] Cp. with the discussion on stereotypes and categorisation presented
earlier in this paper.
[xxii] By drawing the symbol of a heart on a post card the receiver of my card will know much more than if I had filled the card with ever so many words. This is because the symbol expresses emotions, historical connotations, and personal features, too. The hart is a symbol of love in our society and by using it properly I prove that I have understood what it stands for. Nevertheless, the symbol might have a personal significance for me personally, connected to my personal history and specific cognitive constitution.