прагматика и медиа дискурс / Teun A van Dijk - Ideology

Reconstructing ideologies

Recall that ideologies, defined as basic social representations of groups, should not be identified with their discursive expression. Indeed, the relation between ideologies and discourse may be very indirect — usually, more specific beliefs from social attitudes and from personal models of events show up in text and talk, further modified by the constraints of context models of speakers and writers. That is, more often than not, ideological beliefs need to be inferred, hypothetically reconstructed, from actual discourse, for instance by comparison with repeated (contextually different) discourses of other group members. Since we only have one (large) text here, such comparisons can only be made within the book itself, as well as with those texts or examples the author refers to and agrees with. Moreover, in typical ideological treatises of this kind, the very formulation of the 'principies' involved may be close to the underlying ideologies because D'Souza does not tel many concrete stories, but argues at a general, abstract level. Moreover the overall, contextual purpose of the book is to attack what he sees as a threatening ideology (cultural relativism) and to promote another, which he does not narre explicitly, although he aligns himself with what he calls'cultural conservatism'.

As may be expected from a book that deals with various political, social, economic and cultural issues, also D'Souzá s book manifests several, related ideologies, depending on lis respective identifications with different groups or communities, as explained aboye: Western, white, middle-class, male, heterosexual, professional, conservative elites. However, D'Souza focuses on his main ideological and social enemies, namely, the cultural relativists and African-Americans. Also class is a salient dimension, as is obvious from his special wrath against the black 'underclass'. His frequent generalizations show, however, that he takes the whole black community as a metonymic (totum pro parte) representation of the black poor.

In sum, we may expect four types of ideology here, those of raceethnicity, class, culture and politics, and an overall 'meta-ideology' organizing these, namely, that of conservatism. It is this over-arching conservative ideology that establishes coherente and numerous links between the beliefs in the respective ideologies. For instance, where D'Souza defends sociopolitical, neo-liberal beliefs about limited state intervention, we may expect racialized beliefs about African-American dependency on the state in general, and about black welfare mothers in particular. And where his cultural ideologies defend the uniqueness and hegemony of Western civilization, we may expect both the class and yace ideologies to feature beliefs about the 'barbarism' of the underclass. The same cultural ideologies may be connected to ideological beliefs about the 'bankruptcy' of relativist multiculturalism, whereas conservative—liberal individualism emphasizes the importance of personal merit against group-based, collective affirmative action. Similarly, the conservative ideology of law and order will be 'racialized' in this case in the evaluation of Ilack crimé . Many other such

cross-linkages between main ideologies and specific attitudes may be reconstructed from this book.

As we shall see in more detall below, such an ideological complex will be brought to bear in the central attitude that provides the basis and the title of this book, namely, that contrary to what is maintained by blacks and their liberal white supporters, the USA is not (or at least no longer) a racist country. As suggested in the previous chapters, it is this denial of racism which constitutes one of the core attitudes of modem elite racism. Disguised by what is defined as a 'culture war' between liberal relativists and conservative cultural supremacists, we thus discover the continuation of the ongoing'rue war' that has characterized the'American dilemmá for centuries. Indeed, the book's subtitle advocates a'multiracial' society, but the contents of the book show that the supremacy of the dominant white

should not be challenged. 'Racional discrimination' is a 'natural' right of this dominant ethnic group:

[141 The Greeks were ethnocentric, they showed a preference for their own. Such tribalism they would have regarded as natural, and indeed we now know that it is universal. In some situations an instinctive ethnocentrism is inevitable, as when one's society is under extemal attacks and one must rally to its defence. (p. 533)

We see here at work one of the most prominent devices of the ideological legitimation of inequality, namely, that such a situation is 'natural' and hence'universal'. At the same time, such a passage shows another device in the representation of the others, namely, how outgroups are constructed as enemies against whose 'external attacks' we must 'naturally' defend ourselves. Thus, racism is not only made respectable, while natural, but also a patriotic duty of whites in the 'culture war' and the 'civilizational crisis' (p. 535).

After this brief overall characterization of the various ideologies involved, let us now examine some of their contents and structures.

Conservatism

It was argued, aboye, that 'conservatism' it not so much a (group) ideology, but rather an overarching, meta-ideology that organizes other ideologies. For instance, applied to neo-liberal ideologies in the realm of the political economy, conservative ideologies typically advocate a limited role of the state (or government) in the market. Similarly, when applied to cultural ideologies, conservative meta-principles may take two complimentary variants: limited state intervention in some cultural domains (education, media, religion), or active state intervention, for example through tough legislation, in the domains that are seen to threaten the moral order (family values, sexuality, multiculturalism). And finally, when applied to racial or ethnic ideologies, conservatism will similarly allow (condone or not strictly police) various forms of discrimination, as the right of each person or ethnic group to 'prefer one's own'.

Values As all ideologies, also conservative meta-ideologies are based on a selection and combination of values drawn from a cultural commonground. D'Souza for instance positively refers to the following values (of which the ideological, attitudinal and discursive constructions will be examined below):

•freedom

•personal merit

•discipline

•prudence

•moderation

•responsibility

•self-restraint

•hard work

•authority

•order

•decency

•elitism

•non-permissiveness.

Such an ideological selection of rather general cultural values usually also involves a set of counter-values when the ideology is brought to bear in an ideological struggle with ideological opponents. Thus, these values are selected and emphasized especially against (certain variants of) those of egalitarian, progressive liberalism: equality, social responsibility, social support, moral freedom, cultural relativism, freedom from oppression, representativeness, anti-authoritarianism, permissiveness, creativity, selfcritique, progress, democracy, and so on.

Given these values and their counterparts, sorne of the conservative ideological beliefs defended by D'Souza in his book are the following.

1 The social and civilizational status quo is being threatened. 2 The state should not interfere where ft does not belong.

3 Social programmes to help the poor are counterproductive.

4 People should be judged individually by their own achievements. 5 Inequality has individual not social causes.

6 People have duties, and not only rights.

7 A cohereñt society does not allow multiple cultures or worldviews. 8 There are natural inequalities between (groups of) people.

9 Society must be characterized by law and order.

10 All individuals should take initiative and pursue excellence.

11 Children shall be born in wedlock.

12 All people must work.

These ideological principles are not always directly formulated in the End of Racism, but especially appear in the negative evaluation of the ideologies and attitudes of D'Souzá s enemies, for example in favour of state intervention in the ghetto, welfare, affirmative action, social responsibility of

business companies, social disadvantage, the legitimacy of single mothers or other family structures, decent jobs, equal group representation, equal outcomes, and so on.

As suggested before, these conservative values and ideological beliefs will appear to be manifested in more specific group ideologies and attitudes. Indeed, some of the ideological beliefs mentioned aboye might even be omitted because they are domainor group-specific general beliefs. Thus, the freedom from state intervention in fact implies that the state should also not be (very) active in the social domains, for example with social programmes for the poor or the elderly. Similarly, the opposition to 'illegitimacy' of children or to unmarried mothers, is of cocarse a further specification of overall conservative beliefs about family values.

Ethnocentrism/modern racism

Although conservatism is the overarching ideological framework that organizes the social and cultural beliefs in The End ofRacism, ethnocentric modem racism is its specific ideological core. This conclusion may be rather ironical given the title of D'Souzá s book, but within the frarnework of our elite theory of racism, such denials are paramount in all forms of modem racism. Hence D'Souzá s rage against anti-racists, his systematic mitigations of the continued relevance of'racé in the USA, and his alleged 'ignorance' of widespread discrimination against of African-Americans in virtually ah social dornains. For the sarne ideological reasons he attacks civil rights 'activista', those who plead for (or see no alternative for) affirmative action, and those he sees as using racism as an excuse for own failure and 'civilizational breakdowñ .

As group ideologies, ethnocentrism and modem racism feature the following basic beliefs about the own group, namely (white) Westerners, and its relations to other groups. Most of these ideological principles are based on the core value of (cultural if not natural) inequality between groups.

1 Our Western culture is superior.

2 Ethnocentrism is natural and sometimes inevitable.

3 Discrimination may be rational.

4 The USA is not and should not be a multicultural society.

5 Cultural assimilation of culturally deviant groups is necessary.

6 We are tolerant.

7 The USA is not a racist society. / We are not racists.

Related to these ideological self-representations is the, polarized, negative representation of the others: first the liberal cultural relativists, for example in tercos of the following beliefs.

1 They think that all cultures are equally valuable.

2 They advocate multiculturalism.

3 They criticize Western civilization.

4 They accuse us of colonialism and racism.

5 They want proportional representation of ethnic minorities.

The second main enemy, the social opponents, are blacks, AfricanAmericans, and more generally all non-Westemers in the book. They are variously described on the basis of the following ideological beliefs.

1 They are primitive, uncivilized, barbarians.

2 African-American pathologies are cultural.

3 They are culturally deviant.

4 They break the law.

5 They tend to be criminal.

6 Their culture(s) are stagnant.

7 They depend on the state.

8 They take no initiative.

9 They are promiscuous.

10 They are not striving for excellence.

11 They use racism as an excuse for own failure.

In other words, and as we have seen in Chapter 6, negative otherpresentations deriving from ethnocentric and racist ideologies are often articulated around the attribution of violations of our basic values and ideological principies. Thus, where we are tolerant, anti-racism is intolerant; where we value personal merit and discipline, they lack such values; where we are decent they are promiscuous, where we work hard, they are too lazy to work, and so on.

Ideological structures

One of the theoretical issues dealt with earlier in this book is that of the structure of ideologies (Chapter 5). On the basis of repeated general propositions in D'Souza's book, a number of beliefs were selectál that are general enough to be included in the conservative meta-ideology and the ideologies of cultural racism or ethnocentrism. It was, however, argued that ideologies probably have some kind of internal organization, for instance a schematic structure of fixed categories. Such a schema would be relevant each time people need to acquire or change an ideology, for instance when they become new members of a social group. Searching for a format for such a schema, I assumed that given the close link between group ideology and the self-representation of the group, a group schema modelled on the fundamental societal co-ordinates of the group would be a good candidate. The question now is whether the ideological propositions inferred from de D'Souza's book can be validly assigned to such a schema.

Thus, if we have to design a framework for the ideologies of racism and ethnocentrism, we may propone the following (simplified) structure:

•Membership Criteria — only members of our own culture, ethnic group,

race' or nation;

•Activities — discriminate others;

•Goals — exclusion, segregation or assimilation of others;

•Values — natural inequality, cultural homogeneity;

•Societal Position: relation to other groups — we (our culture) are (is) superior to the others;

•Resources — Western civilization, (political and economic) power, whiteness.

Obviously, sine group self-schemata are usually (though not always) positive, and 'racism' is culturally and socially sanctioned, at least officially, most people who share this schema will not describe themselves as 'racists', but for instance as nationalists Recall that the group schema and its categories will feature those fundamental group beliefs that define the identity as well as the basic interests of the group. When these interests are under threat, they will most energetically be defended, or when lost they will be reclaimed.

This is also the case for D'Souza' s book. Thus the membership criteria category defines who does or may belong to Us, and hence the others are defined by racists or ethnocentrists as foreigners, aliens, immigrants, outsiders, and so on. The activities of the members should be geared towards the realization of the essential group goal, which is basically to keep others out or down, or if that is impossible to fully assimilate them (in this case culturally). These aims are the basis of the negative evaluations in the attitude of multiculturalism, as we shall see below.

The basic value of ethnocentrism and racism is to emphasize'natural' inequality between groups, against the egalitarians and the relativista. It is not surprising that such a value only serves the interests of those who are dominant, and therefore, in the societal position category, we find the fundamental definition of Our position, namely, that We are superior to Them (i.e. Our civilization, culture, knowledge, etc., is better than Theirs).

Since dominant group position and reproduction need resources, the crucial resource in a racist ideology is the symbolic power of being part of (Western) civilization and of being white, that is, the very criteria of their membership of their own group. Given the fundamental nature of resources for group power and reproduction, these are the ideological interests that will be defended most forcefully. This is indeed the case in D'Souzá s book, wherein the repeatedly expressed concem is that (Western) civilization is breaking down, that other cultures may get the upper hand, and that Our (Western, white, male, middle-class, etc.) group and its interests may lose power.

The societal position category in the ideological schema typically features a relation to other groups, in this case obviously the group(s) that are the very target of racist or ethnocentric groups, namely, foreigners, immigrants, aliens, minorities, and so on, especially those of another culture and/or appearance ('race ). Given the relationship of superiority involved here, the other-group schema associated to this self-schema typically will feature those categories and beliefs that are opposed to those for our own group.

Their membership category (as defined by Us) is, say, 'being black', or as D'Souza's insists, 'having a coherent black culture'. It is also here that the 'essential' evaluation of the others is being represented, namely, as being primitive, uncivilized, barbarians, lacking initiative, being promiscuous, and so forth.

Their (negative) activities may be ideologically summarized as 'They violate all our norms' (are criminals, push drugs, get illegitimate children, don' t want to work, accuse us of racism, etc.). Their goal is represented, for example, as equal rights, multiculturalism and an equal economic share. Their values are all those opposed to Ours: egalitarianism, relativism, permissiveness, dependency on state, disrespectfulness of order and authority, indecency, and so on. Their position is represented on the one hand as (culturally) inferior, and on the other hand as a threat to our culture, civilization and other resources; moreover, they accuse us of racism and intolerance. Since the other group is hardly powerful, few resources will be attributed to them, and the point is precisely to make sure that they will not get access to our resources, or their resources (such as their own culture) will be negatively valued, as is the case, as we shall see, for the attitude about Afrocentrism.

These basic ideological group schemas for Us and Them will then be further detailed for specific social domains in a number of more detailed attitudes about specific groups, for example about African-Americans, or about Us (whites, etc.) in the USA, and for specific issues, such as racism, multiculturalism or affirmative action, as I shall spell out below.

Note, finaily, that I did not attempt to schematize the list of conservative basic beliefs, since conservatism is not a specific group ideology, but rather a meta-ideology that organizes some basic principies of other group ideologies. The typical conservative beliefs (about state intervention, individualism, law and order, family structure, etc.) are in fact all specifications of fundamental conservative values. Thus freedom is defined as freedom from state intervention, and personal merit is inconsistent with social welfare, decency prohibits illegitimate children, and so on. If we would have to define conservatives as a 'group' we might say that it is constituted precisely by the category of its values (against progressives). That is, the identity, actions, goals, position and resources of conservatives all focus on the realization of those values. It is in this way that the meta-ideology of conservatism constrains other (group) ideologies, such as those of racists, or professors, or business people, for whom the conservative value system will have different applications depending on the interests and specific group goals of these groups.

Altitudes

Theoretically, ideologies control and organize more specific attitudes. Thus, whereas basic ethnocentric and racist ideologies represent the overall

properties of Us (Westerners, whites) and Them (non-Westerners, blacks), attitudes feature more specific social beliefs, such as prejudices, about specific outgroups. Thus, African-Americans are further represented as follows.

1 They are the cause of the breakdown of civilization. 2 They have one coherent (black) culture.

3 (Poor) blacks have scandalous pathologies:

•excessive reliance on government;

•conspirational paranoia about racism;

•resistance to academic achievement;

•celebration of the criminal;

•normalization of illegitimacy;

•single-parent families.

4 Their pathologies are due to African-American culture. 5 Their culture is functionally inadequate.

6 They are themselves racist:

• they have ideology of black supremacy. 7 They are violent and criminal.

8 They abuse drugs.

9 They have an expensive lifestyle (they are Ilashy'). 10 They may have lower intelligence.

11 They have fewer skilis.

12 They have no mores.

13 They celebrate or condone broken families

14 They do not adapt to the dominant (Our) culture. 15 They do not take responsibility.

16 They have paranoia about racism.

17 Their middle class has an unfounded black rage.

18 They are weak in developing businesses.

19 They repudiate standard English.

20 They celebrate the Sad Nigger'.

21 They dress in conspicuous clothes.

22 They use obscene language.

23 They do not want to work.

24 They are not puntual.

25 They do not respect matrimony.

26 They cause the bastardization of America.

27 Their intellectuals refuse to criticize underclass pathologies.

These beliefs may be further organized in a more structured schema of which, however, the overall principie is again clear: the others (here the blacks) are represented as our negative mirror image — literaily as our dark side. Whatever values and principies We share, They don't have them.

The core concepts organizing these beliefs are d jerence, deviation and threat, applied in all social domains, for example those of culture in general, habits, language, dress, work ethic, family values, character, tolerance,

modesty, industriousness, individual merit and achievement, and so on. That is, their cultural mores are not only different from ours, but they also deviate from our norms and laws, and ultimately, their cultural deviance as well as their aggression, crime and other behaviour are a threat to Us and the whole nation, including themselves. Note that within the attitudinal representation of African-Americans, we also encounter some specific beliefs about black subgroups, such as black intellectuals, wornen or the 'underclass'.

Often, however, the text is not that specific, so that many negative attributes ascribed to a relatively small group of young men in the ghettos are in fact generalized towards the whole group. It is this (over)generalization that is one of the hallmarks of racism: they are all alike. Although D'Souza recalls (without much conviction) that is not in their genes', and that he therefore cannot be called a racist, the distinction between AfricanAmerican 'culturé and'racé is very subtle in his argument, and often nonexistent. Indeed, most blacks would see his very negative and aggressive stereotyping as little more than a forro of racist derogation hiding behind a thin veil of cultural critique.

In his rejection of racism as the cause of the deplorable social condition of the African-American community, D'Souza has no other option than to blame the victims themselves (a strategy he energetically denies and even attacks as one of the criticized forms of anti-racism). That is, he focuses on Ilack pathologies' and sees these as a 'civilizational breakdown', as discussed aboye. Hence the blacks, and no other group or organization, are the cause of the 'catastrophe' that is threatening 'Us' in the USA.

More sober analysts of the socio-political situation in the USA (and elsewhere in the world) would probably wonder why D'Souzá s rhetoric focuses on just those 'pathologies' and why these should constitute something as dramatic as a 'civilizational breakdown' and a 'threat' to the whole nation. Since when is welfare, when no jobs are available, a pathological forro of 'parasitic reliancé ? If so, most of the Western European welfare systems would not be an object of envy. And what about single-parent families? These are increasingly normal in many parts of the world, especially in highly developed nations, such as those in Scandinavia, where up to around 40 per cent of mothers are not married. What we have here, obviously, is a socio-cultural difference, and hardly a pathology, and even less something as apocalyptic as the 'bastardization of America' as D'Souza so delicately describes black families And how would D'Souzá s black conservative friends who are prominent professors (as well as all other blacks with an academic degree) interpret his conclusion that AfricanAmericans are 'hostilé to achievement? Surely, there are other, more fundamental, social and economic problems in the USA, such as the poverty of many millions of families and children.

What is important for my analysis, however, is not so much a critical challenge of D'Souzá s work (many others have done that already) but a demonstration of how values, ideologies and altitudes influence the definition and evaluation of the social situation. Where many see poverty, racism,

marginalization and many other social ills in the USA, D'Souza's ideology has blinded him to such realities. On the contrary, in a grand movement of reversal he blames the victims of this situation. Even a well-founded analysis of US society, not only by blacks, is thus claimed to be pathological. Hence, we see how different ideologies may lead to opposed assessments of the'facts'.

Attitudes about racism

D'Souza's ideologies also control attitudes other than those about AfricanAmericans: for instance, as we have seen, about racism. Again, both his knowledge and opinions about racism appear to be heavily biased by his underlying ideology of ethnocentrism and modem racism. First, however, it is crucial that his opinions about cace and racism be safely protected against any accusation of racism. He does this, as is usual in much other elite discourse, also among several social scientists, by limiting the definition of racism to a 'belief in intrinsic, biologically based superiority'. Since only small groups of white supremacists share this belief, his beliefs and those of most other modem racists are safeguarded against any accusation of racism. Racism defined as he does, is indeed a marginal problem in the USA or anywhere else. The problem is that the system of ethnic/racial inequality in the USA (and other countries dominated by Europeans) is much more complex than that, and not limited at all to beliefs about biologically based superiority. Rather, especially when associated with appearance, all feelings of group-based superiority, also those of culture, and the many everyday forms of discrimination based on them, are forms of contemporary racism.

The same is true for most other beliefs about racism D'Souza expresses in his book. That is, they are geared towards protecting himself and dominant white culture and civilization from the uncivilized taint of racism. Thus, a whole chapter is dedicated to a historical treatise about racism (and slavery) as existing in many other countries and civifizations, and concludes that white Europeans were not the only 'guilty' ones. Such a chapter should also be interpreted as a tactical move to at least share the blame of racism. And when the title and much of the content of bis book emphasizes (correctly) that racism is not universal, but has a specific beginning and end, he (falsely) concludes that (therefore?) racism in the USA has ended (on a par with ideology and history which other influential conservative authors before him declared to have 'ended). Once established (without proof, and disregarding libraries full of evidence to the contrary) that racism has ended, the real aim of the argument becomes clear: if there is no significant racism in the USA anymore, the blacks can safely be blamed themselves for their 'pathologies', and We (whites) are again in the clear. And even more forcefully, those may be accused of bias or lies (or worse, reaping'profits) who claim that racism is alive and kicking today in the USA as long as we do not limit its definition to marginal phenomena such as beliefs in 'biological superiority of the white racé . Thus, where D' Souza claims that 'accusations of racism