прагматика и медиа дискурс / Teun A van Dijk - Communicating Racism

122 Communicating Racism

cessing and conversational self-presentation that are discussed in the next chapters.

We also tried to get information about the use of different sources by having people fill out a personal daily diary, in which they were asked to write down with whom they had talked that day about ethnic minorities or whether they had read or seen anything about that topic in the media. It turned out, however, that this method needs to be further refined, because it is not easy to get people to follow the instructions and really attend to their diaries at the end of the same day—when they may be tired and the last thing they want to do is write in a diary. We did collect some useful data from high school, though, but these were, unfortunately, too little to be useful for our analysis. So, in general, we shall again rely on what people provide in the interviews for information about different sources and contents.

Conclusion

From this brief discussion of our chief methodological predicaments, it may be concluded that, on the whole, we follow several routes that we hope will lead to the same goal, namely, the reconstruction of communicative events and persuasion processes in the reproduction of ethnic beliefs through everyday discourse. The wellknown, although in prevailing social psychology still controversia!, method of gathering accounts of people is followed, but rather fundamentally extended by systematic discourse analyses. Also, the analysis of interviews allows a double view at reproductive communication: In this chapter it focuses on sources and how contents of communications are recalled and represented, whereas in other chapters we take the interviews themselves as "sources" of ethnic opinion production, and analyze their own strategies of persuasion and self-presentation.

Communicatively, cognitively, and socially, we take the various discourse types that represent such accounts at face value and as genuine social expressions of social experiences, beliefs, or attitudes. Whether "true" or "false" accounts, whether incomplete or biased, these accounts are (close or identical to) how people "tell it to others," and that is precisely what we want to know. At the same time, though, we have cognitive and social models that explain how and why such discourses have the properties we observe. This means, for instance, that we can also assess in what respect such discourses may be incomplete, biased, or otherwise transformed with respect to the "real" cognitive or social events of which they are reproductions.

Sources 125

about such topics as noises, smells, family structure, and "strange" behavior. Yet, the fact that such beliefs are also widely known in lowcontact areas again shows that such prejudices must have been partly distributed through the media as well. It would be highly unlikely that the personal networks of acquaintances of people in low-contact areas were such that they all got so much and such similar information about what "was going on" in the high-contact neighborhoods (Emler, 1982, 1983; Fine, 1985). We have already mentioned, in Chapter 2, the experimental finding of Sprangers (1983), who showed that what experimental subjects (psychology students) think people's ethnic opinions are is very similar to the actual opinions we found in our fieldwork. In other words, there is a consensus about what the stereotypes are, and such stereotypes again form the general basis for much talk and are thus reproduced in everyday interaction between majority group members.

Note also that of 143 people interviewed, 105 (73 %) mention no or just a single occasion in which they talked with others about ethnic groups or ethnic events. This, of course, does not mean that many events have not been known through such talk, but only that such talk is not mentioned in the interview. When asked about personal communications, people often say that they do not talk about foreigners very often, and, at the same time, the interviews suggest that people hear about it "all the time." This seems to mean that concrete conversations are perhaps not well remembered, but that on the other hand, each conversation that is being processed is specifically selected for special attention and contributes to the overall impression that "you hear about it all the time:'

Direct Contacts with

Ethnic Minority Group Members

Direct contacts with members of ethnic groups are relatively rare. Of 143 people (in the first three interview groups in Amsterdam), only 28 reported having contacts with ethnic group members and, even then, it was often just one person or one family. In high-contact areas, the interpersonal relationships with ethnic group members are reduced to those of distanced neighborship. Only a few people repon that they engage in regular interaction with such foreign neighbors. According to some theoretical predictions (for discussion about this so-called "contact hypothesis" see, e.g., Amir, 1976; Gurwitz & Dodge, 1977; Rose, 1981; Stephan, 1977), it appears that the higher the real contacts with ethnic group members, the lower our estimated prejudice score (3.7 for people with no or a single contact, down to 2.2 for people with regular contacts, measured on a qualitatively based seven-point scale), which we discuss shortly. This does not mean that people who have such personal contacts have no prejudices,

126 Communicating Racism

but only that their opinions can at least be tested daily by experiences with ethnic group members, which may tend to lead to a reduction in the assumption of obviously wrong generalizations about such groups (see, also, Chapter 6).

Assumptions

Against the background of the situation sketched aboye, we may now formulate a number of more specific assumptions, which we shall further elaborate below in our analysis of interview data:

(1) In the ethnic situation of countries such as the Netherlands (and this holds for most of Western Europe, and for much of the United States and Lanada), most information about ethnic minority groups is formulated by or transmitted through the mass media, primarily TV and the newspaper. Evidence for this assumption is that people have much common "knowledge"—often stereotypical—about ethnic minorities even when they hardly ever have direct experiences with minority group members or know people who have. In part, this is even true for high-contact areas (mostly in the inner cities) when the immigrant groups have only marginal contacts with autochthonous groups. This also holds for the 25 people we interviewed in California, who often said they had few close contacts with minority group members, although the higher percentage of minorities in San Diego, of course, leads to more encounters and interaction with minority group members in public places, such as shops or on thejob. This is probably also one of the reasons that the interviewees in California rarely refer to the media or talk with other people for their information about minorities. A few interviewees refer to talk about "ethnic topics" with family members or friends, and only occasionally is a reference made to an event that they learned about from the media. In this chapter, we shall, therefore, limit our analysis to the data gathered in the Netherlands. More, and more extensive, interviews in the United States are necessary to trace the sources of ethnic information, but we have reason to believe that our results will hold at least partially for social information processing in that country. One of the differences between the American and the Dutch interviewees was that Americans more often attributed information or beliefs to their socialization: Several people said that they were influenced in their thinking about minorities, both positively and negatively, by the way they were raised.

(2) The media are especially involved in the diffusion of information about the following topics (see, also, Hartmann & Husband, 1974):

Sources 127

(a)(new) immigration of foreign groups;

(b)the political and social situation of the home countries of such groups and, hence, about possible motivations for immigration;

(c)the policies of government or government bodies regarding (mostly: against) such immijration;

(d)general "problems that are described as being the actual or possible consequence of immigration, such as housing, (un)employment, social cervices, and education;

(e)first reactions of "locals" and others directly involved in contacts with the (new) immigrants (public officers, police, or people living in the same neighborhood);

(f)prejudice and discrimination among the majority against the new immigrants, or against an already established minority group, often in the form of stories about personal experiences;

(g)crime and deviance associated with minority groups;

(h)conflicts with or among minority groups, especially violent conflicts, such as riots;

(i)typically "ethnic" culture: family relationships, religion, or language, especially, those aspects that are perceived as problematic for the majority; and

(j)the reactions of the local and national government, and of authorities such as in debates, political programs, and laws related to the previous points.

In accordance with research into media contents (see Chapter 2) about the portrayal of ethnic affairs, we may conclude from these points that media information is usually of a general and negative nature and, therefore, highly conducive to the development of ethnic prejudices.

(3)Everyday talk primarily reproduces this form of public, and, hence, a priori "shared " information and beliefs transmitted through the media. Experiences of individuals recounted through the media not only reach millions, but also seem to be "general," and, hence, true and legitimate, while broadcasted (see the contributions in E. Katz & Szecskó, 1981, for discussion). Whatever the personal experiences of people, these "common" beliefs may be used as a point of departure for everyday talk, even if individual recipients may doubt such opinions or be against them. A popular theory in mass communication suggests that the media at least set the "agenda" for talk about minorities (McCombs & Shaw, 1972; but see Becker, 1982). In Chapter 7, we further examine the role of specific social formations, such as the elite, in this mass-mediated preformulation of ethnic topics.

(4)In low-contact areas, personal communication about ethnic minorities largely consists of this mass-mediated body of consensus opinions. Occasional contacts with minority group members, or people living in high-contact areas, may add some further information about

Sources 129

tion and prejudice, whereas about half of the people do not formulate predominantly negative opinions about minority groups. Characteristically, the positive stories, especially in high-contact areas, cannot possibly be instantiations of general stereotypes or prejudices. They must be either instantiations of general (positive) norms or they are based on direct evidence and on experiences of family members or friends. Other expressions of positive evaluations or experiences are of the "exception to the rule" type, and may occur among otherwise negative or stereotyped stories or arguments: People talk about one foreign neighbor or acquaintance who is particularly nice and friendly, and with whom they never have "problems."

More extensive positive stories in overall positively formulated talk are usually about mutual help, for instance, in sickness, mutual visits, participation in parties, and the specifics of how it is to take part in events, such as a Turkish wedding. There are, however, few of such stories. Most tolerant talk is of a more general nature, especially in the lowcontact areas: People are against discrimination, against racist parties, or display empathy for the problems with which the minority groups have to cope. Several people reported that they resent other people's racist talk but that they did not react to that "because you only get into trouble."

Moderation

From the prevailing social norm that prohibits explicit racist talk, and from the uncertainty people may have about the opinions of unknown others, even those in the same neighborhood, we may further infer that, generally, talk with strangers will often be "cautious." People may resort to the common stereotypes borrowed from mass-mediated hearsay, which are semilegitimate forms of negative talk and, hence, not against the prevailing norm. Or they may tell authentic personal experiences that cannot be challenged as false. But in both cases, they at the same time will first "test out" others as to their opinions about foreigners. We surmise that "really racist" talk, therefore, only takes place among close friends and family members, which also explains why we have few instances of it in our interviews (27 of 143 interviewed persons in Amsterdam, and 3 out of 25 people in California), which, however, are mostly formulated in still rather polite terms and seldom in harsh terms of abuse. This would suggest that prejudices formulated in much semipublic talk (e.g., in shops, with neighbors, or in public transpon) are of the "moderate" kind, which is also the type that may be expressed in press interviews or in TV programs. This seems to be in accordance with the general distribution of the prejudice

scores among the interviewed, which will be discussed later.

The close interaction between everyday talk and media topics about ethnic groups confirms this overall picture of "moderate prejudice" in most interpersonal conversations among people. This kind of ethnic áttitude involves such opinions as "Dutch people are tolerant," "We do (too) much for those foreigners," "They should at least partly adapt to our norms, rules, and habits," "They must learn our language," "They live out of our pocket," and "They should not be favored in jobs or housing." This form of moderate prejudice also rejects racism, does not want to send them back "because we have invited them to come and work for us," acknowledges that also among Dutch people there are bad individuals, that we should not generalize, that they may keep part of their own culture, such as religion, or that their children should be able to learn their own language at school. This moderate form of prejudice agrees with implicit government policies and many of the media accounts that associate ethnic groups with "problems," at least in the social and economic domains.

Conclusion

We conclude this section by generally assuming that everyday talk about ethnic groups across highand lowcontact areas first of all reproduces the "public discussion" topics and opinions formulated by the media. Second, local stories about personal experiences of the storyteller (or family or friends), may be added as new information or as evidence, but in most cases only as instantiations of general prejudices that are known—and often shared—in the public discussion. Indeed, such stories may again be recorded and published by the media, which accounts for the circular nature of the reproduction of prejudice in informal and formal mass communication. Third, explicitly antiracist talk or protests against negative opinions about minorities may be rare and restricted to small groups of people of similar opinions. Indeed, because the dominant media are not antiracist, there is no "model" for such talk, no standard phrases or counterarguments, and no dominant public discussion fed, sustained, or monitored by the authorities, the institutions, and (therefore) the media.

Finally, especially those who have access to alternative forms of talk and text, such as children at school, students, social workers, and, generally, the better educated—who also get explicit lessons, use occasional critical textbooks, read results of research, reports, or have access to specialized publications—and people who have more experiences with ethnic group members themselves, might (but do not always) develop different topics of talk and, hence, different opinions and different preju-

Sources 131

dices. We will pay more attention to these societal determinants of prejudiced talk in Chapter 6.

3. Description of source reproduction

To test and explore further the assumptions formulated aboye, an analysis was made of all passages in the opinion interviews in which implicit or explicit reference was made to interpersonal or mass-media communication. We first give some simple descriptive statistics, and then proceed to a qualitative analysis of the topics reproduced through these communicative contacts. The figures given in this section should merely be seen as rough indications of the nature of sources and source information to which people refer. Without the rigorously controlled conditions of sampling or other features of traditional survey research, a more sophisticated statistical analysis would falsely suggest "hard facts" our method was not intended to offer.

Of 143 people interviewed (from the three groups we initially interviewed in Amsterdam), two-thirds (94) made 198 references to other sources, that is, somewhat more than two such references each. Most of these references (138 or 70 %) were made to personal communications, whereas 79 references (40%) pertained to the media, which means that some passages mentioned both a personal and a media source.

We counted as "personal communication" each reference in which the speaker explicitly mentioned a source, such as "husband," "friend," or "neighbor," for some belief about ethnic groups or ethnic relationships in the Netherlands. Yet we also counted the reproduction of those events or opinions for which a personal source must have been used, for instance, concrete events that happened to others without the presence of the speaker.

The Prejudice Scale

In our quantitative account of communication sources, as well as in the subsequent chapters, we also include an approximate estimate of the "prejudice level" of the interviewees. This estimate is based on a seven-point scale, running from no prejudice (Pl) to very high prejudice or blatant racism (P7). Scoring on this scale is derived from qualitative analyses of the interviews. Each point of the scale is defined as a characteristic profile of ethnic opinions. Thus, at level P 1, people not only formulate no ethnic prejudices but, in fact,