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

212 Communicating Racism

entiation, exaggeration, and, therefore, negative evaluation of ethnic minority group members and their interactions. The respective categories of ethnic group schemata adequately represent the relevant domains of perception and (inter)action in intergroup relations. The schema is general and abstract and, hence, may be used to form similar prejudices about other ethnic groups.

In these various categories, the opinions are notjust negative but also tightly organized and salient. Aside from categorical organization, the opinions may involve common concepts, such as perceived difference, deviance, or threat. Thus, different appearance threatens our expectations about homogeneous physiognomy in everyday perception and requires permanent attention and special information processing. Different origin threatens our territory and related rights and privileges, as do the socioeconomic goals of the out-group. Different culture simply threatens our culture and, hence, our routine perception, interpretation, and interaction in daily life. And finally, perceived negative personal characteristics may involve the most direct, namely, bodily, threat, when foreigners are seen as violent and criminal, or threat to our town or neighborhood, when they are seen as dirty, noisy, or drug addicted.

The categories we have introduced define a structural schema and, therefore, also allow focused retrieval and application. Depending on context, people may activate relevant categories of the prejudice schema, such as socioeconomic properties in a context of work or housing. Within each category, opinions are again organized hierarchically, so that summarizing macro opinions figure on top, and more specific general opinions lower in the hierarchy. The macroproposition, "They are (unjustly) favored"—against, "We are discriminated against"—thus, organizes the many opinions about favored treatment in housing, work, or social services. "They are aggressive" may organize prejudiced opinions such as "They are always fighting," "They carry knives," and so on, whereas "They are criminal" will be the macroopinion on top of a host of microopinions such as "They steal," "They deal in drugs," and so on.

We suggested that the respective prejudice categories have been analyzed in an order that might indicate an order of importance and, hence, of acquisition. This means that with each "new" ethnic group, of immigrants, or any social group for that matter, in-group members will first attend to their appearance and origin (if relevant), then to socioeconomic features, and next to cultural and personality characteristics. This order also shows everyday person and group identification and categorization (the country, race, gender, class sequence) of people. Thus, for the Tamil group immigrating to the Netherlands, the first information provided by the media was about their foreign (Third World) country,

and their ethnic (racial) identity (and, hence, mostly implicitly, their appearance), followed by stories about their "goals," namely, as "economic refugees," leading to prejudices about their use or abuse of the social services and their claim on "our" resources. Cultural and personality characteristics were not yet given in that initial state, although frequent mention of their "illegal" entry (or even about their "terrorist" background), of course, already prepared the "criminal" nature of their personality category (van Dijk, 1987b, Ch.4).

The categorial and hierarchical organization of ethnic prejudice allows fast and selective schema retrieval and application. It also enables individual group members and subgroups to develop more specific prejudice schemata or models. That is, for some majority subgroups, cultural differences may be more relevant than socioeconomic ones and that would probably result in a more prominent position in the schema or model of such a more relevant category. Also, the more relevant category will organize more and more-differentiated opinions. Depending on the context, individual group members may strategically activate and apply different portions of the ethnic prejudice. These strategies of the actual use of prejudice are studied in the next sections, where we also pay further attention to the actual contents of ethnic prejudices in the Netherlands and the United States.

3. Prejudiced opinions and their organization

With the theoretical model outlined in the previous sections, we should now be able to construct the general attitudes about ethnic minority groups. Unlike much other current work on ethnic or other stereotypes, we find it important to specify the actual contents and structures of ethnic attitudes. Only such a theoretically based reconstruction allows us to make detailed analyses of prejudiced information processing and persuasive communication. Unlike the classical studies of ethnic "traits" in the research tradition initiated by Katz and Braly (1933), however, we represent prejudices as (evaluative) propositions according to our theory of (prejudiced) opinions given in the previous sections.

As our example, we take the ethnic opinions formulated in the (38) interviews recorded in a high-contact neighborhood of Amsterdam. This does not mean that there are no negative ethnic opinions in low-contact, middle-class neighborhoods, but only that they tend to be more diverse, direct, and sometimes based on immediate observation and interaction

214 Communicating Racism

in the high-contact neighborhoods. We only retain those opinions that are shared and expressed by two individuals or more, which does not imply that "single" opinions are not also shared by other people.

We first list the negative opinions (together with their frequencies, given only to provide a rough indication about the typicality of such opinions in talk) according to the respective attitude categories we have distinguished abone. Note that individual persons express such attitudes in variable combinations, types, and intensity. Also, their attitudes may be mingled with more neutral or positive opinions. This list of prejudiced opinions, thus, is merely an aggregate of occurring opinions in a given neighborhood. As a whole, it would rather represent the attitudes of a prototypically prejudiced in-group member. This also means that the opinions are abstracted from their context of occurrence in the interviews, which, however, we have studied in the previous chapters. Here, we are primarily interested in the prejudiced opinions per se, as well as in their cognitive organization. In the next sections, we shall then pay attention to the cognitive strategies that manipulate such opinions.

General

—They do not bother me/I have nothing against them (22)

—The neighborhood has changed (for the worse) because of them (9) —They should integrate here (8)

—They do not want to adapt themselves (4)

—We feel threatened by the number of foreigners (4) —I don't like them (3)

—They want us to adapt to them (3) —We cannot live together (2)

Appearance

—You see them everywhere in the city (2)

Origin

—They should leave our country (9)

Socioeconomic

—They profit from the social services (11) —They profit from our welfare state (7) —They have it better than we have (6) —They get all the houses (5)

Sociocultural

—They have a different mentality (20)

—They (men) don't have respect for women (15) —They are a close group, keep to themselves (13) —They have (too) many children (9)

—Children go to bed late (8)

—They do not adapt to Dutch norms and values (4) —They make different music (3)

—They do not treat children like we do (3) —They don't eat what they do not like (2)

—They have many people in their houses (2) —Mothers cannot raise their children properly (2)

Personal

—They cause a lack of safety (e.g., on the streets) (4) —They are aggressive, hotheaded (11)

—They fight (with words) (4) —They fight (physically) (4) —They are dirty (13)

—They collect all kinds of things from the street (3) —They are noisy (3)

—They make loud music (3)

—They have parties in the middle of the night (3) —Their children make a lot of noise (3)

—They are criminal —They steal (6) —They are lazy (2) —They drink (2)

This list of (predominantly negative) beliefs shows that most of the general opinions about ethnic groups can be categorized in the attitude categories we have theoretically distinguished earlier. In addition to the specific categories, there is also a more general category that organizes the global opinions about foreigners, such as "I don't like them" or the strategically important "positive" opinion "I have nothing against them," which is often a signal for negative opinions. These general opinions may also be taken as macroopinions that "summarize" lower-level opinions of different categories.

Note that the Appearance category does not occur very often, as such. Except for comments about the "funny" dress of Turkish women, indeed, there are few explicit evaluative remarks about the physical appearance of ethnic minority groups, probably also because such remarks would usually count as explicitly racist. Yet, many references are made to "Blacks" or "those Blacks," which not only serve as an identification but sometimes also as an implicit negative evaluation. Explicit derogatory remarks that imply negative evaluations about, for example, skin color, are rare. This may partly be explained by the semiformal nature and the social constraints of interview talk, because there is independent evidence that such derogatory remarks indeed occur in informal talk (Essed, 1984; Greenberg & Pyszscynski, 1985).

The lack of explicit slurs or abuse pertaining to skin color or other "racial" features may be interpreted as evidence for a less relevant racist component in interethnic perception and group relations (see, e.g., Wilson, 1980). Because socioeconomic and sociocultural categories dominate, in our interviews also, we should in that case speak of "ethnicism" rather than of forms of racism. It is true that skin color apparently plays

216 Communicating Racism

a role in the Netherlands, that is comparable at some points with, for example, cultural differences and it would thus be correct to subsume negative attitudes against all ethnic minority groups (including the relatively "White" Turks) under the general heading of ethnicism. On the other hand, negative attitudes against Black Surinamese, for whom the cultural differences with respect to the majority population are much less salient, require an explanatory framework in which "racial" appearance plays an important role. In a sense, this also holds for "dark" Turkish and Moroccan immigrants, even when cultural differences in that case seem more topical in talk. Group attitudes about White foreigners, such as from Northwestern Europe, North America, and Australia, are markedly different in structure, content and orientation, even when there are (comparatively slight) cultural differences. In other words, ethnic prejudice as we understand it is intimately associated with socially valued "racial" features. Opinions based on Origin also have a more indirect nature and appear mostly in opinions such as "They should leave our country" and indirectly in general opinions such as "They should adapta"

As may be expected in a high-contact neighborhood, the opinions about various forms of sociocultural "problems" dominate and are most diverse. Part of these are based on occasional personal observations and, therefore, may be analyzed as overgeneralizations. Next, we have the opinions in the category of Personal characteristics, which also derive from assumptions about the reasons for everyday action and interaction. From the diversity of this list and the frequencies associated with each opinion, we may provisionally conclude that sociocultural and personal properties are given relatively high prominence in this neighborhood. In other words, within the overall ethnic attitudes that have developed in the Netherlands, there may be specific variations depending on the social position of the (group of) people who hold them.

Individual Instantiation

The prejudice contents analyzed aboye hold rather generally and have been obtained from a group of interviews. Yet, it is also interesting to see in which respects individuals participate in such a consensual attitude. Depending on the person and the interview context, involving the topics initiated by the interviewer in addition, there is, of course, considerable variation. Many people have more moderate versions of the prototypical prejudiced structure outlined aboye. To compare a "real" person with this constructed ethnic attitude, we now give the ethnic opinions of one person, namely, a 74-year-o1d man living in another high-contact neighborhood, where we conducted interviews that were specifically aimed at obtaining information about

the communication sources of people. The interview is chosen especially because of its "natural" character: It was conducted with him and a (less-prejudiced) friend and approaches a "real" conversation, in which he often persuasively argues against his friend. The opinions he formulates (in different stylistic terms, but presented here in the order of their occurrence in the interview) are as follows, where the pronoun they replaces both pronouns and full identifying descriptions of different ethnic groups, mostly Surinamese and immigrant workers from Turkey and Morocco:

(1)We have invited them to come here, we cannot just throw them out.

(2)They won't go back, they are doing fine here.

(3)They are here only for the money.

(4)They (Tamils) have no right to complain about the way they have been received here.

(5)They have too many children.

(6)There are generation conflicts between them and their Westernized children.

(7)They oppress their women.

(8)They behave in an authoritarian way against their children.

(9)They need our help to adapt.

(10)It is difficult to get into contact with them.

(11)They can adapt, but they do not want to.

(12)They do as if they do not understand you.

(13)They live as cheaply as possible.

(14)They do not take care of their houses (neighborhood pauperizes).

(15)They are lazy.

(16)They are asocial.

(17)They (Surinamese) have so much money, because they deal in drugs.

(18)They (Surinamese) have expensive clothes and cars because they are pimps.

(19)They (Moroccans) are dirty.

(20)The authorities are too tolerant; they do not understand the problems.

(21)They are themselves the cause of discrimination.

(22)They are favored in housing and welfare allowances.

(23)They may as well all drown them.

Let us now try to organize this list into the categories we have introduced earlier.

General: 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, 23

Origin and Appearance: 1, 18

Socioeconomic: 2, 3, 13, 14, 22

Sociocultural: 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 16

Personality: 4, 15, 17, 18, 19

We see that, in principie, all opinions can be fit into the prejudice schema categories. All opinions are (very) negative, except the standard opinion of "tolerated presence": We have invited them (the immigrant

218 Communicating Racism

workers) here, so we cannot throw them out—categorized here as belonging to Origin. For appearance (associated with socioeconomic status, and personality) is the negative opinion about the expensive or flashy clothes of Surinamese "pimps." The socioeconomic opinions are stereotypical: They are here only to make money, live on welfare, and they are favored in housing. Also, the sociocultural opinions are standard: They have too many children, oppress their women, their children have become "Westernized," and they do not take care of their houses as we do. The personality characteristics are sometimes straightforward: asocial, dirty, lazy, criminal (drugs, stealing, cheating), and ungrateful (as in example 4). The high-level general category mainly features opinions of general resentment and its inferences ("they might as well drown them"), and the standard opinions about adaptation and the government not doing anything about it. Another general inference is that if they are discriminated against, it is their own fault. The closeness of fit between the overall prejudices and those endorsed by this man is such that he is close to the prejudice prototype. Rather exceptional, though, is his overtly racist conclusion that they might as well all drown. This kind of talk is very rare in our interviews: Similar opinions of a violent kind are formulated "only" three times in more than 150 interviews. The man he is talking to knows that his friend is going "too far" and protests against this kind of talk. The most negative consensual "conclusion" drawn from negative prejudices is usually "to send them back where they carne from," and a less negative one "They can stay, if they adapt (or, do not bother me)."

The opinions expressed by this man imply more dimensions of prejudice than just the categories mentioned aboye. Note, for instance, that several of the opinions imply the assumed inferiority of ethnic groups (laziness, but also having too many children, which implies that they have no sexual restraint nor use birth control). Next, inferiority allows treatment as second-class citizens (they should not complain) and at most a patronizing attitude (they need our help to adapt). In other words, there are several ways to organize ethnic prejudices further, and the ordering, relevance, or hierarchy of the opinions may be personally and contextually variable. We return to these further dimensions of organization below.

In this way, we obtain different prejudice "profiles." Each consists of the same attitude schema, featuring the same categories and similar opinions, only in variable degrees of strength, orientation, and elaboration. Thus, at the general level, prejudiced people agree that foreigners somehow create problems; at the socioeconomic level, they agree that foreigners cost us money (live out of our pocket) and are favored by the authorities; and at the sociocultural level, there is agreement that they should adapt to our culture (language, norms), that they have too many children, oppress their women, and have strange habits of cooking, eat-

ing, or living. At the personal level, people will at least agree that foreigners tend to be more aggressive, less honest and dependable, and less clean and diligent. Profile differences may show, for instance, in that some people maintain that foreigners should adapt completely, whereas others hold that they should adapt a little bit (e.g., learn the language, respect the law and our fundamental norms). But whatever the differences in degree, the fundamental group attitude structure is fairly similar across different prejudiced individuals. This is one of the reasons we have assumed that prejudice is not personal but group based. The very consensual nature of the opinions formulated by different interviewees can only be explained in terms of shared social cognitions. Personal and contextual variation, then, explains the differences between the prejudice profiles of individual group members.

Further Analysis

To get a somewhat more abstract picture of the structure of ethnic prejudice, we may try to organize further the opinions we have found aboye at higher levels, as we did, also, in our thematic analysis in Chapter 2. In this case, we do not deal with thematic hierarchies but with attitudinal ones. The more abstract organization of ethnic prejudice may be rendered as follows, where the higher-level categories (on the left) may be taken as general inferences from the lower categories and their contents:

General:

I do not like them They should adapt to us

The neighborhood (town, country) has deteriorated because of them

Origin/Appearance: They look different They do not belong here

There are too many of them

Socioeconomic:

They profit from our social system (work, housing, welfare) We have priority in using social resources

Sociocultural:

They are different—do not respect our norms and values (living. family life, religion, language, and so on)

Personal:

They are different/inferior—aggressive, criminal, dirty, noisy

This simple hierarchical prejudice structure is fairly general and applies to many ethnic minority groups, not only in the Netherlands. Depending on historical and social circumstances, these categories and

220 Communicating Racism

their contents may be specified in variable ways. This basic structure reveals a number of general sociocognitive features that characterize all dominant group relationships and their cognitive representation in dominant group members:

(1)Difference and inferiority.They are from a different country, look different, have different (inferior) norms and values, act differently, and have a different mentality.

(2)Competition.They occupy—and are favored to occupy—our country, town, neighborhood, jobs, houses, and welfare system.

(3)Threat. They threaten us with their presence, numbers, culture, and behavior, and, thus, threaten our territory, cultural identity, safety, wellbeing, and material interests.

These organization features can be found in each category and also appear, as such, in talk—of course, in different lexical variations. Competition and Threat may even be further integrated, because Competition may involve a threat to our basic goals and interests, that is, the basic sociocultural and socioeconomic resources of the dominant ingroup. The feature of Difference may be polarized to intolerable Deviance, which also organizes unacceptable differences of culture and personality, such as aggression and crime, which we also find under Threat.

It seems plausible that inclusion of negative ethnic opinions in a given category passes through a conceptual filter of social criteria: If some act or property is seen as different, as competitive, or as a potential threat, then it may be included in the attitude category. The overall criterion, determined by the higher-level negative evaluations, is that the opinion should, in principle, contribute to this overall negative evaluation of the ethnic group. It is this organizational (as well as acquisitional) criterion that guarantees that the attitude remains coherent.

We see that the organization of ethnic attitudes has several conceptual levels and perspectives. This also suggests that such opinions can be accessed in different ways, depending on general or particular context of interaction or communication. The overall normative conclusion inferable from these fundamental categories and features is either "They should leave" or "They should adapt," that is, avoid competítion and threat, try to reduce or conceal their difference, and, finally, accept second-class status. Because this is not always possible (or even impossible a priori) the most fundamental opinion may remain: "They are not like us" or "They are members of another, opposed group." Despite the frequent normative claim "that they must adapt," it may be asked whether in-group members really want (full) integration and (hence?)

equality of the out-group. Maybe this claim expresses a form of cognitive dissonance: The speaker is aware of the negative evaluation of, for instance, cultural differences, and, at the same time, knows that such a negative judgment is not quite according to the norm of tolerance. The claim of adaptation in that case may function as a "solution" to that predicament: I would not dislike them as Ido if only they would adapt to our culture. At the same time, the prejudiced dislike is transferred to the other group: They are the cause of my negative feelings. The most "tolerant" form of this normative conclusion would be "They can stay if they do not bother us," which, however, also implies that the minorities accept secondary position. Note also that there is another implicit organizational feature that runs through the various categories: Inferiority. Difference is not simply neutral difference, difference at the same level, or positively valued difference. The different culture, goals, norms, and behavior are inferior to those of the in-group, and so is their assumed socioeconomic and personal behavior: They profit, steal, are criminal or aggressive, and, hence, less "civilized" than the dominant in-group. As may be expected, the notion of inferiority does not explicitly appear very often in the interviews, because it is normatively prohibited to talk about other people in such terms. Yet, it does emerge, especially in those passages in which foreigners are assumed to be favored, a circumstance that is rejected vehemently with expressions such as "As if we were less than they are." From these passages, as well as from the organization and contents of the prejudiced opinions, however, we may read that there is at least a basic judgment of inequality between in-group and out-group. These various properties of the contents and organization of ethnic prejudice also show why a simple list of attributed ethnic "traits" would be inadequate (even for the account of personality stereotypes). Prejudiced opinions may be rather complex, featuring both in-group (us) and out-group (them) and relevant ethnic relationships. Indeed, another basic dimension of the organization of the ethnic group schema is the polarized nature of in-group and out-group properties (Linville & Jones, 1980; Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979; Meindl & Lerner, 1984).

Finally, our analysis also shows how basic ethnic prejudices reflect the norms, goals, and interests of intraand intergroup interaction and societal structures. The basic organizational setup of negative ethnic attitudes is geared toward the development of prejudiced opinions that can be used as ideological protection against infringements by the outgroup on the interests of the in-group. Ethnic stereotypes are not just arbitrary overgeneralizations or innocent opinions about minority group members. They represent the power and dominance dimension of the intergroup conflict, where the White autochthonous population claims to protect its territory, material resources, norms, and values, and other