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

332 Communicating Racism

TABLE 5.3: Type of Communicated Opinions Mentioned

based on personal communications (which are seldom used for positive opinions). Men refer to negative opinions comparatively more often (and less to positive opinions). The distribution of negative opinions among men and women, and among highand low-contact areas is more or less identical. Overall, we may conclude the same as for references to (recall of?) facts: Negative source opinions are mentioned much more often than positive source opinions.

Personal Opinion

To know what the personal opinions are of people who mention these predominantly negative facts and opinions, we not only must look at their immediate reactions to particular stories, but also more generally to their opinions about ethnic minority groups. To be able to compare with the similar rough distinction between positive and negative facts (opinions, reactions), we also categorized these opinions as either positive or negative in such cases. Now, we see more clearly why the proportion of negative reactions (which is still high) is lower than the amount of negative facts mentioned: People with positive opinions about ethnic groups will tend to mention negative facts in a critical way. This usually means that they are critical of Dutch people who are negative about foreigners. Yet, again, the (highly) negative opinions dominate in the references to other sources, as we can see in Table 5.5.

The data also suggest that the same number of people with negative as with positive opinions mention the media as a source, but personal com-

munication remains more frequent as a source for people with negative opinions. Men and women do not differ much on this variable, although, relatively, there are somewhat more men with positive personal opinions about ethnic groups. In the low-contact areas, positive opinions dominate among those who refer to other sources, whereas obviously the inverse is true for the high-contact areas. Dramatic is the difference between the old and the young: There are virtually no young people with negative personal opinions who refer to other sources, whereas relatively many have positive opinions. As may be expected, people with positive opinions have an average prejudice score far below the mean of 3.5, namely, 2.1, and those with negative opinions far aboye the mean, namely, 4.9. This confirms the correspondence of our rough evaluation of these passages about communicative events with the prejudice scores based on entire interviews. We conclude that, despíte the fair proportion of people with positive opinions, the negative opinions are still dominating.

Agreement

To test specifically the amount of (dis)agreement between people and their sources, we have measured the correspondence between personal opinions and opinions as reported about sources (see Table 5.6).

We see that the same number of people agree and disagree with their source opinions. Because most people have negative personal opinions, this implies that people with negative opinions agree more often with others with negative opinions, and people with positive opinions more

TABLE 5.6: Fact-Reaction Relationships

often disagree with their sources, as is also apparent in the prejudice scores of those who agree and those who disagree. People tend to agree more often with personal sources than with the media. Women show more agreement with the opinions of their sources, as is also the case for the elderly. Disagreeing men and young people also score lower on the prejudice scale than disagreeing women and young people (which suggests that their disagreement tends to focus more often on positive opinions about ethnic groups as shown by their sources). Most marked is the tendency that generally those who agree have higher prejudice scores than those who disagree.

Given the pattern analyzed aboye, this means that agreement is agreement with a negative consensus, in which negative facts and opinions

are recalled or mentioned most often as information drawn from communication. Apparently, disagreement with negative ethnic opinions requires a more critical attitude, which is also coherent with a less prejudiced attitude. Or in other words, there is a connection between negative ethnic attitudes and agreement with dominant social information. Of course, this is exactly what the dimension of conformism to an ethnic consensus suggests.

Conclusions

From these aggregate data about the relations between recipients and their sources, we may first repeat the conclusion that whatever the reactions and the personal opinions of people, they mention negative information about ethnic groups much more often than positive information. We have suggested that there are several explanations for this fact: (a) there are more negative communications about ethnic groups, (b) people tend to remember negative information much better than positive information, (c) people who refer to other sources, for example, both for support of their positive and for support of their negative opinions, do so especially by accepting or criticizing negative information, and (d) interview questions about information about ethnic groups prime, or are associated with, a stereotype about negative information: Stories about foreigners are known to be negative. Similar conclusions hold for the reference to negative opinions of others: These too are mentioned much more often, although less than negative facts.

The reactions and personal opinions of the people mitigate this dominance of negative information: People sometimes do not accept negative information or disagree with negative opinions. Yet, even then, negative reactions and personal opinions about minorities prevail. This also explains why most communications about foreigners tend to be negative. Most people probably tell other people stories that are just as negative as those they have heard and accepted (believed, and agreed on) themselves.

Although the effects for the different social variables are not dramatic, there is a tendency of conformism among women and the elderly, in that they accept and agree more often with the information they attribute to their sources. Because that information is mostly negative, their reactions also tend to be more negative. The high-contact areas are also the location for more people with higher prejudice scores, who tend to mention and agree with negative information from other sources. People who are more critical of the information from their sources (young, males,

shows general tendencies only. On the basis of a few concrete examples, a more qualitative and theoretical analysis has been made in section 4.1. Let us try to find some more empirical evidence of these processes of prejudiced communication. We do this by paying closer attention to the accounts people give of personal communication events. Obviously, such accounts are often no more than very brief, summarizing statements about what people hear, and seldom detailed self-reports about what they have recalled, what they found relevant, what arguments they have used to accept or reject ethnic information, or what opinions, norms, and values were applied in these processes. For that kind of data, we need special protocol sessions or similar techniques usually carried out in the laboratory, often during or immediately after the special tasks, such as problem solving or reading, the subjects must perform. In natural contexts of communication and reproduction, such data are rare. Thus, in a series of 20 additional interviews carried out in the spring of 1985, we tried to ask people specifically about their sources of information about ethnic affairs. However, few people in these interviews are able to recall detailed information, beliefs, and opinions of such communications spontaneously. It turned out that the results do not differ very much from those obtained in less-focused interviewing.

Let us examine, then, some of the informal interview "protocols" (N = 138) of people who mention personal sources of information and opinions about ethnic minority groups. We have found aboye that in many (76) of these protocols, people mention negative facts about foreigners, whereas only a few (7) positive facts are recalled from such encounters.

The same is true for opinions recalled, as well as for the reactions of the people, who are also predominantly negative. People agree and disagree more or less equally often with their sources, which means that their agreement is mostly agreement with negative opinions, and their disagreement mostly with positive opinions: The question then is how do they react or (dis)agree, and how do they reproduce such cognitive reactions in their actual talk?

The large majority of the passages merely feature very general, often implicit forms of reaction and (dis)agreement, such as "It is nonsense of course that ... ," "That is what you hear all the time," or "I don't pay attention to that." Detailed arguments, opinions, or ethnic attitudes are rare, and often are not distinct from the present, conversational, arguments or opinions people use to justify or explain what happened in the communicative events. Yet, we assume that ethnic opinions are not particularly momentaneous, so that even present reactions, evaluations, or retrospective interpretations have some value as indicators of those of the communicative situation to which is being referred.

Let us discuss a few examples, which this time also include several that react negatively to negative talk in order to see what kind of

338 Communicating Racism

"defenses" they use in communicative situations; recall that (S) means that a summary is given, not the literal text:

(Woman, 60, low-con, P6)

(Daughter doesn't fall for their charro) She says, they look at you [on the bus] as if they want to undress you with their eyes. They are used to that there, that women and girls are not allowed to go out of the house. DO WE HAVE TO STAY INDOORS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT USED

TO THAT?

(22)III-AB-4x (Man, 77, retired construction worker, low-con, P5)

(S) I hear from peop1e, well-known business people, that Gliphoeve [apartment building in De Bijlmer, neighborhood with many foreigners, especially Surinamese] is being ruined by foreigners, and that it must be restored for 50 million, whereas there is no 7 million for a

machine to help people with a kidney condition (I don't like that).

(23)II-PD -5 (Woman/man, 60/65, high-contact, P6/P5)

(S) My granddaughter had a streetcar conductor as a friend who says

that most of the people who destroy streetcars are young Dutch punks. But I say that they are Moroccan.

The woman in example 21 summarizes a story told by her daughter, but adds a general statement about the cultural differences between Dutch and foreigners, which explains (and supports the truth of) the experiences of her daughter. At the same time, though, the ethnic belief is expressed as support for her own reaction to that story, in which the woman shows that she will not accept constraints on her freedom because of the ways foreigners treat women. We may assume that this kind of argument may be typically used to accept such negative stories about foreigners. The man in example 22 also reacts by mentioning negative consequences of the "favorable" treatment of Surinamese we found earlier, also this time in the form of a comparison with "poor" (sick) Dutch people, for which there is no money. Acceptance and agreement with the story may indeed by based on such them-us comparisons of valuable resources, as we saw for the example of the woman in the welfare office in section 4.1, aboye. Apparently, such arguments are being taken over by recipients to form similar opinions, and to defend them again for others in later talk (as happens here in the interview). In example 23, the woman flatly refuses to believe the experiences of the streetcar conductor, and brings to bear her prejudices against Moroccans to the communicative situation: Vandalism is not something of which "our Dutch boys" could be guilty. Hence, her rejection of a denial of negative opinions about foreigners is based on the perceived incompatibility of negative opinions of in-group members with a (positive) in-group schema. In other interviews, such a rejection takes a more subtle, strategic form. When people say something

negative about minorities, they may use the apparent concession that sometimes Dutch people also "do this." This is the complementary move of conceding that among minorities are also "good ones."

(24)I-Z-1/2 (aloman/Woman, 45/45, housemaid/clerk, low-con, P3/P3) W2: No, I mean we can't really have an opinion about that. Ido have an opinion, I could forman opinion, after ah l that talk you hear in

the streetcar.

W 1: Just as I say! You hear so much from others.

W2: Two or three times a week, you are sitting in the streetcar, I had it twice last week. This old lady sitting beside me, a decent old

lady, begins to tell stories like that about foreigners, that she doesn't accept them ... I can see that from all her talk. She simply says that in the streetcar, where everybody can hear her. Did she have it from herself, or did she hear it from others?

W 1: Well, I didn't react to that, because it was a woman of over 60 years old.

(25)III-SV-3x (Man, 35, book producer, low-con, P4)

M:(S) I don't react very easily against things I disagree with. At most I feel substitute shame.

Example 24 fairly clearly shows a typical instance of public talk about ethnic groups. The woman in the story presupposes that (very) negative talk about foreigners in public is against the norm, and speculates about the sources of such negative opinions (a "decent" old lady, apparently is not supposed to have those opinions). The other woman, like many of our interviewees, did not react, and also gives a reason. This either suggests that one should not argue with elderly people, or that old people tend to have such negative opinions and one should rather not try to change them: Like a child, she is not responsible for what she says. Also, the brief fragment given in example 25, which closes a long statement of the interviewee about his experiences with talk about minorities, shows that many people, even when they disagree, prefer to remain silent. Interesting in this case is the reference to an emotion such as (substitute) shame: The man is ashamed of the behavior of other Dutch people. Indeed, it might be a typical feature of Dutch society to remain friendly in conversations, and not to react too negatively against what other people say. For racist talk this is, of course, another condition that allows further reproduction. There are occasional exceptions to that, though—if people are afraid to be contradicted in their (negative) beliefs about ethnic minorities, they may also keep silent:

(26)III-MR2-2 (Man, 80, retired'bank employee, low-con, P4)

(S)I now admit that I think like that—that I wouldn't like it when it

340 Communicating Racism

would be like in De Bíjlmer here, when Surinamese would cometo live here—I wouldn't say that openly in a group of people, because other people would object and I don't like having an argument about it.

On the other hand, some people do take a more active role in the rejection of negative talk and opinions. The first step in such a process of rejection is doubts about the truthfulness of the stereotypical stories:

(27)III-MR-3 (Man, 36, low-con, P3)

(S) You hear those stories, things that are salient, like how Turks treat

their women, or about slaughtering, usually not very positive things. I don't know what to believe of those stories. There is a lot of bullshit among it.

Others report that they do more than that. They just contradict the speaker, become angry, and show how prejudiced talk should be understood:

(28)II-MA-2 (Woman, 30, artist, high-con, P2)

(S)I have never heard concrete stories, only abuse and stereotypical things like "They stink," and "when you start talkíng about it, or when you want to defend them, then it stops"

(29)II-PD-4 (Woman, 25, student, high-con, P2)

(S)Insurance people asked whether there were also foreigners living in this house, and 1 was angry because it is because they think the house

is less safe when foreigners live there.

(30)II-AC-4 (Man, 65, retired policeman, P4)

(Moroccan neighbors) (S) Children are up late, and then "he [Moroccan] tells them [Dutch neighbors], but 1 never heard that myself, I only know it from hearsay, that they [Moroccans] say uhh, these Dutch must adapt to us for once, because the government has invited us to come [and work] here. Of course, that is not how it is. They carne here by themselves."

(31)III-GE-4x (Man, 17, student, low-con, P2)

(S) Heard somebody tell a prejudiced story about Jews, that they control the banks and finances. We can counter such stories by giving explanations or going against them real hard.

The woman in example 28 first claims that even taking the defense of ethnic groups may be sufficient to stop such negative talk. Because few people report doing this, there are few instances where the reproduction of racism in talk is actually blocked by counteraction. The woman in example 29 explains (in attributional terms) the fact that she became angry with the insurance people. She suspects that the insurance people have prejudices against foreigners, and might charge higher premiums. Hence, in communication, sometimes an "innocent" question may be

given its "correct" reading dueto a critical analysis of the context by the hearer. A characteristic example of counterargumentation is expressed in example 30, in which the man rejects the stereotypical argument about how the foreigners "carne" here. Unfortunately, we cannot see from this and some other examples, whether he actually used this counterargument, based on his knowledge of another ethnic situation model, in the conversations he hears. The boy in example 31 is one of the few who refers to stereotypes about Jews in our data (in his neighborhood there are relatively many Jews), and he suggests that such talk can be countered by good and aggressive arguments.

Note, though, that this kind of critical stance and analysis is rather exceptional. We have found that in most situations, people believe the negative stories of others and agree with prejudiced opinions:

(32)II-PD-5 (Woman/man, 60/65, high-con, P6/P5)

W:But this is what you get in this neighborhood, and you hear about that very often when you are in a shop or whatever if they are hav-

ing a chat in the street: Next elections, Glímmerveen [head of a forbidden, racist party] is my party. And then I say, look, listen to me, when it really will come as far as that, who was responsible for that? Only the government, according to me. What exactly do they want? What do they want?

Talk about the racist voting intentions of her neighbors is commented on by this woman in tercos of an explanation and defense of such intentions. Voting racist, also for her, is going very "far," but she blames such behavior on the government, who "lets all those foreigners in." Apparently, during such talk, agreement with acts that are against the law or the norms may be excused by the participants by attributing the reasons for such actions to an outside force, which make the actors less reponsible. Instead of being racist, the actor then is forced by the circumstances and the authorities.

In the next examples, we find a few more "academic" analyses of communicative situations. Interviewees refer to public places such as bars and public transportation, as well as to the media. Interesting is the repeated mention of "eloquence," which suggests that people who tell negative stories are sometimes not only well spoken, but may also be very persuasive. Thus, the man in example 33 shows that he "understands all that," suggesting that the speaker has a point, but still rejects the conclusions or evaluations, because these would be against the norms ("the way to do it").

(33)III-SV lx (Man, 59, writer, low-con, P4)

I:So where do you get that information from? Do you hear it also