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

These are, as such, mostly rather local topics, which are discussed briefly as "evidence," or lack of knowledge, about the more substantial topics. Their frequency of occurrence, however, suggests that contacts or (purported) lack of contacts, as well as the information sources about the beliefs and opinions, are important for speakers. Prevailing is the topic that denies contacts with foreigners, but this denial often has a strategic function in conversations: It allows the speaker to "opt out" when a delicate subject is introduced, especially in the beginning of an interview. It may literally mean that people have no or few direct contacts, for example, of friendship, but later in the interviews it usually appears that people do have contacts after all. Denial of contact, then, is an effective move to avoid speaking about possibly incriminating opinions, a move we shall later discuss in more detail as an element of the strategy of positive self-presentation. Avoidance, both of topic and of talk, is a general move that has been often found in studies of conversational interaction, for example, in therapeutic interviews (Kreckel, 1981; Labov & Fanshel, 1977).

The other topics in this category are directly relevant to the main issue of this book. We see that personal experiences are referred to as a major source of beliefs and opinions about ethnic groups, especially in highcontact arcas of Amsterdam. This finding is in agreement with the survey results of Hartmann and Husband (1974), discussed aboye. Yet, according to our data, people even more often topicalize the information they have from others, especially from relatives. Next, the different media, especially the newspaper, are mentioned as main sources of knowledge about minority groups. Direct personal contacts, for instantes, at work and in shops or in the market,, are somewhat less topics of talk, and most of these contacts are "passiv&," that is, perceptual rather than interactional: People say that they have "seen" what has happened.

(b) National policies. A major category

of the structure of ethnic prejudice is the "origin" of immigrants. This means that people have specific opinions about how the foreigners carne here in the first place. These opinions also may be topical in conversation, for instance, when people talk about general policies toward immigrants or ethnic minority groups. In order to allow a first comparison with the interviews in San Diego, we have starred the topics (usually opinion statements) that were also brought up in the United States:

Structures 53

(1)They have been invited to come to Holland (10)

(2)They should be sent back (5)

(3)*Immigration policies should be stricter (5)

Compared to many other beliefs and opinions, the explicit topic of "sending them back," which is a political slogan of the right-wing racist party, is not discussed very frequently. In more implicit ways, however, many negative opinions do seem to have this implication. The same holds for tightening immigration, which is a general policy of conservative parties and the actual policy of the Dutch government. Many people correctly recall that immigrant workers were invited to come to work in the Netherlands, a policy that is now often regretted, instead of having come to work on their own initiative.

(c) Social problems. The next set of topics, typically those featured in stories, are about various social "problems" with which ethnic groups are associated. Many of these topics have a prejudiced nature.

(1)*I feel unsafe (Ido not dare to go out anymore) (29)

(2)*They are involved in crime (15)

(3)*They cause the decay of Amsterdam/the neighborhood (11)

(4)*They are involved in (other) negative acts (9)

These are the stereotypical topics of majority members who feel threatened by the presence of ethnic groups. Elderly women especially feel unsafe, and often this lack of safety is attributed to (male) "foreigners" in the neighborhood or in the inner city. Sometimes this attribution is made more specific by attributing minority groups with crime, aggression, or violence. Aside from the safety topics, it is the topic of urban decay especially that comes up frequently, and here again the run-down neighborhood is directly associated with the presence of foreigners. From the very choice, ordering, and structuring of topics in discourse, we may infer contents and organization of dominant macropropositions in situation models and ethnic schemata. Thus, the attributions are consequences of the general strategy of trying to establish causes or causing actors in the representation of events and actions. And, as we shall see later, it is a typical "biasing" strategy to attribute negative states of affairs (lack of safety, decay, or lack of housing) to ethnic minority groups.

(d) Work and (un)employment. One of the more specific social topics associated with the presence of immigrants is based on the beliefs about the kind of work ethnic minorities do. These opinions are mostly stereotypical, and show that ethnic and class attitudes may be related:

54Communicating Racism

(1)They (immigrant workers) work hard (20)

(2)They have unpleasant (dirty, heavy, monotonous) jobs (18)

(3)They do not want to work (11)

(4)Dutch people do not want to work (either) (8)

(5)They do all sorts of cleaning jobs (7)

(6)They do the kind of work our people do not want (6)

(7)They work in faetones (5)

(8)They want to work, but have no jobs (5)

From these topics, we first may conclude that there is a dominant belief that holds that the immigrant workers, work hard and do the dirty jobs, such as cleaning and work in factories. On the other hand, we also find the frequent topic that they do not want to work. It is interesting to note that such conflicting beliefs may sometimes be held by the same individual, that is, on one hand that they do not (want to) work—and abuse the social welfare system, see below—and on the other hand, "that they take our jobs." Obviously, such apparent inconsistencies must be accounted for in an adequate cognitive theory of the organization and the uses of ethnic prejudice.

(e) Rights and duties. Many topics deal with the general rights and duties to which the ethnic minority groups are subjected. Again, there seems to be conflict between general normative statements about tolerance and rights, and on the other hand, the opinion that ethnic minority members abuse the social welfare system:

(1)*They have various rights (to live here, have education, to have a house, and so on) (20)

(2)*They take our houses (13)

(3)*They abuse our social security system, are on welfare (10)

(4)*They think our country is a social paradise (10)

(f) Norms and cultural differences. A major topic is the assumed deviance from Dutch norms and cultural differences in general. Some of these topics may be very general and may be hierarchically superior to more specific social and cultural topics. Topics 3 and 4 might be classified also as a separate, highest-level category, signaling the overall negative evaluation dominating ethnic prejudice.

(1)They have to adapt to our norms and rules (17)

(2)*They have different life-styles/habits/traditions (12)

(3)You have good and bad ones among them (9)

(4)*Other people do not like them (8)

(5)They treat their women differently (worse) (8)

(6)They have (too) many children (6)

Structures 55

In these opinions, cultural differences domínate as a topic, mostly with the conclusion that "they" should adapt to the Dutch norms and rules. Differences in life-style are perceived to emerge especially in different family structure, such as the number of children and the "backward" treatment of women, mostly by Muslim men. If "tolerance" is formulated at all, then it is often conditional: I do not mind them if they adapt to our ways. This means, in fact, that the assumed tradition of tolerance in the Netherlands—with respect to groups with a different religion or social philosophy—no longer seems to hold for ethnic minority groups. Indeed, many people resent the introduction of Islam into the Netherlands and ignore the many similarities with religious beliefs and practices of the various Christian religions in our Northwestern countries. The frequent reference (also made by men) to the inferior treatment of women is interesting for many reasons, especially when we realize that, in several respects, women in our culture are hardly treated better. Later we try to provide an explanation for this and other prejudiced opinions and their topical relevance in talk.

(g) Education. Education is a less prominent topic of discussion. Yet, not only through the media, but also through information from their children, people have rather clear ideas about whether or not there should be a policy of special (e. g., remedial) education or language teaching:

(1)*Education should be only in our own language (11)

(2)*The presence of minority children causes problems at school (10)

(3)*There are cultural differences between their and our children (7)

(4)*They should have lessons in their own culture (5)

(5)*They should not have lessons in their own culture/language (5)

The view that in the domain of education, the foreigners cause problems, seems to domínate here, and it is concluded that education should be in Dutch only, even when some speakers find that ethnic groups should be allowed to have education in their own language and culture. It should be added, however, that people may well oppose equal rights or affirmative action in other domains without objecting to special forros of education. Indeed, in the traditional list of prejudiced complaints, people spontaneously mention work, housing, and welfare, but seldom education, even when they have children—which would make the opinion and the topic relevant for them. Education is also one of the few domains in the Netherlands and elsewhere in which the authorities have implemented a systematic policy (intended to be) in favor of minority children, within the framework of multicultural education. Although these policies are not exactly antiracist (see, e.g., Mullard, 1985, for a similar situation in the U.K.), they might suggest to the public that the

56 Communicating Racism

authorities "give a good example" as far as education is concerned, which may be a prejudice-reducing factor.

Prejudiced Topics in the Netherlands

and California

In the previous section, we have simply taken the major topics that were discussed in a series of interviews. Many of these topics may be qualified as "prejudiced," in the sense that they are based on negative ethnic group attitudes or negative generalized models. To be able to compare, we have made the same analysis for the second group of interviews (N = 37, held with 44 people), all taken in one of the poor neighborhoods. This time we focus only on prejudiced topics, although, of course, tolerant topics were also realized in that neighborhood. The list of the most frequent topics is as follows (again, items that also occur in the California interviews are starred):

(1)*They have a different mentality (20)

(2)*They do not respect women (15)

(3)*They are dirty, cause dirtiness and decay (13)

(4)*They are a closed group; they keep to themselves (13)

(5)*They must adapt to our norms, integrate into our society (12)

(6)*They are aggressive (11)

(7)*They profit from our social services (11)

(8)*The town/neighborhood has changed (negatively) because of them (10)

(9)*They have (too) many children (9)

(10)*They are threatening, criminal (8)

(11)They take our houses (are favored in housing) (5)

These 11 major topics taken from the talk in a high-contact area overlap significantly with the negative opinions we found in other neighborhoods, which we discussed aboye. We see that most prejudiced topics also occur in the California interviews, except that the topic of favorable treatment in housing is not a relevant topic in San Diego, that is, because there is no city-controlled housing and because housing is less difficult than in Amsterdam.

To show further differences between California and the Netherlands, we also made a list of the topics that were expressed most often in the interviews conducted in San Diego (by at least 5 interviewees out of 25):

(1)They don't want to learn, take opportunities, are lazy (17)

(2)They are threatening, aggressive (16)

(3)They (immigrants) should learn (do not want to learn) English (11)

(4)They live on, or abuse welfare (9)

Structures 57

(5)They steal, are dishonest (7)

(6)They complain too much (7)

(7)They are favored (e.g., in jobs) (5)

(8)They are criminal (5)

(9)They take "our" jobs (5)

Most of these prejudiced topics refer to Blacks or minorities in general. A frequent topic applying to various types of immigrants, such as Mexicans and Asians, is that they do not want to learn or use English (e.g., demand bilingual education or voting in Spanish) or that they take our jobs. We see that, as in the Netherlands, classical prejudices prevail: Minorities are involved in crime, abuse welfare, do not adapt to our ways (e.g., language), take our jobs, or are treated favorably by the authorities. Also, minorities, especially Blacks and Latinos, are perceived as making too many complaints or demands. People seldom explicitly say that minorities are "lazy," but this old stereotype, applied especially to Blacks, is now usually formulated in terms related to education and job opportunities, in which minorities are said to take too little advantage of the possibilities.

Characteristic of the American interviews is that in addition to these prejudices, there is frequent mention of various types of affirmative action, such as busing or setting quotas in jobs and schools. Most people find that there should be equal opportunities for minorities, but that busing and quotas should not be forced. This topical opinion is in agreement with the general findings of survey research about racial attitudes in the United States (Shuman, Steeh, & Bobo, 1985): The majority of Americans now favor the general principies of equal opportunity but, at the same time, oppose the government controlled and enforced implementation of such a policy. This topic is related to the more general topic of (perceived) favorable treatment, which is also featured in the Dutch interviews.

A topic that is typical of mixed neighborhoods in Amsterdam, but that we have hardly found in the California interviews, is that of neighborly nuisance and harassment: There are fewer "complaints" about noise, smells, or other culturally based conflicts. The main reason for this difference is probably the much more crowded, typically urban, housing situation in Amsterdam, where apartment houses prevail, whereas in California most people we interviewed lived in independent houses. More generally it seemed that, due to the generally acknowledged nature of the United States, and especially California, as a land of immigrants, cultural differences are less resented than in the Netherlands. Yet, at the same time, in both countries, we find the general opinion that immigrants should adapt to the ways and learn the language of their new country.

58 Communicating Racism

Finally, the more liberal interviewees also mention topics that are critical of the White majority: Anglo-Americans are often said to be prejudiced or to discriminate against minorities. Specifically in Southern California, people often resent the exploitation of "illegal aliens," that is, primarily, undocumented workers from Mexico, by the farmers or ranchers. Different from the actual situation in the Netherlands, though, is the widespread opinion that such workers are welcome to do the jobs that White Americans do not want to do (for the low pay offered). This opinion is similar to the one about immigrant workers from Mediterranean countries that prevailed in Western Europe in the 1960s.

Topics and the Prejudice Schema

To show that many of the prejudiced opinions that are topical in talk are based on ethnic attitudes, we may try to fit them in the main categories of an attitude schema, of which the structures will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. The assumption underlying such an attitude schema is that people do not have very different attitude structures for each out-group. On the contrary, it is plausible that they have learned to develop a similar schema for the storage and uses of beliefs and opinions about a social group. This schema consísts of a number of basic categories that are crucial for social information processing about out-groups and are central in monitoring perception of and interaction with ethnic minority groups. Somewhat simplified and abbreviated, the main prejudiced topics can be inserted into the categories of such an attitude schema (see Table 2.1).

This attitudinal organization of the major topics may even be further simplified and generalized. That is, throughout the various categories, we also find similarities along other dimensions. Thematically, talk about ethnic groups in the Netherlands and the United States focuses on a few central notions, such as difference, deviance, and threat. The few topic classes we thus obtain are as follows:

(A)THEY ARE DIFFERENT (IN CULTURE, MENTALITY, NORMS)

(B)THEY DO NOT ADAPT

(C)THEY ARE INVOLVED IN NEGATIVE ACTS (NUISANCE, CRIME)

(D)THEY THREATEN OUR SOCIOECONOMIC INTERESTS

Obviously, topic class B can be collapsed further with A, because A is presupposed by B, and B usually taken as a conclusion of A. So, A/B can be interpreted as a perceived threat to our norms, rules, habits, and cultural order. Class C can be interpreted as a threat to our safety or wellbeing or in general a threat to our social order (laws, respect, and so on),

Structures 59

TABLE 2.1: Prejudiced Attitude Schema

0.General

0.1.1do not like them

0.2.Others do not like them

1.Origin and appearance

1.1.We should not have invited them

1.2.They should be sent back

1.3.Immigration policies should be stricter

1.4.They look different (color, clothing)

2.Socioeconomic goalslstatus

2.1.They take our jobs

2.2.They do the dirty jobs

2.3.They take our houses

2.4.They abuse our social system

3.Sociocultural differences

3.1.They have a different life-style

3.1.1.They should adapt

3.2.They treat women badly

3.3.They have too many children

3.4.They do not speak our language

3.5.They are dirty (cause urban decay)

3.6.Their children cause problems at school

4.Personal characteristics

4.1.They are aggressive (violent)

4.2.They are criminal

4.3.They are dirty

4.4.They are lazy (don't want to work)

4.5.They are noisy

and D is a perceived threat to our interests. At this leve!, the basic attitude elements are the same in the Netherlands and the United States. Only the socioeconomic interest dimension is instantiated by different opinions in the two countries: Whereas in the Netherlands, perceived competition in jobs and especially housing are prominent topics and opinions, Americans more often resent the implementation of equal opportunity policies, such as neighborhood desegregation, busing, or affirmative action on the job, policies that have as yet hardly been developed and enforced in Holland.

These operations of abstraction show various things about the underlying cognitive organization of prejudice. First, these further generalizations also seem to organize around some of the central categories of attitude schemata: socioeconomic goals, sociocultural differences, and personality, with the sole difference that "personality characteristics" are marked negatively as threats to our social order and norms (e.g., safety, diligence, cleanliness, respect for the law). In other words, the

60 Communicating Racism

"traits" are not assigned to persons, but to out-group members, and hence to the group as a whole. Second, cultural difference and social deviance are not just resented but subjectively construed as a "threat" to the culture, society, country, town, or neighborhood. That is, the ethnic outgroup, unlike other social groups, is typically put in the perspective of an "opposing" out-group, as an enemy, of which "we," the in-group, may be seen as "victim."

Fínally, it should be added that organizing attitude dimensions such as "difference," "deviance" and "threat," may be further organized by the well-known dimension of "superiority": The perceived difference or competition involved are not taken to divide equal groups. On the contrary, the minority group is seen as inferior in its various properties and, therefore, denied the same socioeconomic privileges. We here touch on the social and economic functions of prejudice schemata and prejudiced talk, which we return to in later chapters.

The simplest prejudiced—thematic and cognitive—representation of ethnic groups both in the Netherlands and in the United States, therefore, may be rendered as in Figure 2.1.

Experimental Confirmation

In order to examine whether the major topics as they are expressed in the interviews are not just "personal beliefs," but "known," largely shared attitudinal opinions, an experiment was carried out in which students had to list what they thought prejudiced people would typically think about ethnic minority groups (Sprangers, 1983). She first found that it was much easier for the students to list possible negative opinions than positive ones. Then, it was found that the list of prejudices mentioned most frequently was very similar to the one we obtained by analysis of the actual interview topics. There are also a few differences, however. The students also listed a number of racist beliefs that were not directly topical in the interviews, such as those about the "inherent" characteristics of foreigners: "they are lazy," "they are stupid," and especially, "they are sexually perverted." The latter assumed opinion never occurred in our interviews. Yet, research among ethnic minority groups into their experiences of everyday racism has shown that these prejudiced opinions also appear to underlie many of the verbal and nonverbal interactions of White majority members with minority group members (Essed, 1984). This means that the overall positive self-presentation strategy of the speakers excludes topicalization of those opinions and feelings that may be taken as fundamentally racist, namely, the attribution of inherent negative personal properties. The other negative characteristics assigned to ethnic groups seem to be

FOREIGNERS/ MINORITIES

THREAT-,,,

ECONOMIC CULTURAL SÓCIAL

Figure 2. 1: Simplest Schema for the Thematic and Cognitive Organization of Ethnic Prejudice

more acceptably topicalized, because they can be constructed as overall group differences and threat. That is, arguments may be found that make resentment or resistance against these economic, cultural, and social threats a defensible position, that is, as a defense of the "rights" of the in-group.

Conclusion

Our analysis of the major topics of talk in two sets of interviews has shown first that many of these topics are stereotypical. What people say about ethnic minorities is seldom based on unique, personal experiences or opinions. Rather, the topics as well as the ethnic models or attitudes they are based on are socially shared and stereotypical. An experiment has shown that whether or not people share such prejudices, they are well known, even when there are also stereotypes about stereotypes. If the concept of "foreigner" is introduced in conversation, it tends to act as a retrieval cue for a limited number of standard experiences or opinions. These appear to be organized under the constituent categories of ethnic prejudice and can be summarized in topic classes under the general label of (perceived) "threat": threat to our social identity (autonorny, norms, or rules), to social order (safety, well-being), and to our interests.

Topics, it should be recalled, organize talk and, therefore, also depend on the social constraints of interaction. This means that they are subject to the usual strategies of positive self-presentation. This forro of socially induced self-control in topicalization suggests that some racist opinions are expressed only indirectly, such as the various topics related to inherent personal characteristics of ethnic group members. Research about the daily experiences of racism, however, shows that feelings of superiority that underlie these "forbidden" topics are nevertheless an important organizing feature of prejudice. This is also confirmed by an analysis of the presuppositions or other implications of the explicit topics in our