The previous section dealt with issues related to cultural identity and how the strategy of assimilation of a new culture determines the perception of inherited and new cultural identities - as mutually exclusive or compatible with each other. The relationship between culture of origin and culture of contact is indeed quite a difficult problem for both temporary settlers and migrants; addressing this problem successfully is an important component of adaptation. There is no single recipe that would solve all the issues that arise in connection with this problem; At the same time, it is obvious that for those who found themselves in the environment of a new culture, relations with representatives of the local or dominant population group will be determined not only by the attitude of migrants to the host culture, but also by the attitude of local residents to migrants. In this section, we will look at issues related to stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination against temporary settlers, immigrants and refugees.
Tajfel's (1978) social identity theory provides a conceptual framework for considering these issues. Social identification is based on processes such as social categorization and social comparison, that is, it is based on the recognition that there are different "in" and "out" groups, that they can be compared, and that the desired or undesirable results of such comparisons can affect self-esteem. Tajfel argues that prejudice between groups is an inevitable consequence of social identification. The results of such prejudices for groups that are threatened or have an undesirable reputation, primarily the underestimation of they-groups, social identity theory focuses on Special attention; a significant part of Tajfel's work is devoted to the classification and detailed consideration of compensatory reactions of groups that are in an unfavorable position. These responses include we-group shifts, the use of cognitive strategies to redefine social comparisons, and collective social action. Although Tajfel's theory has so far been most influential in the study of group relationships and perceptions, and despite its relevance to the study of groups in the process of acculturation, there has been little research on the problems of temporary settlers, immigrants and refugees. Below we review the main research in this area.
1. Is there evidence of favoritism towards in-group members? Experts in cross-cultural research in the field of social psychology of stereotypes provide convincing evidence of manifestations of favoritism towards we-group representatives.
dominant populations of the host society. Wibulswadi (1989), for example, has studied the relationship between Thais, Chinese, Hmong and Americans in northern Thailand. Of all these groups, the Thais gave the most negative assessment to the Americans, and this assessment was more negative than the assessment of the Thais by the Americans. Georges (1998) reports that Greeks are considered to be more hard-working, reliable, and decent than non-Greeks, but even more curiously, the assessment of Greek repatriates is intermediate between the Greek and non-Greek stereotype. According to Tajfel, favoritism toward "one's own" group may be more pronounced among the dominant group or those with political, social, or economic power.
2. Are negative stereotypes about the outgroup linked to prejudice and discrimination? Negative stereotypes of the "alien" group are essential to the emergence of prejudice and discrimination on the part of the host society. Stefan and his colleagues identify such stereotypes as one of four main factors (which also include real and symbolic threat and intergroup anxiety) that lead to prejudice. This has been confirmed by studies of prejudice against Moroccan immigrants in Spain, Russian immigrants in Israel, and Mexican immigrants in the United States (W. G. Stephan, Ybarra, Martinez, Schwarzwald & Tur-Kaspa, 1998; Ybarra & Stephan, 1994).
3. Who is discriminating? The perception of discrimination is very different for different individuals and groups. Malewska-Peyre (1982) found that 7 out of 10 adolescents (second-generation migrants) living in France reported suffering prejudice and discrimination. Girls felt discrimination more strongly than boys, and Arabs felt discrimination more acutely than Spaniards or Portuguese. Despite the fact that such attitudes are associated with cultural differences, even those migrants who are linguistically, ethnically and culturally close to the majority may feel their social inferiority. Leong (1997), for example, found that temporary settlers from the PRC experience, although not very pronounced, prejudice and discrimination in Singapore. Although feelings of prejudice and discrimination among immigrants and temporary settlers are not uncommon, members of the discriminated group generally feel that prejudice is directed towards other members of their group rather than themselves (Taylor, Moghaddam & Bellerose, 1989; Taylor, Wright, Moghaddam & Lalonde, 1990).
4. What are the most common strategies for responding to bias? The choice of strategy is influenced by personal, group and social factors (Camilleri & Malewska-Peyre, 1997). While studying Iranians in Montreal, Moghaddam et al. (1987) found that in the process of assimilating a new culture, immigrants choose one of two
possible strategies. Some prefer an individualistic approach, which is primarily social mobility individual, rather than the preservation of cultural heritage. Others use collectivist strategies, counting on support from Iranian cultural organizations and the Iranian diaspora in general, in order to achieve social progress. Each of these groups was distinguished by a number of features, among which one can mention the desire to stay in Canada and the attitude towards the need to maintain contact with the Iranian diaspora. Most importantly, however, those who chose the collectivist strategy were more deeply convinced of the fairness and fairness of the Canadian social system. A more recent study of Canadian immigrants from Haiti, India, Italy, Greece, and the Caribbean found that a clear minority generally favored collectivist strategies (Lalonde & Cameron, 1993; Lalonde, Taylor & Moghaddam, 1988) .
5. Are there strategies that can reduce in-group favoritism and improve inter-group relations and group perceptions? Socio-psychological theory says that the expansion of contacts - at least when certain conditions- can help to improve the relationship of groups to each other and strengthen ties between them. Triandis and Vassiliou (1967) were the first to study this issue with temporary settlers. The study was conducted in Greece and in the USA. Greeks and Americans, who had little, moderate, and very frequent intercultural contact, completed questionnaires regarding their perception of their own group and their perception of another group. Both groups were unanimous in their opinion that Greeks have more negative traits than Americans (for example, they are lazy, inflexible, suspicious). More importantly, however, increased contact with Americans led to more positive stereotypes among Greeks, and increased contact with Greeks led to more negative stereotypes among Americans. Triandis and Vassiliou argue that stereotypes usually contain "a grain of truth" and that increased contact provides first-hand knowledge that crystallizes clearer ideas about a different cultural group.
Despite anecdotal evidence for this hypothesis (Clement, Gardner & Smythe, 1977), the influence of intercultural contact on stereotyping is usually determined by a number of personal, social and situational factors. Amir and Ben-Ari (1988) argue that contact makes it possible to get to know and understand each other; however, the necessary prerequisites for mutual positive perception is the same social status; common goals; personal, not casual nature of contact; the presence of a social atmosphere conducive to intergroup contacts. Some of these factors came into play in a study by Kim et al. (Kim, Cho & Harajiri, 1997)
of Koreans in Seoul and Tokyo and their attitude towards the Japanese. Indeed, direct contacts were very important, but the potential opportunities for such contacts were not always realized due to insufficient knowledge of the language and other social skills. In general, Koreans living in Japan described Japanese people more positively (organized, trustworthy, reliable, progressive) and were less likely to refer to traditional negative stereotypes (colonizers seeking supremacy). At the same time, a positive attitude was associated with active integration into the culture, a negative, more critical assessment accompanied bad experiences and a sense of prejudice and discrimination.
Question 1. The concept of national character
Modern modes of transport and means of communication allow tens of millions of people every year to get directly acquainted with the characteristics and values of the cultures of other peoples. From the first contact with these cultures, people quickly become convinced that representatives of these cultures react differently to external world, they have their own points of view, value systems and norms of behavior that differ significantly from those accepted in their native culture. Thus, in a situation of discrepancy or non-coincidence of any cultural phenomena of another culture with those accepted in “one’s own” culture, the concept of “alien” arises. Anyone who encounters a foreign culture experiences many new feelings and sensations when interacting with unknown and incomprehensible cultural phenomena.
As studies of these reactions show, in order to navigate in a foreign culture, it is not enough to use only one's own knowledge and observe the behavior of strangers. It is much more important to understand a foreign culture, that is, to comprehend the place and meaning of new unusual cultural phenomena, and to include new knowledge in your cultural arsenal, in the structure of your behavior and lifestyle.
Thus, in intercultural communication, the concept of "alien" acquires a key meaning. But the problem is that the scientific definition of this concept has not yet been formulated. In all variants of use, it is understood at the ordinary level, that is, by highlighting and describing the most characteristic features and properties of this term. With this approach, the concept of "alien" has several meanings and symbols:
Alien as unearthly, unknown, located outside the boundaries of native culture;
Alien as strange, unusual, contrasting with the usual and familiar environment;
Alien as unfamiliar, unknown and inaccessible to knowledge;
Alien as supernatural, omnipotent, before which man is powerless;
Alien as sinister, carrying a threat to life.
The presented semantic variants of the concept of "alien" allows us to consider it in the broadest sense as everything that is beyond the limits of self-evident, familiar and known phenomena and ideas. And vice versa, the opposite concept of “one’s own” implies that circle of phenomena of the surrounding world, which is perceived by a person as familiar, familiar.
In the process of contacts between representatives of different cultures, different cultural-specific views of the world collide, in which each of the partners is not initially aware of the differences in these views, each considers his own ideas to be normal, and the other's ideas are abnormal.
"Own" collides with "alien". First, there is open misunderstanding.
But do representatives of the same culture always have the same understanding of the world around them? What is a national character? Does it even exist? How legitimate is the generalization of typical features on the scale of an entire nation, when it is well known that all people are different? Maybe the national character means a stereotypical set of qualities attributed to one people by others, often not quite friendly?
The complexity and inconsistency of this concept is emphasized by terminological inconsistency - common problem all humanities
ON THE. Erofeev speaks of ethnic representation as a “verbal” portrait or image of a foreign people, S.M. Harutyunyan - about the psychological structure of science, which is "a kind of set of various phenomena of the spiritual life of the people."
However, the most common term is national character.
According to D.B. Prygin, "there is no doubt that there are psychological characteristics and various social groups, strata and classes of society, as well as nations and peoples." N. Dzhandildin also comes from a similar view, who defines national character as “a set of specific psychological traits that have become more or less characteristic of a particular socio-ethnic community in the specific economic, cultural and natural conditions of its development.”
CM. Harutyunyan, who also recognizes the existence of a national character (“the psychological make-up of a nation”), defines it as a kind of coloring of feelings, emotions, ways of thinking and actions, stable and national features of habits and traditions, formed under the influence of the conditions of material life, features of the historical development of this science. and manifested in the specifics of its national culture.
A fairly common opinion is about the national character, according to which it is not a set of specific, peculiar features inherent in only one people, but a peculiar set of universal universal human features.
At the level of everyday consciousness, the existence of a national character in every people is beyond doubt, it is, as it were, an axiom.
Especially often this thought arises during a stay in a foreign ethnic environment. It reinforces the belief that the people of this community are very different from ours in many ways. Observers have a question: are these features and differences accidental or do they stem from one common and deep reason rooted in the special nature of a given people, its special national character? Perhaps, having understood this character, we can easily understand all the features of this people? The national character turns out to be, as it were, the key to explaining the life of the people, and even its history.
Some researchers believe, however, that the national character exists only in everyday, not scientific consciousness, that any generalization at the level of "typical" features of the people is conditional and strained.
So the picture is inconsistent. Is there still a national character? What evidence of its existence can be considered objective and strictly scientific? Where to look for national character? What can be considered a source that provides objective information about the national character?
Let's try to identify these sources:
1. a set of stereotypes associated with a given people (a stereotype is “a schematic, standardized image or idea of a social phenomenon or object, usually emotionally colored and stable”);
2. national artistic classical literature.
3. folklore, oral folk art.
Summary.
In a situation of contact between representatives of different cultures, the language barrier is not the only obstacle on the way to mutual understanding; the national-specific features of the most diverse components of cultures - communicants (features that make it possible for these components to implement the ethno-differentiating function) can hinder the process of intercultural communication. These are such components as: traditions, customs, everyday culture, everyday behavior, national picture of the world, artistic culture.
In intercultural communication, one should take into account the peculiarities of the national character of the communicants, the specifics of their emotional makeup, national-specific features of thinking.
Questions for self-study:
1. National mentality.
2. Correlation of national character and national mentality .
Literature:
1. Gurevich P.S. Culturology. - M., 1993.
2. Ter-Minasova S.G. Language and intercultural communication. - M., 1998.
3. Orlova E.A. Introduction to social and cultural anthropology. - M., 1994.
Control questions for practical exercises:
1. Awareness by the individual of "one's own" and "alien".
2. Define the term "national character".
3. Sources of information about the national character.
A. V. Puzakov
The perception of one culture of another begins with information that, being analyzed (especially for similarities - differences), is the source of the formation of a tradition (stereotype).
Psychology interprets the term "perception" as the process of receiving and processing by a person of various information that enters the brain through the senses. It seems right, along with such types of perception as the perception of space, time, movement, studied by psychology and philosophy, to single out the perception of culture as a historical and cultural category.
Under the perception of culture, we mean the process of rethinking information about a foreign culture, passed through the prism of the native culture, culminating in the formation of a tradition (stereotype), which is reflected in the perceiving culture.
Let's try to find analogies between the mental processes of the human body and the processes taking place in the public consciousness in order to more fully reveal the essence of the category of perception of culture.
Perception depends on the environment in which it is given. Thus, we must take into account the peculiarities of the national character, the domestic and foreign political situation, the nature of bilateral relations between interacting cultures.
The perception of individual elements of a foreign culture constitutes and complements the image of this culture in the public mind. We can also talk about a more or less permanent tradition of perceiving culture in changing historical and sociocultural conditions. A holistic image arises gradually and its formation is associated with spatio-temporal conditions of perception. The image of perception includes generalized knowledge about the object, which has developed as a result of social practice and more or less assimilated by the perceiving subject. A person is always aware of what he perceives, that is, perception is closely related to thinking, speech: Perception mechanisms respond better to changes in incoming information and to new events than to relatively monotonous phenomena.
It should be borne in mind that the perception of a real object is never identical to this object. A person perceives the world through the prism of social consciousness, the entire social practice of mankind, which guides and shapes our perception. In other words, the process of perception of culture is imprinted by the national character, the social ideal inherent in this or that society.
Speaking of perception, one cannot fail to recall another philosophical and psychological concept - reflection. In accordance with this concept, all mental processes and states of a person are considered as reflections in the head of a person of an objective reality independent of him.
The perception of the culture of another people is reflected in the native culture, allowing the first one to see himself from the outside. Being, thus, part of the culture, this perception is attached to the values of the native society and already becomes one of its distinguishing features. We can judge such a perception due to its reflection, and most often these are various kinds of texts.
When analyzing texts that are reflections of the perception of the culture of another people, for a more objective assessment, one should take into account: the general nature of bilateral international relations at the time of the creation of the text, namely: who is the addressee of the text, the purpose of creation, the degree of influence of stereotypes, the personality, education of the author, as well as all available information that directly or indirectly indicates whether the text is characteristic of a given culture, etc. .
The phenomenon of reflection necessarily intervenes in the process of mutual perception, which is understood as the awareness by each of the participants in the process of how he is perceived by his communication partner. This is not just knowledge of the other, but knowledge of how the other knows (understands) me, a kind of double process of mirror reflections of each other, the content of which is the reproduction of the inner world of the interaction partner, and in this inner world, in turn, is reflected inner world first explorer.
LITERATURE:
1. Bodalev A.A. Perception and understanding of man by man. M.: Publishing House of Moscow. un-ta, 1982. S. 33.
2. Bodalev A.A. Perception and understanding of man by man. M.: Publishing House of Moscow. un-ta, 1982. S. 37.
3. Perception: mechanisms and models. Per. from English. M.: Mir, 1974. S. 155.
4. Perception: mechanisms and models. Per. from English. M.: Mir, 1974. S. 9.
5. Puzakov A. V. Dialogue of cultures // Social and humanitarian research: theoretical and practical aspects. Saransk: SVMO, 2000. P.20.
6. Puzakov A. V. Text as a reflection of the perception of a foreign culture// Foreign travelers about Russia. Saransk, 2000, p. 3.
7. Interpersonal perception in the group / Ed. G.M. Andreeva, A. I. Dontsova. M.: Publishing House of Moscow. un-ta, 1981. S. 254-262.
8. Interpersonal perception in the group / Ed. G.M. Andreeva, A. I. Dontsova. M.: Publishing House of Moscow. un-ta, 1981. S. 35.
The world around a person is refracted in his mind through the prism of culture, modified individual perception personality. At the same time, the world is not perceived passively, but is determined by a system of views, beliefs, cultural traditions, moral values, beliefs, prejudices and stereotypes. A person's attitude to the world is also influenced by many subjective factors, ranging from the visual acuity of the individual, his height, mood, attitude to the perceived object, and ending with the depth of knowledge about the world. As a result, a simplified model of the surrounding reality is formed, which helps the individual to navigate in a complex world: our actions are to a certain extent determined by how the world seems to us, and not by how it really is. In this sense, man is a prisoner of his own perceptions.
Interacting and communicating with each other, people from different cultures come from different perceptual experiences. However, the physical mechanism of perception is the same for all individuals: the sense organs send a signal through the nervous system to the brain, where it is identified and interpreted. If the process of forming sensations is the same for all people, then the process of identifying and interpreting the sensations received is determined by culture. Although the perception of the surrounding world occurs in the brain of a single individual, it is culture that determines how he evaluates and interprets the information received.
This does not mean that all representatives of the same culture perceive the world in exactly the same way: within the same culture, a wide range of differences can be found. But culture determines our subjective reality, manifesting itself in perception and behavior. Behavior is a person's reaction to the perception of the surrounding world, which is culturally determined. Each culture gives its own idea of the world around. And only by understanding the ideas of others, a person is able to communicate with them, understand them and his own behavior.
Perception is formed through the active interaction of a person with the surrounding cultural and natural environment and depends on factors such as gender, experience, upbringing, education, needs, etc. But not only these characteristics have an impact on the formation of perception. The cultural and social environment in which the formation of a person takes place plays a significant role in the way of his perception of the surrounding reality. The influence of the cultural component of perception can be seen especially clearly in communication with people belonging to other cultures. -
An illustrative example of the role of culture in perception is the story of an American teacher who worked in Australia with Australian Aboriginal children. At a break between lessons, the teacher suggested playing a game in which the driver is placed in the center of the circle, he is blindfolded, and he must guess which of the children will touch him. He had to guess without a blindfold. The children of Australian hunters did not understand what the essence of the game was, because. looking at the footprints in the sand, they easily guessed which of them had touched the driver. In the lesson after this game, the teacher was surprised that the children did not listen to her explanations at all and did not want to learn the alphabet. Later, she realized that the children considered her stupid, realizing that she could not guess a person by his tracks, and decided, quite reasonably, that she could hardly teach them anything worthwhile at all.
A significant number of gestures, sounds and acts of behavior in general are interpreted differently by speakers of different cultures. For example, a German gave his Russian friend eight beautiful roses for his birthday, i.е. an even number of roses. But in Russian culture, an even number of flowers is usually brought to the dead. Therefore, such a gift, according to this cultural interpretation, will be at least unpleasant for a Russian.
This simple example serves as a good illustration of the fact that a person's cultural affiliation determines his interpretation of this or that fact, i.e. when a cultural component is added to the perception of any element of reality, then its “objective” interpretation becomes even more problematic. This is explained by the fact that culture gives a person a certain direction in the perception of the world by the senses and this affects how the information received from the surrounding world is interpreted and evaluated. For example, we quite accurately notice the differences of people within our cultural group, while we often perceive representatives of other cultures similar friend on a friend. So, for the majority of Russians, all Caucasians almost do not differ from each other. The result of this perception was the widespread expression "the face of the Caucasian nationality", despite all its absurdity. We can say that by exposing large groups of people to the same impact, culture generates similar values, meanings and similar behavior of its members.
Another cultural determinant that determines a person's perception of reality is the language in which he speaks and expresses his thoughts. At one time, scientists asked themselves the question: do people from one linguistic culture really see the world differently than from another? As a result of observations and studies of this issue, two points of view have developed - nominalist and relativistic.
The nominalist position proceeds from the assertion that a person's perception of the surrounding world is carried out without the help of the language in which we speak. Language is simply an external "form of thought". Therefore, in the course of mental activity in the minds of all people, the same patterns of reality are formed, which can be expressed in different ways in different languages. In other words, any thought can be expressed in any language, although some languages will require more words and some less. Different languages do not mean that people have different perceptual worlds and different thought processes.
The relativistic position assumes that the language we speak, especially the structure of this language, determines the features of thinking, perception of reality, structural patterns of culture, stereotypes of behavior, etc. This position is well represented by the previously mentioned hypothesis of E. Sapir and B. Whorf, according to which any language system acts not only as a tool for reproducing thoughts, but also as a factor shaping human thought, becomes a program and guide for the mental activity of an individual. In other words, the formation of thoughts is part of a particular language and differs in different cultures, and sometimes quite significantly, as well as the grammatical structure of languages.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis had great value for a scientific vision of the problems of language and its impact on everyday communication. It calls into question the basic postulate of the supporters of the nominalist position, according to which everyone has the same perceptual world and the same sociocultural reality. Convincing arguments in favor of this hypothesis are also terminological variations in the perception of colors in different cultures. Thus, representatives of English-speaking cultures and Navajo Indians perceive colors differently. The Navajo Indians use one word for blue and green, two words for two shades of black, one word for red. Thus, the perception of color is a culturally determined characteristic. Moreover, the difference between cultures in the perception of color takes place in two planes. First, cultures differ both in the number of colors that have their own names, and in the degree of accuracy in the difference in shades of the same color in a given culture. Each culture establishes a certain spectrum, in which there are boundaries that separate one name from another. For example, blue in Russian culture "corresponds" to light blue - in German, etc. Secondly, the meaning given to color also varies significantly from one culture to another. In one culture, red means love, black - sadness, white - innocence, etc., and for representatives of another culture, the same colors are given a different interpretation: for example, red in many cultures is associated with danger or death.
When reading any text, several layers of meaning can be distinguished at once: From what worldview, worldview, morality did the author write. For what purpose, in what state and mood he was. Any information is given by pendulums or egregors, or by the entities of the earthly, upper or lower worlds. What language does the author speak, what images does he put into words. For whom he writes all this, how he represents it, the reader will understand. And why does he write this - "for example, writers write in order to earn money." In what areas is the author spinning, what kind of life experience does he have. As far as he understands what he writes about. What is expected of those who will read it? From what level of the universe information or knowledge is taken. After all, only those words have power that the author had in his personal experience which he experienced and realized. In this case, words and texts are endowed with his images. Another question is whether he correctly drew conclusions or realized the experience that had occurred.
In the light of the above, it becomes more clear why the Internet is called a garbage can. But it is also in the “Akasha Chronicles” that store on the subtle planes information about all the events that took place on Earth.
“The worst are always the majority”, which means that empty, empty, erroneous, idle information should prevail (I think this is true for our era of Kali or the Night of Svarog (Everything is not so bad, the dawn is already coming).
Basic commandments white man: “It is sacred to honor our Gods and Ancestors” and “Always Live in Conscience and in harmony with Nature”.
* All the commandments left to us have a recommendatory meaning. And living by them is as useful as washing your hands.
What's the point? “I and my Family are united at the field level” (as he says) Vedagor. According to the modern - Honor your wiser, highly developed part (your higher self) and the power of the Gods (the life force of LIGHT - QI or CHI) will be with you. Conscience is the measure of everything, why? From the realization of knowledge that each part of Nature, a particle of the Whole. Conscience just tells a person (and the Gods too) “Do not do to another what you do not want for yourself” (because he, your inseparable part)
There is a law (KON would be more correct) that says “do not throw ...” And then the question arises for the person in charge - How to transfer knowledge and wisdom? Simplify, introduce in the images (rites) of culture, in fairy tales, clothes, ornaments, architecture, traditions, creativity, language, life, worldview, sayings. And the keys to the secret were passed down through the generations of those who knew (awakened ones). (The principle of public and private key in encryption). So valuable knowledge will live through generations. But after hundreds of generations, the language, “fashion”, traditions change, rituals are forgotten, it loses the meaning of why distant ancestors lived this way and not that way.
LiveAtma. Deep image of our Self
Loading...