Beliefs, Values and Attitudes
Thesis Statement: Cultural thought and cultural behavior emerge developmentally as particular expressions of the human spirit, and change or adapt in response to a changing environment or contact with other cultures. When two or more different cultures (or subcultures) come in contact, a dialectical relationship between them is established, often marked by conflict, negotiation and/or cultural diffusion.
Beliefs are fundamental elements of a culture's utamawazo (characteristic cultural thought)and reflect the culture's utamaroho (characteristic cultural behavior) as well. The concept "belief" here is important both from an expository and a constructivist point of view.
Nobles cites "core beliefs" as important aspects of a given culture which become the basis for the development of the culture's systematic conceptions of being (ontology), the universe as an orderly system (cosmology) and value (axiology).
Ani's utamawazo " offers up orienting conceptions of reality... and... represents values... as a systematic set of ideas ..."
Haviland asserts that culture itself is found in the "abstract values, beliefs, and perceptions of the world that lie behind people's behavior."
Even in western society, the statement "I believe" is afforded as much (if not more) credibility in non-legal discourse or communication as "I know."
A culture's belief system often evolves from simple beliefs. These simple beliefs may be the authoritative pronouncements and/or perceptual agreements derived from a group of people living together and sharing their experiences. They may be beliefs appropriated from other groups with whom the culture has had contact. With time and experience, these beliefs may develop into a complex structure of ideas which we may term characteristic cultural thought.
WHAT IS A BELIEF
What is a belief? A belief, according to one definition, is
a cluster of categories, classes or generalizations thought to be true or real which reflect one's conception of self and, wholly or in part, of reality.
The conscious mind creates large clusters of conceptual/feeling structures (beliefs)categories, classes, generalizations made up of information taken in by the senses and/or socially transmitted (or "told") to the individual. All new experiences or phenomena are compared with these categories, and assimilated into those to which they bear a greater or lesser degree of similarity.
When experiences or phenomena do not fit into any existing category, the conscious mind either creates a new category, alters an existing one or rejects the experience/phenomena as unreal or untrue, storing it but not incorporating it into the structure of beliefs.
The conscious mind incorporates only that information or evidence that confirms existing beliefs. These categories, then, are the means by which an individual identifies or recognizes related experiences/phenomena.
They have not only an ideational (conceptual) character but an affective character as well. In other words, everything in a category has a certain "feel." These categories may be rational or irrational and more or less determine individual perception and conduct.
A belief in addition may be characterized as a conviction of the truth of some idea or statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on an examination of the grounds for accepting it as true or real.
CONVICTION
A conviction, in this sense, is a cognitive-affective state, a complex of mental image(s), feeling(s) and a predisposition to act "set in place" by formal or informal learning, usually by argument, entreaty, expostulation or perception. The conviction of the truth of some idea or statement literally means that
In the same way, the "conviction of the reality of some being or phenomenon" means that one is convinced that some being or phenomenon is real.
In fact, one feels so strongly about it that he or she will urge others to accept that reality and remonstrate (or even fight) against those who have a different or opposing belief or who they think represent a different or opposing belief.
What are the grounds for accepting that an idea/statement is true or a being/phenomenon is real? For the individual, proof comes through a process of comparing ideas/phenomena against existing beliefs constructed by the human mind.
For cultural groups those grounds are usually determined by an authority of some kind, by someone or something exercising the power to influence or command thought, opinion and behavior.
Such authority might derive from a collection of tales told by the campfire at night; from the directives, adages or aphorisms of a venerated leader, deified ancestor or group of the elect. It might derive from the visions of artists, the divinations and spells of shamans, the inspired writings and preachments of prophets. Or, it might derive from the examples of holy men and women, the speculations of philosophers or the theories and facts of scientists.
In other words, the authority which determines whether a belief is true or not is derived from the culture itself, from the evolving criteria of validity of the inferences and the demonstrations of cultural thought; from the "proof" deemed acceptable by the culture.
Beliefs are largely culturally determined. As mentioned previously, they are the agreements among members of the culture about the nature of reality shaped by their shared historical experience. These agreements originate in and are sustained by
They evolve over time from simple perceptual agreements to complete, self-contained systems of cultural thought which vary in their complexity and comprehensiveness from culture to culture.
Once established, these systems of belief screen all incoming data and experience, incorporating those which meet its criteria of validity, rejecting those that do not. In this way, beliefs structure reality.
Beliefs about the nature of reality when systematized in the classical tradition of western philosophy are called metaphysics and form one of its three major divisions. Important subdivisions of metaphysics are ontology (beliefs about the nature of being) and cosmology (beliefs about the nature of the universe).
Beliefs about the nature, origin and instruments of knowledge are called epistemology and comprise the second major division of classical western philosophy.
Finally, beliefs about the nature of values (including aesthetics, religious values, social values, educational values and utilitarian values) and value judgments are called axiology and constitute the third major division of western philosophy.
Nobles, choosing to use these philosophical divisions, theorizes that these systems of belief evolve out of the ethos of a culture which manifests first and simply as ideology and then develops into a world view.
Ani, on the other hand consigns all beliefs to the developing utamawazo, regardless of their simplicity or complexity. Both agree along with Haviland and Kottack that beliefs are reflected in the values, attitudes and behavior of individual members of the culture or group.
VALUES
Values are specific beliefs about the desirability or undesirability of thoughts, objects, behavior or conduct, or conditions of being.
They are derived from general beliefs about self and the nature of reality.
According to psychologist Charles G. Morris, values are:
...implicit or explicit judgments about things, goals, and actions that are considered desirable or undesirable (Morris, 1990, p. 528).
To judge means to decide or to choose. Values are decisions or choices made by individuals and cultures regarding what is good or evil, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly, useful or useless, worthwhile or worthless and the gamut between.
Values are decisions or choices about what constitutes "good" or "appropriate" behavior, e.g., good conduct, "right" action, or "political correctness."
Values define end-states or terminal conditions of being, e.g., a "wise" or "just" or "good" person.
INSTRUMENTAL AND TERMINAL VALUES
Values have sometimes been divided into two general categories designated instrumental and terminal.
"When we say that a person has a value, we may have in mind either his beliefs concerning desirable modes of conduct or desirable end-states of existence ..." (Rokeach, 1973, in Morris, 1990, p. 530)
Instrumental values pertain to judgments about the means used to achieve goals and objectives i.e., whether those means are ethical, honorable, pragmatic, effective or not.
Terminal values represent goals i.e., end-states to be approached or achieved such as "educated," "enlightened," "secure," or "important," in the personal dimension or "egalitarian," "developed" or "racially pure" in the social dimension.
Values determine the manner in which an individual resolves internal or external conflicts in pursuing goals and achieving objectives, or more simply, in the way one behaves. The various choices and decisions one makes which shape each of us as "persons" and determine the kinds of lives we build for ourselves are influenced by our values.
Like beliefs, values are cognitive structures, but are end products of the process of comparing ideas and feelings to determine their desirability.
Values are found within clusters of belief, usually attached to predominant beliefs an individual holds about self and reality.
Values are learned and therefore largely culturally determined.
Some are assimilated like food from family and culture (particularly parents, formal education and religion), while others are inferred from the empirical evidence of the senses. Others still are induced or deduced from the norms of the culture.
With education and experience, values undergo a process of development from simple judgments rooted in reflexive or sensorimotor activity to a complex system of abstract judgments.
It is possible for an individual to profess to believe in a particular value (or values) and not live by it (them). There is room for variation within any culture and system of cultural thought.
Usually there is a system of beliefs and values that is more representative of the cultural thought of a predominant sub cultural group. For example,
all Americans are not of European descent, Christian and middle class, yet beliefs and values derived from the cultural thought of these sub cultural groups predominate in most American institutions, particularly the schools.
Members of other sub cultural groups may or may not subscribe to all of these (even though they may give "lip service" to them) and as such, their behavior varies.
The only pragmatic way to determine what an individual or a culture truly believes or values is to observe their behavior. Values professed but not "acted out" by individuals and cultures are called conceived values. Values which actually influence individual and cultural decisions and actions are called operative values (Morris, 1990).
ATTITUDES
Attitudes are also kinds of beliefs. Where values are beliefs about what is good or bad, how one should or should not behave or what terminal conditions of being are worthy or unworthy of attaining, attitudes are specific action-oriented beliefs. Christine I. Bennett (1990) elaborates on earlier work done by Allport (1954) and Rokeach (1969) in defining an attitude as
"... a relatively stable organization of interrelated beliefs that describe, evaluate, and advocate action with respect to a person, object, or situation.
This definition suggests that attitudes have three components: an idea or thought, a feeling or emotion, and a readiness to respond or predisposition to action (Bennett, 1990, p. 192)."
Referring to the previous discussion of a belief as "a conviction of the truth of some idea or statement or the reality of some being or phenomena especially when based on an examination of the grounds for accepting it as true or real," it would seem that the definition of conviction is remarkably similar to that of an attitude. This is because a conviction for all practical purposes is an attitude.
An attitude combines beliefs about what is true and untrue with beliefs about what is desirable or undesirable to form the mental images, evoke feelings and put the individual in a state of readiness to act toward or respond to specific persons or groups, things, predicaments, conditions and circumstances. For example:
Dawn never went to high school. She believes that students who have gone to high school have a distinct advantage over her. A college student now, she drives herself to keep a grueling regimen of study every night (including the weekends) for at least four hours, believing that with hard work she can compensate for any deficits she might have as a result of not going to high school. She has been successful. She credits her study habits alone for her honors student status. Although she is a mature student (over thirty) who has traveled all over the world and had extensive work experience in the subject areas of the courses she is taking, she is not quite convinced that she can maintain her excellent academic performances if she cuts back her study time even a little bit.
An examination of Dawn's behavior at first glance suggests a "good" attitude toward school and her studies. She works consistently hard and is rewarded by excellent grades. We like to believe that hard work always merits reward and recognition. But on closer examination, one might conclude that the cognitive component of her attitude, the mental image she holds of herself as a student, seems to be largely negative. She sees herself at a disadvantage; deficit in certain academic experiences and skills.
This image might evoke feelings of anxiety, stress and nervous tension, predisposing her to study compulsively even when her efforts yield diminishing returns.
So convinced is she of the truth of her disadvantage, and how undesirable it is to endure that condition, it may never occur to her that her age, work experience, extensive travel and natural cognitive talent may account for more of her academic success than the compulsive review and memory work that she subjects herself to each evening.
Beliefs, values and attitudes in an individual may be seen as three parts of an integrated cognitive-affective system. In a culture, they are three parts of an integrated system of cultural thought.
According to Bennett,
"... change in any one of the three parts of the system will affect other parts and is likely to result in a change of behavior" (Bennett, 1990, p. 191).
BEHAVIOR
For the purposes of this series of essays, behavior may be defined as
a range of responses an individual makes in each given situation either by choice or conditioning.
These responses are largely learned (through culture) although some may be influenced by biological factors.
Even those behaviors thought to have an organic or physiological basis can be modified, if not by individual mental and emotional forces, then by powerful social forces.
As techniques of scientific measurement improve, as new theoretical paradigms are formulated and tested, undoubtedly new evidence will surface connecting even more biological factors to behavior.
This will not alter the plain fact, however, that the individual behaves consistently with the beliefs, values and attitudes that s/he holds about self, others, the world, other worlds and the universe, etc. Or, that any change in those beliefs will alter not only the way s/he views reality but the way s/he behaves.
The reader might think from the foregoing that the theoretical model used in this essay to explain culture, cultural thought, and characteristic cultural behavior might suggest that a social/behavioral point of view is the predominant influence in the writer's attempt to define and explain multicultural awareness/consciousness.
According to this theoretical viewpoint, humans are social beings interacting with the people and things in their environment, influencing and being influenced by the thoughts and behaviors of the people in that environment.
Actually, as will become apparent, a more accurate descriptor of the position taken herein is that of an integrated or holistic viewpoint that places appropriate emphasis on a range of cultural, biogenic and intra-psychic origins of behavior.
CHANGING BELIEFS, VALUES AND ATTITUDES
Changes in some beliefs, values and attitudes, whether on a personal level, or a cultural level is a necessary precondition for developing multicultural awareness/consciousness
Can beliefs, values and attitudes be changed? If they could not, then it would not be possible to attain multicultural awareness/consciousness.
Beliefs , values and attitudes change when individuals engage in acts that are not consistent with their belief systems and the consequences of those actions differ from their expectations (Adapted from Rokeach, 1973).
For example, if a man has been taught to believe that if one curses the gods he will surely die, he will more than likely keep that injunction because he believes his life depends upon it. But if by chance or circumstance in a moment of rage or despair he curses his gods and does not die, the whole structure of that belief is shaken. He will begin to doubt if that belief is true and perhaps any other belief associated with it. That belief is subject to change.
Beliefs,values and attitudes change when individuals are exposed to new information that may be inconsistent with information contained in the structure of their beliefs, but seems to them to be "reasonable" or "real" or, "to make sense" (Adapted from Rokeach, 1973).
To illustrate this point Ricardo Garcia's (1991) citation of the example of Copernicus is instructive:
Until the time of Copernicus, European scholars accepted the Ptolemaic view of the physical universe which placed the earth at its center. This was a simple, cozy, and stable viewpoint. Elaborate but easily comprehensible theological system of beliefs were based on this view...
Copernicus proposed that the earth was not the center of the universe and that, in fact, the earth revolved around the sun (Garcia, 1991, p. 9).
Copernicus based his theory not only on his extensive theoretical background in mathematics and astronomy, but on his astronomical observations.
The information derived from those observations was inconsistent with the view that the earth was the center of the universe.
With this new information, he was able to restructure his beliefs to accommodate the same and then reformulate his views about the physical universe. He was, of course, vilified by the religious establishment of the day, even branded a heretic, but his theory was supported by increasing amounts of data collected by scientists influenced by his point of view.
Soon the western world accepted the Copernican view and the established beliefs of the physical universe in the west changed.
Beliefs , values and attitudes change when individuals perceive incongruities or contradictions in their beliefs (Adapted from Rokeach, 1973).
It is possible for an individual to have conflicting beliefs, values and attitudes. A common example particularly among those who were raised in Christian fundamentalist homes is the conflict between the "creationist" belief in the origin of humankind and the "scientific theory" of the human evolution.
According to the "creationist" belief:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;male and female created he them (Genesis 1:27)...
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul (Genesis 2:7)...
And the Lord God cause a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof (Genesis 2:21)...
And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man (Genesis 2:22).
These scriptural passages which are taken as absolute truths in the Christian fundamentalist world view contrast sharply with evolutionary theory which states authoritatively that the human being or homo sapiens of the zoological family, Hominidae, one of two hundred or more species of primates, closely resembles the pongids or African great apes.
It is believed that homo sapiens, which is the single remaining human species, evolved from "apelike" hominids between four and five million years ago.
The absence of fossilary evidence which marks the various stages of adaptation of the human species makes the details of hominid origins debatable. Yet western science considers evolution, including human evolution, to be a "fact" not a theory.
When the Christian fundamentalist student enters public school, he or she is confronted with the theory of human evolution. Some of these students will rigidly or rigorously (depending on one's point of view) defend and hold to their fundamentalist beliefs and risk academic failure rather than change their beliefs or even appear to do so.
Others will in the words of Allport (1958) "fence in" their own beliefs and entertain evolutionary theory only to the extent that they can "parrot" what they think the teacher wants to hear or read and thus ensure their success in the class or course.
Their basic belief in "creationism" remains unchanged. Others still, responding to the authority they confer on their teacher or the evidence presented to support the theory, give that theory as much credence as their biblical beliefs.
Such a student is likely to change his or her basic beliefs on the origin of humans and other associate beliefs depending on how compelling his or her new beliefs are.
Our examples show that beliefs, values and attitudes can change on an individual and a cultural level.
Core beliefs, that is, those beliefs central to the way an individual or culture views reality, which influence and are reinforced by perception and behavior tend to be more resistant to change than peripheral beliefs or beliefs which are not incorporated into predominant structures or clusters.
Since values and attitudes are kinds of belief, the factors involved in the change of values and attitudes are the same or similar to those that cause beliefs to change.
But even operative values often need refining, and when an individual's knowledge and understanding grows, living conditions alter and physical or sociocultural environment changes, operative values change as well.
Attitudes, as action (behavior)oriented beliefs change most readily when associated actions or behaviors change.
BELIEFS, VALUES AND ATTITUDES ROOTED IN FEAR, IGNORANCE AND ISOLATION
Beliefs, values and attitudes rooted in fear ignorance and in the isolation of individuals are particularly significant in any discussion of multicultural awareness/consciousness. This is because the same are prominent as factors that underlay the behaviors or practices of individuals and groups who oppress who deny others power, privilege, status and personal freedom.
A major benefit of becoming "multiculturally aware and conscious" is that such a state is required to alter beliefs and values rooted in fear, ignorance and isolation.
Some degree of the same must be realized to reduce or eliminate negative attitudes and behaviors directed not only toward other individuals but cultures and sub cultural groups as well.
Fear, ignorance and isolation-based beliefs, values and attitudes are typically subsumed under the general rubrics of prejudice, chauvinism and oppression.
PREJUDICE
Prejudice is the most fundamentally problematic of all the negative attitudes which stand in the way of attaining multicultural awareness/consciousness.
According to Allport (1954):
Prejudice is an attitude of abhorrence and hostility toward members of a group simply because they belong to that group or have qualities or characteristics attributed to that same group (Allport [1954] in Vander Zanden, 1984).
Prejudice is a condition of mind characterized by the mental images held about a group of people, the feelings those images evoke, and a predisposition to act toward a particular group as a result of those feelings.
Prejudice is a function of group membership.
In other words, prejudice toward members of a particular group is caused by the prejudging person's membership in another. When given the choice (we do not choose "race," gender or ethnicity or sexual orientation, etc.), human beings join groups out of a basic need to associate with other people. Psychologists call this need affiliation. While they are divided on whether this need is biological, most agree that there are important psychological benefits in associating with other human beings.
Schachter and Singer (1962) demonstrated that the experience of stress increases the desire in the human being to seek affiliation with others, i.e., to enter into interpersonal relationships and to join groups. According to Wayne Weiten (1986), stress is:
any circumstances that threaten or are perceived to threaten our well-being and thereby tax our adaptive capacities (Weiten, 1986, p. 79).
The word "threaten" in the foregoing definition connotes fear. Benefits of affiliation notwithstanding,
fear is largely responsible for the formation of beliefs, values and attitudes we associate with prejudice.
Paraphrasing Herbert Blumer (1961), the prejudging person as a member of a group, believes:
How does an individual come to believe that her/his group is superior (or inferior) and by association so is s/he? This belief, like most beliefs, is taught directly, formally or informally, by cultural agents and institutions.
These agents and institutions include parents, teachers, clergy, child training practices, schools, social clubs, churches, etc. It is learned through imitating the behavioral norms of the culture or group, is reinforced by culturally determined perceptions and is accommodated by one's general structure of beliefs.
Allport cites Lillian Smith's (1949) accounting of belief formation as a result of child training practices in many southern cities prior to 1950:
I do not remember how or when, but by the time I had learned that God is love, that Jesus is His Son and came to give us more abundant life, that all men are brothers with a common father, I also knew that I was better than a Negro... [I knew]...that all black folks have their place and must be kept in it, that sex has its place and must be kept in it, that a terrifying disaster would befall the south if ever I treated a Negro as my social equal ... (Smith, 1949, in Allport, 1958, p. 276).
Smith obviously derived these beliefs, values and attitudes from the "lessons" of southern culture.
Michael Learner's attempt to explain "moral"superiority among certain Jewish Americans in a conversation with Cornel West (1992) is instructive:
... this tendency to think of Blacks as inferior fits into a certain tendency among many Jews to see non-Jews as inferior. This tendency is a historical self-protective device by which Jews defended themselves against being overwhelmed by their status as a denigrated minority in a Christian world. What we did was to turn our oppression around by saying: "Any group that could treat us as terribly as the goyim treat us must themselves either be stupid or morally inferior or both" (Learner, 1992, in Slavin, 1992, pp. 150151).
It was stated earlier that a prominent element in the individual's basic need to affiliate is fear. In both of the foregoing examples a palpable fear is expressed or implied. In Smith's example, the fear is the "terrifying disaster that would befall the south." Implied in Learner's example is the fear of being considered stupid or depraved.
One of the characteristics of culture, as we have learned from Ani, is the "voice" of prescriptive authority telling individual members what to do or how to behave. This authoritative voice is derived from shared historical experiences and is sanctioned usually by customary practice.
Prescriptions of what to do and how to behave are often rooted in the fear of consequences inimical to the individual (as interpreted by the culture) and the culture itself.
A sense of superiority can accompany conformity to cultural prescription particularly when one makes invidious comparisons to outgroup behavior.
For example, certain Nigerians view the western cultural practice of placing aging parents in nursing homes as insensitive at best when compared to the general Nigerian practice of caring for the elders at home for the duration of their lives. In conforming to their cultural prescriptions on the care of and honor due one's parents, the Nigerians feel superior to the "heartless" people of the West.
Human beings learn from infancy that the familiar is good. According to Allport:
We note the startled reaction infants often display to strangers.
By the age of six or eight months, babies usually cry when a strange person picks them up or approaches close to them.
Even a child of two or three will usually [withdraw] if a stranger makes a friendly advance too abruptly.
Shyness toward strangers often lasts into puberty. In a sense the reaction is never outgrown ... (Allport, 1958, p. 119).
As human beings, our very survival and safety depends on our awareness of changed conditions within our environment. However, responses to such changes take different forms.
Allport's findings not withstanding, certain cultures are noted to be more open and receptive to strangers.
Westerners, on the other hand, have a tendency to view differences in people and conditions with instinctive suspicion and a certain hesitancy to respond. Those people, objects and situations with which we become familiar, with which we grow accustomed, with which we "grow up" become valuable by virtue of their familiarity. If the familiar is "good," then it follows that unfamiliar is "bad."
Cultural prescriptions determine what is "good" or "bad" in the day-to-day existence of individual members of a culture. Any person or group that is obviously "different" is more often than not looked upon collectively as suspicious or "bad."
When a person, object or situation is judged by an individual or culture to be different, and hence "bad," there is a tendency to abhor and act against that person, object or situation.
When individuals and cultures find themselves in positions of advantage or privilege over other individuals and cultures, they look to their group characteristics, their group or cultural thought for justification.
Advantage and privilege is usually thought to be the reward of "superior" members of the culture or group as measured against the value criteria of a given culture or group.
Notions of superiority are rooted in qualities of value drawn from cultural (or group) thought which individual members "embody" or demonstrate. Within cultures, groups which predominate through various kinds of power relationships e.g., political and/or economic power, intellectual and group-proclaimed moral or spiritual power, usually impose their values and therefore the criteria for "superiority" on other groups.
In the convictional logic of "ends as proof," predominant groups within cultures and cultures which predominate defend their positions and assert their "superiority."
Whatever means are used historically by groups for establishing advantage or privilege can be and often are justified or qualified through a revision of history by the opinion leaders of those predominant groups in a culture. It follows, then, that any individual or group who is perceived as a threat to those advantages or privileges is to be feared and hated by the predominant group or groups.
It is important that we note at this point that the beliefs, values and attitudes of prejudice are usually uninformed and rarely meet the criteria of what we in the west like to call "rational."
One of the distinguishing features of prejudice is that it resists change even when exposed to factual information to the contrary.
THE REJECTIVE BEHAVIORS OF PREJUDICE
Prejudice predisposes a human being to act in a certain negative way towards members of another group or other groups. According to Allport (1958) there are at least five types of rejective behavior that are directly related to and may accompany the attitudes of prejudice.
These are:
(Allport, 1958, p. 48)
Vincent N. Parillo (1994) suggests that each of these rejective behaviors fall under the rubric of discrimination. His typology is:
(Parillo, 1994, p. 86)
The writer finds this typology acceptable, but prefers Allport.
ANTILOCUTION
Antilocution is verbal rejection in the form of disparaging comments, name calling or other forms of verbal abuse directed against groups or cultures.
Antilocution is often the least intense indicator (comparatively speaking) of concealed prejudice. Verbal rejection of groups most often occurs in communications with people presumed to be of "like minds" or holding similar view points.
The prejudging person may express his/her antagonistic attitudes toward other groups if the "risk" of doing so is perceived to be low.
ETHNOPHAULISMS
Some examples of antilocution are the use of pejorative nominal descriptors, e.g., ethnophaulisms or derogatory names, expressions or statements used to describe cultural and sub cultural groups. Some of these are:
(racial/ethnic) nigger, coon, spade, jungle bunny, darky, dinge; hunky (honky), paddy, ofay, Mr. Charlie, cracker, redneck, peckerwood; greaser, wetback; slant-eye, gook, buddhahead, injun, redskin, hebe, kike, dago, spic, jap, chink, marielitos, embracero, hun, polack, bohunk, gringo, gaijin, haule, bature, oyingbo, yamre, gambari, etc.
(gender/sexual orientation) dick, dickhead, hardleg, jock, stud, bitch, whore (ho'), c*nt, skirt, heifer, piece, p*ssy, sissy, punk, faggot, fruit, poof, dyke, queen, bull dagger, butch, fem, etc.
(ability groups) nerd, grind, bookworm, dimwit, blockhead, pinhead, peabrain, knucklehead, simple, slow, retard, idiot, spazz, Forrest Gump, dumb jock, etc.
(Age groups) old geezer, old foagy, old dog, old codger, old trot, old hen , old hag, crone, old bag, young punk, jitterbug, teenybopper, bubba, snotnose kid, etc.
Other forms of antilocution include the use of stereotypes, misconceptions, outright lies and half truths etc., in statements about members of cultural and subcultural groups.
(Due to considerations of political correctness, the use of the "N" word or familiar hurtful nominal descriptors of gender or sexual orientation groups will not be used in the following examples.
Citing them once in the previous examples is more han enough to establish their prominence in chauvinistic or oppressive thought.): Fill in the blanks on familiar characterizations:
AVOIDANCE
Avoidance as a behavior driven by prejudice is more intense than mere verbal "putdowns" or rejection. The individual will actually avoid contact with members of the "hated" group, even if it is inconvenient to do so. For example:
White flight has had many manifestations in urban and suburban America. If an African American family moved into a previously "all white" neighborhood, it was commonly thought among the residents of that neighborhood that "hundreds" more of "those people" would be right behind the first family.
Property values would plummet and that the neighborhood would be visited by the worst of society's ills.
As such, when the first African American family moved in, even if they were spared the more overt incidents of white racism e.g., cross burnings, anonymous hate calls, fire bombs, for sale signs went up on neighborhood houses almost immediately. The more African Americans were able to move in, the faster white residents moved out.
DISCRIMINATORY ACTS
Discrimination is
the act of denying power, privilege and status to an individual or individuals belonging to a group or groups other than one's own.
Discriminatory acts include denying or limiting access to housing, employment, education, medical facilities, business/recreation opportunities, voting and/or political office, and other social privileges individually or institutionally. According to Parillo:
In the United States the practice of de jure segregation was once widespread throughout the South. Not only were children specifically assigned to certain public schools to maintain racial separation, but also segregationist laws kept all public places (theaters, restaurants, rest rooms, transportation and so on) racially apart as well. De facto segregation may result from residential patterns and become embedded in social customs and institutions. Thus the standard practice of neighborhood schools in racially segregated communities creates segregated schools (p. 86).
For example:
Tom and Wendy, both European Americans of the same age, applied for the same job of manager in a small local business firm as a part of a research project. Wendy was clearly the better qualified for the managerial position, having previous experience, excellent references, computer literacy and solid academic preparation in business administration. Tom had similar academic preparation but virtually no experience. Both in their own estimation interviewed well. Wendy was offered a secretarial position. Tom got the managerial job.
***
Joe, an African American over thirty, entered the small pub on the largely Irish west end of town. He sat at the bar with the intention of ordering a beer before going home. The bartender ignored him for almost ten minutes. Joe finally got impatient and called out his order,
"Bartender, one beer please."
His intention was to drink a beer before going home.The bartender ignored him for almost ten minutes. Joe finally got impatient and called out his order,
"Bartender, a regular Miller, please."
The bartender walked slowly over and stood in front of Joe, making no attempt to serve his beer.
"I'm sorry, sir," he said, "but in my professional opinion, you've already had too much to drink!"
***
Adam and Steve, a gay couple, went into the manager's office of the Crestview Apartments to rent an apartment. An ad in the newspaper, the sign outside the manager's office and a flyer on the wall of the building facing the street announced several vacancies. But before Steve could ask for a rental agreement, the manager informed them that there were no vacancies.
***
Carmen waited until thirty minutes before the polls closed to go and cast her vote in the state elections. She was self-conscious about her heavy accent and did not want to have to answer too many questions. She figured that thirty minutes before closing the polls would be crowded and hectic. She had her citizenship papers in her bag just in case. In spite of the crowd, a poll worker kept her from voting even after she showed him her citizenship papers until he conferred with the poll supervisor. She heard him mutter as she entered the booth, "They'll let anyone vote these days."
***
In 1942, 110,000 Japanese Americans were incarcerated in concentration camps. In spite of the fact that a significant number were second and third generation Americans, they were considered a security risk.
PHYSICAL ATTACK AND EXTERMINATION
Physical attack and extermination occur when attitudes of prejudice drive individuals and groups to commit violent acts (including murder and lynching) against individuals belonging to other groups or other groups as a whole.
Parillo provides several rather startling examples:
Although lynchings have occurred in the United States throughout its history, only since 1882 have reasonably reliable statistics been kept. Sources such as the Chicago Tribune and Tuskegee Institute, which have kept data on this subject, reveal that 5,000 lynchings have occurred since 1882.
They have happened in every state except the New England states, with the Deep South (including Texas) claiming the most victims.
In fact, 90 percent of the lynchings in this period have occurred in the Southern states; blacks have accounted for 80 percent of the victims and other minority-group members the remainder (pp. 112113).
***
On April 10, 1838, the president [Martin Van Buren] ordered General Winfield Scott to remove the Cherokee immediately ... using whatever military force was necessary ...
Soldiers forced them at gunpoint from their homes, first to stockades and then westward, far from all that had been theirs. 4,000 of the 13,000 men, women and children died on that forced march which became known as the "Trail of Tears" ( p. 236).
***
A 1986 report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights concluded that violence against Asians had become a national problem, with a 62 percent increase over the previous year (p. 310).
Battering is the most likely cause of injury to women in the United States (Tavris, 1992). According to Marilyn French, it is estimated that more than twenty million women worldwide are subjected to some form of genital mutilation. These practices include:
Calling these practices "female circumcision" is a gross inaccuracy (and a example of male bias) because male circumcison neither deforms the male genitals, nor impedes penile function or sexual pleasure.The consequences of this violence against women are immediate pain, shock, loss of urinary function, impeded menstruation, painful intercourse and recurrent infection.
The extermination of women worldwide has reached startling proportions:
So many females are being killed that women, until recently 51 percent of the world's population, are no longer a majority.
A 1991 UN publication reports that the elimination of females in places like India, Pakistan, Albania and the United Arab Emirates offsets the female majority in developed countries (p.115).
French continues:
Even limiting the discussion to the abortion of female fetuses, murder of baby girls, or neglect unto death... over 100 million females have been killed in these regions of the world. This does not include "dowry deaths," women who die of starvation because of male control of land and development policies in African countries, or women in the West killed by husbands, lovers, rapists or fellow workers (p. 118).
And of course there is gay bashing. According to Eric Marcus (1993):
A number of [U.S.] government reports have concluded that gay and lesbian people are the most frequent victims of hate-motivated violence. Following the passage of the National Hate Crimes Statistics Act in 1990, the federal government began collecting statistics from sixteen thousand police departments on crimes motivated by prejudice, including prejudice based on sexual orientation.
How many victims?
The total number of reported antigay attacks in five of the nation's major metropolitan areas in 1991, was 1,822, a 31 percent increase over 1990; eight people were killed.
But many of those who monitor these numbers agree that only a small percentage of the victims of antigay attacks report these incidents, because people fear their sexual orientation will be made public or that their reports won't be taken seriously by the police, or because they fear being abused by the police (Marcus, 1993, p. 141).
All, or any combination of most of these five types of rejective behavior driven by prejudice can be perpetrated against one or more groups by another predominant group (or groups) and/or its institutions.
When this occurs, the resulting condition in the least is called "chauvinism," and at worst is called "oppression."
CHAUVINISM
Traditionally, chauvinism has been defined as excessive patriotism.
In its more modern meaning, chauvinism combines the attitudinal and rejective behavioral elements of prejudice and discrimination directed at any cultural, microcultural or subcultural group.
As the combination of prejudiced-based attitudes and discriminatory actions or behaviors, chauvinism, then, can be characterized as:
The above definition of chauvinism encompasses negative attitudes toward and differential treatment of other cultures and microcultures (ethnic groups), as well as such subcultural groups as those based upon "race," language, religion, politics, employment, social status, experience, ability (or disability), gender, sexual orientation, interest and age.
OPPRESSION
Chauvinism is a dimension of a more sinister concept, oppression. Ann Pellegrini (1992) provides an excellent operative definition of oppression:
Racism and antisemitism, classism, sexism, heterosexismthese "isms," which do not exhaust the structural possibilities of prejudice, are the contours, the defining terms, of oppression in contemporary American society.
She continues:
Oppression is a process; it is constituted within and through a complicated and dynamic network of asymmetrical power relations. Oppression is all about power: the power to enforce a particular worldview; the power to deny equal access to housing, employment opportunities, and health care; the power alternately to define and to efface difference; the power to maim, physically, mentally, and emotionally; and, importantly, the power to set the terms of power...
Oppression ...works best when it convinces "us" that "we" are fundamentally different from "them" (Pellegrini, 1992, in Blumenfield, 1992, p. 55).
The only difference between chauvinism and oppression is one of degree or intensity.
Some writers would assert that there is no difference whatsoever. These terms will be used in subsequent essays interchangeably or as a unity for emphasis.
Also, in subsequent examinations of the many faces of chauvinism and oppression, an attempt will be made to show that all of the "isms" discussed in these essays are "of a piece" ; are many faces of the same or similar individual and cultural belief, value and attitudinal structures rooted in fear and ignorance