Belief in Stereotypes of Other Cultures is Based on Refusal to Recognize Diversity within One's Own Culture
Often, communication among people of different countries, unfortunately, boils down to "it is like this in Country A, but it is like that in Country B." People quickly just to country-to-country comparisons, utilizing overgeneralized stereotypes that assume everyone in a particular country follows a certain set of norms universal yet unique to the country. Such assumptions quickly bring down in countries where different cultures coexist, especially in migrants-dominated societies like the US and African countries, where borders are arbitrarily drawn by colonists ignorant of local cultures.
Country-to-country comparisons make sense for institutions that are indeed uniform to the country as a whole. Legal and political systems, set by central governments that rule over entire national territories, can be considered topics that can be talked about as same throughout a country, but when laymen speak of differences in Countries A and B, they are often more interested in the behaviors and mentalities of the countries' citizens. To assume that everyone in a country behaves and thinks the same way, obviously, is to ignore a range of factors that affect each individual differently.
Yet, the stereotyped ways people talk about Countries A and B as a whole still persist. The reason for that has much to do with people refusing to accept that differences across individuals are significant within their own country of origin. They want to believe that any differences that do exist among citizens of their own country can go away over time, through education and socialization that instill a unified value system, so that the country and its people can be more unified and face up to the rest of the world as one rather than disparate, conflicting groups.
Such a wish presents itself not only in monocultural, monoethnic countries like Japan but also in places like the US where citizens are from a whole set of cultural backgrounds to dubious effect. Many Americans, especially politicians, speak of a certain set of "American values" that bind the different people of America together as one citizenry. Yet, looking at what people specifically believe are "American values," the content often seem to be vague and conflicting, and when clearly enunciated, tend to be of the European sort that immigrants from other parts of the world can hardly relate.
Of course, putting on the facade of having a set of unified national values is politically expedient. Externally, values can only be projected as something universal when all citizens buy into them first. And internally, telling people that, essentially, everyone is on the same page ideologically help governments mitigate potential conflicts among different socioeconomic groups, through blatantly declaring that actually, people from different classes, races, and genders are pretty much the same because they all believe in the same values.
But increasingly, as more grassroots level interactions among people of different nationalities and backgrounds take place, they come to realize that what they have been socialized with, the existence of a common set of beliefs that are supposed to be common among people of their homeland and perhaps different elsewhere, is more of a myth than a reality. They find that what they believe may actually be much more similar to those of people from some other countries than others from their own. National exceptionalism falls apart and universalism does exist but is quite partial.
How people talk about country-level comparisons should change to reflect such realizations at the grassroots level. When people hear statements such as "I tend to behave like this" or "believe in this," they should take care to discern whether and which part of the portrayal is unique to that individual and not to a bigger group at the national or subnational level. If people automatically equate "I" with "everyone in my country," then they open themselves to overgeneralized and oversimplified stereotyping that does not benefit their own understanding of the world or intercultural communication in general.
For those new to foreign lands, stereotypes can be beneficial. They provide a straightforward framework to get acquainted with something completely unfamiliar. But as one's exposure to foreign countries and people become more frequent and in-depth, a much more nuanced understanding, based on distinguishing the differences among individuals within each country is necessary. Even as political will for pushing mythical "national/universal values" remain, people need to think more critically as they interact with others from different socioeconomic backgrounds.
Country-to-country comparisons make sense for institutions that are indeed uniform to the country as a whole. Legal and political systems, set by central governments that rule over entire national territories, can be considered topics that can be talked about as same throughout a country, but when laymen speak of differences in Countries A and B, they are often more interested in the behaviors and mentalities of the countries' citizens. To assume that everyone in a country behaves and thinks the same way, obviously, is to ignore a range of factors that affect each individual differently.
Yet, the stereotyped ways people talk about Countries A and B as a whole still persist. The reason for that has much to do with people refusing to accept that differences across individuals are significant within their own country of origin. They want to believe that any differences that do exist among citizens of their own country can go away over time, through education and socialization that instill a unified value system, so that the country and its people can be more unified and face up to the rest of the world as one rather than disparate, conflicting groups.
Such a wish presents itself not only in monocultural, monoethnic countries like Japan but also in places like the US where citizens are from a whole set of cultural backgrounds to dubious effect. Many Americans, especially politicians, speak of a certain set of "American values" that bind the different people of America together as one citizenry. Yet, looking at what people specifically believe are "American values," the content often seem to be vague and conflicting, and when clearly enunciated, tend to be of the European sort that immigrants from other parts of the world can hardly relate.
Of course, putting on the facade of having a set of unified national values is politically expedient. Externally, values can only be projected as something universal when all citizens buy into them first. And internally, telling people that, essentially, everyone is on the same page ideologically help governments mitigate potential conflicts among different socioeconomic groups, through blatantly declaring that actually, people from different classes, races, and genders are pretty much the same because they all believe in the same values.
But increasingly, as more grassroots level interactions among people of different nationalities and backgrounds take place, they come to realize that what they have been socialized with, the existence of a common set of beliefs that are supposed to be common among people of their homeland and perhaps different elsewhere, is more of a myth than a reality. They find that what they believe may actually be much more similar to those of people from some other countries than others from their own. National exceptionalism falls apart and universalism does exist but is quite partial.
How people talk about country-level comparisons should change to reflect such realizations at the grassroots level. When people hear statements such as "I tend to behave like this" or "believe in this," they should take care to discern whether and which part of the portrayal is unique to that individual and not to a bigger group at the national or subnational level. If people automatically equate "I" with "everyone in my country," then they open themselves to overgeneralized and oversimplified stereotyping that does not benefit their own understanding of the world or intercultural communication in general.
For those new to foreign lands, stereotypes can be beneficial. They provide a straightforward framework to get acquainted with something completely unfamiliar. But as one's exposure to foreign countries and people become more frequent and in-depth, a much more nuanced understanding, based on distinguishing the differences among individuals within each country is necessary. Even as political will for pushing mythical "national/universal values" remain, people need to think more critically as they interact with others from different socioeconomic backgrounds.
Comments
Post a Comment