Stereotypes & Prejudice

 

The most violent element in society is ignorance. Emma Goldman

The profound experience in reading Randall Denley’s, “Crime Not Black and White” is the literary equivalent of the phrase “a picture says a thousand words”.  The mere word replacement used throughout the article first confuses, then challenges the reader‘s commonly accepted system of making sense of the world.  Written over a decade ago for a newspaper column in The Ottawa Citizen, Denley’s article sadly maintains relevance in today’s society.

The terms “stereotype” and “prejudice” conjure up preconceived definitions in our minds.  As we process experiences, people are efficiently categorized based on common stereotypes they seem to fit.  Prejudice may then follow, made acceptable by cultural norms regardless of any real attempt to evaluate an individual or the situation presented.  As society moves forward in accepting diversity among people, the affects of this method of reasoning gain clarity.   Outward prejudice loses favor increasingly with each generation.  Tangible change can be neatly plotted along the timeline of American history, leading to a general agreement on equality and acceptance of diversity being upheld as an institutional standard. 

In this age of diversity training and equal opportunity laws, why does the point made by Denley’s article still shock and confuse the reader?  It is because the tools we use to make sense of the issue lack accurate definition.  In pursuit of a common goal, we may refrain from prejudice thinking or behaviors; however this restraint is based solely on the understanding of prejudice.  Without the realization that prejudice reaches beyond discrimination to include all biased views, be they favorable or unfavorable, our good intentions fall short.  In such a scenario, favorable bias is undetected, reinforcing privilege for select categories of people.  This simple misconception prevents a true understanding of the problem and creates an obstacle in the path toward a solution.  If we are ever to reach our goal, and a time when Denley’s article relates only to our past, it is vital that we connect with the full meaning of the problem we are dealing with.

We have come a long way, but we have definitely not yet arrived.  (Word Count 346)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Culture & Identity

“Trying to catch the sunset?” by Jan Isaac Bugante

Prior to my studies in multicultural communication, Clarissa Chikiamko’s award winning article, “Have Our Artists Found the Filipino Soul?” would not have captured my interest past the first glance.  My genuine interest in Filipino culture stems from a personal relationship involving someone born in the Philippines.  Until now, my intrigue was limited to unfamiliar customs and a desire to prevent myself from embarrassment while interacting with Filipino family members.  My personal identity encompasses as little artistic capacity as one can claim while still functioning in society.  Nonetheless, my role as a student, coupled with my recent enlightenment in the area of cultural identity, breaths life into a brilliant piece of writing I may have otherwise discarded.

This article speaks to my understanding of communal identity as it is reflected through art as a means of communication.  Chikiamko asks if the Filipino soul is found in artist’s offerings.  In evaluating this question, one must first recognize what is meant by the phrase, “Filipino soul.”  Without the further probing questions Chikiamko leads the reader through, one might simply assume Filipino soul to be synonymous with a mental picture of historical Philippine values, worldviews, and norms.  Defined as such, a concise answer might be given, but Chikiamko’s true meaning would be missed.  The depth of the question is revealed in the conflicting concepts of the source versus the subject.  Is Filipino soul certain in art created by those of Filipino descent, regardless of the work presented?  Can it be found in work depicting Filipino issues, yet created by those without a drop of Filipino blood in their veins?  In answer, I can only relate back to similarities with familiar Filipino culture that might disclose a link between a particular work and Chikiamko’s concept of Filipino soul.

In closing, I reflect back to Bradford Hall’s warnings about studying intercultural communication.  Though my newfound tools for use in evaluating and interacting with other cultures have opened up a new world of interest, I must be careful not to fall victim to the hazards of quickly oversimplifying or inattentively overgeneralizing a situation.  It is the failure to recognize subtle differences, says Hall, which leads us to failure in understanding meaning.  (Word Count 370)

Intercultural Conflict

My understanding of the struggle in Burma began with of a few distant news reports surrounding an uprising of monks last fall and the shocking stories of a cyclone devastating the area on May 2nd.  In the aftermath, the media drew my attention to difficulties stemming from clashing cultures far beyond my recognition.  I was outraged upon news of the government’s role in restricting aid to people clearly in need.  Frustration ensued and I dismissed the situation as one I could do nothing about.

Today I revisit this place in my mind from a perspective enabled through recent studies in multicultural communication.  Spurred by the need to fulfill the requirements for a class assignment, curiosity led me to an article titled “Burmese Junta Stonewalling on Cyclone Aid” by Tyche Hendricks, staff writer for the San Francisco Chronicle.  The issues presented by Hendricks again bring frustration, but I see that the greatest source of this emotion is the thought process by which I evaluate the information.  I am only able to make sense of what is before me based on my own culture, or systems I may use to make meaning of behaviors around me.  The endless cycle of misunderstanding produced by this method of reasoning gets me nowhere.  The ideologies of class readings begin to take the shape of tools to help me through unfamiliar territory.  In order to gain a full understanding of the dynamics at work, I realign my thoughts to approach the information in the correct context.

Burma, also known as Myanmar, operates within the framework of a triangular society.  Three unique systems are at work, the Junta, the Burmese monks, and the country’s civilians.  As I seek to uncover some meaning behind the conflict these groups face, an understanding of the similarities and differences between them begins to replace some of my earlier frustration.  Though a vast majority of the country’s people are practicing Buddhists, the peace I would expect from this commonality is challenged by great differences in each of the three system’s values, world views, and norms.  The Junta operates by the perspective referred to by Hall as “The Golden Purse”, easily explained by the phrase, “He who has the gold, rules” (335).  This perspective allows the Junta to promote their value of strong military control within their country.  On the other hand, the clergy operates from a different perspective, commonly known as “The Golden Rule”.  Within this system, a change of leadership in favor of democratic rule is valued.  Behaviors to gain ground toward each value originate from different perspectives.  Clear opposition of practices is revealed, and tensions within Burma begin to take on meaning.

By applying an understanding of values, world views, and norms, and how they relate within different systems, the information presented by an article such as this one provides an opportunity.  The ability to recognize meaning in the unfamiliar replaces frustration with personal empowerment, freedom from ignorance, and the fulfillment of productive relationships.  (Word Count 513)