social representations dr. james h. liu centre for applied cross cultural research school of...
TRANSCRIPT
Social Representations
Dr. James H. Liu
Centre for Applied Cross Cultural Research
School of Psychology
Victoria University of Wellington
With globalization, is there a shared representation of history, or do different
regions and nations construct the history of
the world in a different way? • Social (shared) representations (Moscovici, 1988)
facilitate effective communication and coordination– a knowledge based approach to culture, based on more explicit arguments and discourses than implicit theories
• Differences in representation can become the basis for lack of coordination, miscommunication and mistrust (Chiu & Krauss, 1999; Liu et al., 1999).
Following Malinowski (1926), history provides “foundational myths” that can be used to construct a basis for legitimising
social order in society • Are there representations of history so widely
shared across cultures that they might be used to construct a “foundational myth” for world order?
• Alternatively, there may be differences in the representation of history that could be implicated in a “clash of cultures” as posited by Huntington (1996). What alternative world disorder would these support?
Social Representations Theory
• Social representations theory (Moscovici, 1984, 1988) is concerned with the processes and structures that enable knowledge and beliefs in society to be shared. The means by which different institutions propagate biased representations is of central concern to the theory. However, it has not been used extensively in a cross-cultural context, where global society is the topic and governments are the primary actors.
Defining Social Representations• Social representations are systems of shared
knowledge that facilitate communication about social objects. They include but are broader than stereotypes. For example, a social representation of poverty might include stereotypes of poor people AND theories about why they are poor AND communication used to describe poor people in both everyday conversation and mass media AND the distribution of these representations across society
The Power of Representations
• Hegemonic (consensual) representations are a source of social power because they are social constructions that people accept as “reality”. They could be used to construct “foundational myths” for world order.
• Polemical representations, by contrast, are those that divide different populations of people and mark divisions between them.
Cross-Cultural Differences
• A “differences perspective” has become a central tenet of cross-cultural psychology, which has shown that many psychological processes operate differently, depending on the cultural worldviews subscribed to by a particular group
• Substantial universality in the representation of world history across cultures would come as a surprise to most cross-cultural psychologists.
Globalization
• With global flows of people, money, technology, and mass communication, should we not expect a sharing of knowledge representations as well?
• The topic of “world history” is possible only by globalization; before, we only had histories of peoples. Western civilization has dominated the process of globalization, and now controls most of the world’s capital, technology, and mass media.
History Provides Resources and Constraints for International Actors
• Eurocentric representations focused on the recent past would provide a privileged position for the victorious Western powers in World War II to take action in the international arena in a way that is perceived as legitimate, relative to other nations. Phrases such as “defender of the free world” come more easily to the United States than other nations given the process and outcome of World War II.
METHOD
• Student Samples from 6 Western nations: Australia, N=102; France, N=102; Germany, N=81; Great Britain, N=39; New Zealand, N=112; USA, N=86
• 6 Asian Samples: Hong Kong, N=123; Japan, N=91; Malaysia, N=180 ; Philippines, N=302; Singapore, N=201, Taiwan, N= 663 (half students, half adults)
Open Ended Questions used
• Write down the names of the 5 people born in the last 1,000 years whom you consider to have had the most impact, good or bad, on World History.
• Imagine that you were giving a seminar on world history. What 7 events would you teach as the most important in World History?
Most Important Events in World History according to Western Samples
Rank USA Pct Great Britain Pct France Pct
1 WW II 86% WWII 77% WWII 64%
2 WW I 50% WW I 64% French Rev 54%
3 American Indep 38% Vietnam War 28% WW I 30%
4 Sept 11 Terrorism 27% Man on the Moon 26% US History 28%
5 Discov Americas 26% Birth of Christ 26% Colonization 27%
6 Vietnam War 20% Industrial Rev 18% Atomic Bombing 20%
7 American Civil War 20% Discov. Of America 18% German Reunification 19%
8 French Rev 14% Roman Empire 18% Man on the Moon 16%
9 Birth of Christ 14% Atomic Bombing 15% Decolonization 14%
10 Breakup of USSR 12% Slavery 13% Nazism/Facism 12%
Rank Australia Pct New Zealand Pct Germany Pct
1 WWII 68% WWII 73% WWII 68%
2 WW I 60% WW I 64% WW I 60%
3 Man on the Moon 24% Man on the Moon 37% French Rev 49%
4 Holocaust 21% Women's Suffrage 21% Discov. Americas 32%
5 Atomic Bombing 21% Birth of Christ 21% German Reunification 23%
6 Industrial Revolution 19% Industrial Rev 20% Russian Rev 23%
7 Vietnam War 18% Roman Empire & Fall 19% Cold War 21%
8 Discov. Of Australia 16% German Reunification 16% Vietnam War 20%
9 Women's Suffrage 16% Discov. Of America 16% Crusades 15%
10 Birth of Christ 15% French Revolution 15% Colonialism 15%
(N=82) (N=39) (N=99)
Gulf War 13%
(N=98) (N=107) (N=81)
Most Important Events in World History according to East Asian Samples
Rank Japan Pct Taiwan Hong Kong Pct
1 WWII 52% WW II 69% WWII 81%
2 WW I 29% WW I 60% WW I 52%
3 French Revolution 23% Man on the Moon 25% Tien An Men 45%
4 Industrial Rev 17% Industrial Rev 23% Sino-Japanese War 39%
5 Vietnam War 17% American Indep 22% USSR Breakup 23%
6 Cold War 12% Discov. of Americas 20% Cultural Revolution 19%
7 Crusades 11% USSR Breakup 15% German Reunification 16%
8 Atomic Bombing 9% Crusades 15% Gulf War 15%
9 Discov. of Americas 9% Renaissance 14% American Indep 14%
10 Korean War 7% French Revolution 10% French Revolution 14%
Rank Singapore Pct Philippines Pct Malaysia Pct
1 WWII 94% WWII 68% WWII 60%
2 WW I 84% WW I 54% WW I 60%
3 Gulf War 32% Gulf War 23% Industrial Rev 28%
4 Cold War 24% French Rev 16% Rise of Islam 23%
5 Great Depression 22% Industrial Rev 15% Atomic Bombing 17%
6 Industrial Rev 19% Nazism 15% Chinese history 14%
7 Vietnam War 11% Renaissance 15% Islam v.Christian Wars 13%
8 USSR Breakup 10% People Power (EDSA) 14% Opium War 12%
9 Rise of Communism 10% Atomic Bombing 13% Renaissance 12%
10 French Revolution 9% Man on the Moon 11% Japanese colonialism 11%
(N=75) (N=646) (N=119)
American Indep 7%
(N=196) (N=272) (N=145)
German Reunification 9%
Detailed Coding of Events (1)
• Among Western samples, 39% of events were from Europe, 17% from N.America, 3% Australia/NZ and 25% were not regional. 7% were from East Asia, 6% from the Middle East
• Among Asian samples, 32% of events were from Europe, 11% from N. America, and 26% not regional. 21% were from East Asia, 3% SE Asia/Pacific, 6% Middle East
Detailed Coding of Events (2)
• Across cultures, 41% of events concerned War (30-51% variability), 26% Other Politics. Other categories were Eras 8%, Science/Technology 7%, Exploration/Colonization 7%, Economics 5%.
• Across cultures, the 20th century accounted for 63% of events, with very little variability (56-79%)
Most Important Figures in World History in last 1000 years according to Western SamplesRank USA Pct Great Britian Pct France Pct
1 Hitler 79% Hitler 100% Hitler 86%
2 Gandhi 36% M.L. King 33% Napolean 30%
3 M.L. King 32% Churchill 30% De Gaulle 24%
4 Napoleon 22% Thatcher 23% Einstein 21%
5 Columbus 16% Einstein 23% Gandhi 19%
6 Marx 15% Princess Diana 20% Columbus 18%
7 Lincoln 14% Mandela 20% Freud 18%
8 Washington 14% Mother Theresa 18% Mandela 15%
9 Einstein 13% Saddam Hussain 18% Marx 14%
Kennedy 13%
10= Stalin 12%
Rank Australia Pct New Zealand Pct Germany Pct
1 Hitler 85% Hitler 88% Hitler 91%
2 Mandela 23% Einstein 36% Napolean 48%
3 Einstein 22% Gandhi 22% Martin Luther 33%
4 M. L. King 21% Napolean 14% Gandhi 26%
5 Gandhi 19% Churchill 13% Einstein 22%
6 Kennedy 16% M.L. King 12% Stalin 22%
7 Capt Cook 15% Mandela 11% Gorbachev 19%
8 Marx 14% Mother Teresa 11% Bismarck 17%
9 Freud 12% Newton 10% Lincoln 16%
10 Churchill 11% Columbus 9%Shakespear 9%
(N=85) (N=40) (N=100)
10 Kennedy 12% Kennedy 14%
(N=101) (N=111) (N=69)
Kennedy 16%
Thatcher 9%
Most Important Figures in World History according to Asian Samples
Rank Japan Pct Taiwan Pct Hong Kong Pct
1 Hitler 54% Hitler 41% Mao 63%
2 Napolean 26% Lincoln 26% Sun Yat-sen 58%
3 Edison 19% Einstein 22% Hitler 49%
4 Mao 15% Napoleon 22% Einstein 38%
5 Lincoln 15% F.D.Roosevelt 19% Deng Xiaoping 29%
6 N. Oda 14% Sun Yat-sen 19% Newton 17%
7 Kennedy 14% Edison 19% Napoleon 11%
8 H. Toyotomi 13% Mao 17% Qin Emperor 9%
9 Einstein 10% Washington 16% Bill Clinton 9%
Rank Singapore Pct Malaysia Pct Philippines Pct
1 Hitler 77% Hitler 44% Hitler 57%
2 Gandhi 42% Gandhi 27% Gandhi 38%
3 Mao 32% Mao 26% Jose Rizal 22%
4 Churchill 20% Mohammed 19% Einstein 22%
5 Saddam Hussain 17% Marx 16% Mao 17%
6 Lee Kuan Yew 16% Lincoln 15% Mother Teresa 16%
7 Mother Teresa 15% Stamford Raffles 13% Andres Bonifacio 14%
8 Einstein 15% T. Abdul-Rahman 12% Lincoln 13%
9 Napolean 11% Sun Yat-sen 11% Ferdinand Marcos 12%
10 Mahathir 11% Marx 12%
(N=78) (N=663) (N=122)
10 Columbus 10% Jesus Christ 14% Edison 9%
(N=196) (N=131) (N=265)
Stalin 11%
Detailed Coding of Figures (1)
• Figures were coded for up to 2 realms of achievement (why they were famous)
• Across cultures, 67% of Figures were famous for Politics, and 41% for War. Almost all wartime leaders were also political leaders.
• 12% were famous for Scientific Achievements, 11% Arts/Lit/Phil, 10% Humanitarian, 11% Spiritual, 3% Exploration, 1% Physical
Detailed Coding of Figures (2)
• Among Western samples, 67% were from Europe (46-77%), 18% N America, 2% East Asia, 0.3% SE Asia, 6% India, 3% Middle East.
• Among Asian samples, 38% were from Europe, 15% from N America, 28% East Asia, 8% SE Asia, 6% India, 4% Middle East
Detailed Coding of Figures (3)
• 72% of Figures named were from the 20th century (48-83%).
• 16% were from the 19th century (8-31%)
• Across cultures, over 90% of figures named were from the last 200 years
Summary – Representations of World History:
• (1) Focused on the recent past, with the 20th century, with averages of 63% of events and 72% of persons
• (2) Centered around politics and war, which accounted for sample averages of 67% of events and persons.
• (3) Dominated by the events of the World Wars, and• (4) the individual Hitler, who was perceived as negative. • (5) Representations were more Eurocentric than
ethnocentric, with events and figures from Western nations exceeding nominations from Asia even among Asians.
• (6) The importance of economics and technological advances (including science) was under-represented.
Discussion
• Representations are strongly globalized, with Asian samples seeing world history as emanating from the West. No dichotomy of “cultural differences”, just more or less Eurocentrism.
• Asian peoples do not acknowledge the importance of one another’s contributions to world history
• These hegemonic representations can be used by Western powers to justify their political and military actions. Not only military & economic resources, but representational power is part of the pre-eminence of the West.
International Politics Conclusion
• The current attempt by the United States to reposition itself following Sept 11 as “Policeman of the World” rather than as World War II’s “Defender of the Free World” draws upon less consensual social representations and may not be perceived as legitimate by other nations.
• Given the overwhelming preponderance of war as the subject of history, we should anticipate that security issues will continue to dominate international political relations far more than other important concerns like scientific, economic, or humanitarian issues
Global hegemony, regional and internal polemics?
• In international politics, most of the Asian and Western countries represented in the previous study tend to align with the USA to greater or lesser extent.
• However in internal politics within a nation, the general finding is that while there is agreement about what constitute (or are) the major events in the national history, there is disagreement about their meaning and relevance for current politics.
Social Identity• According to Tajfel & Turner (1979), social
identity is that aspect of a person’s identity that pertains to their membership in groups.
• It’s basic insight is that identity is not an essentialized quality of the individual, but is socially constructed out of an interaction between the person and the situation. In different situations, different aspects of a person’s social identity become salient.
Identity Salience (Context determines Identity)
• For example, in a conference on feminism, gender may become salient, and behavior will conform to norms for gender appropriate behavior. At meetings of the United Nations security council, nationality will tend to guide behavior more than gender (though there is room for individual differences).
• According to social identity theory, behavior is qualitatively different across situations, conforming to different norms for behavior depending on identity salience. Identity salience depends on social comparison between groups.
Identity creates context
• The literature focuses on how context (or situation) activates or makes salient social identity. However, Reicher & Hopkins (1996) argue that reciprocally, social identity can create reality (or context) by defining the situation in terms of who is in the in-group and who is in the out-group, and what the in-group should be doing in this situation.
History as a Symbolic Resource for Identity
• Reicher & Hopkins’ insight is that identity is mobilized by political entrepreuners to define group boundaries in such a way as to make their own agenda that of the group.
• Liu & Hilton (in press) argue that history is an important symbolic resource that can be used to legitimize group boundaries and define an agenda for groups. History is particularly important for peoples (e.g., ethnicities, nationalities).
Historical representations provide a narrative for national identity
• There is a broad consensus developing across the There is a broad consensus developing across the social sciences that history is important for social sciences that history is important for constructing and maintaining the “imagined constructing and maintaining the “imagined community” of nationhood (Anderson, 1983; community” of nationhood (Anderson, 1983; Hobsbawm, 1996; Wertsch, 2002). Hobsbawm, 1996; Wertsch, 2002).
• HistoryHistory “confers immortality” to events and people, “confers immortality” to events and people, it weaves them into stories with temporal form it weaves them into stories with temporal form referred to as referred to as narratives of originnarratives of origin. Empirical . Empirical research has shown broad consensus across ethnic research has shown broad consensus across ethnic and regional groups as to what events and figures and regional groups as to what events and figures constitute a nation’s history (Liu et al., 1999; 2002; constitute a nation’s history (Liu et al., 1999; 2002; Huang et al., 2004). Huang et al., 2004).
Historical representations as a narrative for identity
• In national histories, the temporal sequence of nominations follows a U shape, with recent and foundational events nominated by lay people more frequently than intermediate events in time.
• History is appealing as a symbolic resource for nation building because it offers concrete events and people with widely shared emotional resonance whose relevance to the current situation is open to interpretation. A great advantage of history for politicians is that most of the participants in it are dead, and can speak only through the tongues of present day interpreters.
History as a narrative for identity• History furnishes both concreteness (widely
recognized people and events) and temporality, both of which are powerful tools in constructing narratives about identity, especially in terms of their implications for action.
• History provides the outlines of an open-ended drama, with prescriptive roles connecting the individual to a larger collective that has evolved through time and hence confers not only symbolic immortality, but persuasive power to those who can ascribe for themselves a place in the narrative.
Table 3. 10 Most important events in Taiwan’s history
by demographic group (Huang et al., 2004) Mingnan
(N=403)Pct Hakka
(N=122)Pct Outside
Province (N=219)
Pct
1 Feb 28 incident
72%
Feb 28 incident
67%
Feb 28 incident 71%
2 Free presidential elections
41%
Meilidao incident
31%
Liberation from Japanese
36%
3 Liberation from Japanese
28%
Free presidential elections
31%
Zhen Chen-gung
32%
4 Japanese Occupation
27%
Zhen Chen-gung
31%
Free presidential elections
28%
5 Meilidao incident
25%
Liberation from Japanese
31%
Japanese Occupation
25%
6 Sep 21 earthquake
25%
Japanese Occupation
29%
Meilidao incident
23%
7 Zhen Chen-gung
24%
Peaceful transition of government
24%
10 Construction projects
22%
8 Peaceful transition of government
20%
Sep 21 earthquake
22%
End of martial law
22%
9 End of martial law
18%
Taiwan ceded to Japan
21%
Land reform 20%
10 10 Construction projects
18%
Jiao Ba nian incident
20%
Taiwan ceded to Japan
19%
10=
10 Construction projects
20%
• All three groups see the February 28th incident, where the KMT violently disposed of local dissidence in Taiwan following liberation from Japan, as the most important event. All groups see it negatively.
• The history of Taiwan is the story of the struggle for autonomy and democracy (first liberation from Japan, then freedom from authoritarian rule by the KMT). The lesson that can be drawn from this is a need for self determination.
Hierarchical Regression Predicting Support for Taiwanese Independence
Taiwanese Independence ΔR2 R2
adjusted
Step one Realistic conflict (internal) -.079 Realistic conflict
(international) .036 .023* .017
Step two Social Dominance Orientation .141*** Anti-authoritarianism -.009 Authoritarianism -.059 .029* .037
Step three Taiwanese identity .239**** Chinese identity -.218**** .246**** .282
Step four Historical fate -.156*** Historical autonomy .218**** .049**** .328
Constant
Evaluation of important leaders in Taiwan’s history
by demographic groups. Mingnan Hakka Outside
province F-test
Chiang Kai-shek
(1945~1975)
3.69 < 4.00 < 4.80 F(2,439)=17.62, p<.0001, eta2=.07
Chiang Ching-kuo
(1978~1988)
5.54 = 5.80 = 6.11 F(2,532)=10.53, p<.0001, eta2=.04
Lee Teng-hui
(1988~2000)
4.01 > 4.10 > 2.54 F(2,459)=37.15, p<.0001, eta2=.14
Chen Shui-bian
(2000~)
4.61 > 4.20 > 3.12 F(2,459)=37.15, p<.0001, eta2=.14
Evaluations of leaders
• Unlike the events, the leaders are evaluated very differently by the demographic groups.
• Native province people dislike Chiang Kai-shek, and outside province people dislike Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian.
• Only Chiang Ching-kuo is admired by all. He serves as a potent symbol of unity for Taiwan
History provides raw materials for the social construction of national identity
• There tend to be a limited number of events and people that are consensually regarded as important in a country. They are symbolic resources for constructing nationhood in that country.
• No research has been done to examine how and whether narrative structures (e.g., temporality, plot, character, theme) add to the “entitavitity” or coherence of imagined communities such as national identities. Does the process of storytelling build nationhood?
Social Representations provide culture specific
frames for the conduct of intergroup relations • Just as biculturalism provides the framework for
understanding history and providing a narrative about national identity for NZ, the drive for autonomy provides the representational framework for Taiwan.
• Many people in Taiwan feel that the drive for Taiwanese independence is irrational, and flies against its economic well-being and security (which depend on a good relationship with China)
Social Representations provide culture specific frames for the conduct of intergroup relations
• Similarly, there is tremendous debate in NZ as to the degree to which people think that the Treaty and bicultural issues should be at the centre of national identity and resource allocations. But these particular political positions (biculturalism in NZ, independence in Taiwan) are easily warranted or legitimized by national representations of history