Introduction
How do 'We' write and talk about 'Them' in your countres? How does 'othering' constitute cultural discrimination?
Othering can be defined as a system and structure that marginalizes and perpetuates inequality based on categories of identity, including religion, sex, and race, among other things.
The human tendency toward categorization and unconscious bias helps to explain the dynamics of othering; segregation, secession, and assimilation.
Persuasion through framing is a part of language. Individuals and organizations persuade us to accept particular meanings and interpretations by making certain aspects of an idea more salient than others. Advances in communications technology have allowed the persuasive messages of disinformation campaigns to swell around the world, amplifying otherness, and resulting in race, gender, sexuality, and other identity-based violence. Social media manipulators are able to obscure the source of false information, while convincing those with a significant audience to propel their misleading messages. As a result, a larger audience may encounter deceptive communications, which may increase the vulnerability of certain communities.
Social media disinformation campaigns have been identified as abetting the genocide of Rohinyans in Myanmar and influencing elections in Kenya, Brazil, and the United States, among other countries. Emerging disinformation technology is amplifying othering in additional ways. Deepfakes technology, for example, allows the user to make it appear as though an individual is saying or doing something they have not said or done. Because of the severe ramifications this technology on our political systems and for those targeted, legislators are considering passing laws.
On identity as a factor shaping global relations, listen podcast episode "Identity And The End Of History":
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/identity-and-the-end-of-history/id1317907900?i=1000418413134
If you are not familiar with Jane Elliott's ' Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes experiment, see also:
Task
How do 'We' write and talk about 'Them' in your countres?
Why: Narratives play an important role in the production and reproduction of prejudice and rasism. The mental models, social knowledge, the attitudes towards 'the others' are present in the media, politics, public discourse.
What: This is a webquest in which all the participants have to prepare a short written report (1-3 pages) documenting racial (otherness) narratives in your countries. You should use the examples found in the media/parlamentary debates/internet popular forums (not niche sources) to support your discoursive case.
How:
- Word processed;
- 10-12 pkt Times New Roman font;
- have cited sources.
Structure may be organised around the questions:
WHAT? (area of interests, social, political context)
SO WHAT? (relevance, opportunities, threats)
NOW WHAT? (important factors, game changers, perspective for the future).
Process
In your report please provide categories listed below:
l. Positive self-presentation.
Parliaments, newspapers, public sphere are the typical channels of national rhetoric. Self-glorification, in comparison to other nations, is routine, especially in large countries such as the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and France. With respect to immigration and ethnic\racial relations, we encounter many references to long traditions of hospitality, tolerance, equality, democracy, and other values. These are, so to speak, the national correlates of what are known as face-keeping or impression management strategies in everyday interaction and dialogue.
2. Negative Other-presentation.
Especially among conservative parties or in general when restrictions on immigration or civil rights are being defended, positive self-presentation often functions as a strategic disclaimer that introduces sequences of negative Other-presentation. Immigration, the multicultural society, or equal rights may be presented in a negative light; immigration is defined as illegal (if not threatening ), refugees are defined as economic (and hence fake), race relations and the situation in the inner cities are seen as marred by popular white resentment (often justified by the inability of immigrants to adapt), and social resources are seen as under severe pressure because of the influx of foreigners.
3. Denial of racism.
Closely related to the moves of positive presentation are the usual disclaimers in which speakers deny that they are racist or otherwise biased: We have nothing against immigrants [or minorities], but . . . Another move in such strategies of denial is the mitigation of racism in the country or the transfer of racism as popular resentment to the white lower class. Denial, mitigation, and transfer also are typical moves of elite racism used by public figures.
4. Apparent sympathy.
Decisions that have negative consequences for immigrants or resident minorities often are defended by constructing them as being for their own good. Potential immigrants are encouraged to stay where they are, for example, with the argument of helping to build up their own countries or to avoid coming to our country because they may be confronted by (popular) resentment, if not by the cold or other unpleasant surprises in the North. It is only in such strategic arguments that our country is presented as a disagreeable place to be-for immigrants, that is. At the same time, immigration restrictions may be supported by arguing that they are necessary for harmony in society. That is, it is in our common interest for them to stay away.
5. Fairness.
Within the framework of positive self-presentation, discourse and decisions on ethnic affairs are premised on principles of humanism, tolerance, and equality. However, political reality is seen as forcing public speakers, polticians or commentators to sometimes make unpleasant decisions. This dualism is routinely expressed by the well-known firm but fair move: Pragmatic decision making requires that we are firm but at the same time remain fair.
6. Top-down transfer.
Racism may be accompanied by various forms of transfer. These are characteristic of other types of elite discourse, for instance, when corporate managers blame their subordinates for prejudice or discrimination against minorities in the company, when newspaper editors blame their readers for abusing the truth about the minority issues on which they report, or when shop or cafe owners blame their white clients for forcing them to discriminate against minorities. Politicians, if admitting at all the incidents of resentment, intolerance, xenophobia, and/or racism in the country, will tend to blame the extreme right or, more often than not, ordinary white people. Frequently, such blame may be mitigated or distributed, justifying resentment by assigning part of the blame to minorities whose behaviors or cultures are said to irritate or harass the native population. For the political elites, racism always is elsewehere if not abroad, then at least at the extreme right or among the lower class.
7. Justification.
The force of facts. Negative decisions, or even derogation of Others, routinely are justified by referring to the force of facts ; the international situation, agreements, financial difficulties, number of refugees, and so on are among the many good reasons being used in justification tactics for negative decisions. Again, the argument of popular resentment may be one of these facts, even when it is largely constructed or exacerbated by politicians in the first place. This argument also may be used as one of the steps in the fair but firm argument.
Evaluation
The results of this webquest will count as your class participation. In the evaluation process the following criteria will be taken into account:
a) accurate identification of the categories listed in the 'Process' Webquest part;
b) precision and inquisitiveness of the report.