Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Media and social groups
Document related concepts
Transcript
Media in intergroup relations Implications for society Categorization Though rarely discussed, the first and necessary step in the development of group evaluations (including prejudice) is the definition/social construction of a group/category of people All categories are in some sense constructed Basis for category may be biological, ideological/cultural, personality-related Membership may be assigned or chosen Categorization No categories, even the most “obvious” are inherently and absolutely valid. Some degree of social construction always exists. Sex (gender) Race Class Religion Occupation Nationality Categorization The more distant from a biological basis group membership becomes, the more “constructed” one might say they are “Ideological work” must be done to make categories “real”--that is, to give them meaning Regardless of their original basis, categories take on “excess meaning” through the processes of formation and application Excess meaning Categories take on meaning beyond the original characteristics and/or reasons for their formation In-group bias Formation of the “other” Function/power value of representations Factors that affect excess meaning Personal experience with ‘member’ of group Upbringing Status hierarchy History of intergroup relations Cultural heritage Intergroup interactions Religion Frequency Goals Rules of interaction Individual’s group position Excess meaning Powerholder advantage in “naming” Universalizing of individual characteristics of those in direct contact with majority, etc. Group actions interpreted “Psychologizing” interpretations Group conflict Assignment of blame to groups Note: assigned characteristics may be false Groups may be perceived in a false light Misinterpretation of behavior, actions Majority, power groups need for explanation that jibes with social action either by ingroup or outgroup Widespread distribution of biased depictions economic logic of media representations Slight group tendencies magnified by categorization process Blaming the victim Assignment of group characteristics to individuals Group characteristics are assumed to be inherent in “typical” group members “Stereotyping” Overprediction from statistical tendencies The expectation that individuals will exhibit characteristics assigned to the category or group Tversky and Kahneman “Resonance” a la Gerbner “Function” of individual-level explanations Attribution Assigned group characteristics and consequent assumptions about individuals based on their perceived membership in a group serve as explanations for social events and actions “Psychologizing” tendency in the U.S. “Fundamental attribution error” A hierarchy of categories Within memory, categories are assigned a position relative to each other Relative importance (salience) Relations among categories situational salience social/historical salience “cross pressures” mutual reinforcement Positioning may be fluid Categories have social influence Subjects often are called upon to locate themselves as either members or nonmembers Widely observed attitudes and beliefs based on group memberships Processes of bias in behavior seem to be nearly automatic Theorists have tended to assume anti-outgroup biases, but pro-ingroup may be more valid Original categorizations may lead to spiraling effects Sherif Studying categorization schemes One can study categorization and category schemes from a number of perspectives Historical—every means of categorizing people has a history Events Historic forces Political economy Classes (power distribution) Technological and social structures Government role in group power Studying categorization schemes Cultural analysis Embedded in culture/ideology Religion Cultural processes that make and remake ‘groups’ Psychological Learning of group distinctions, characteristics Biologically based differences ‘Innate’ beliefs and actions based on group membership, non-membership Impact of categorization on group members Studying categorization schemes Social psychological Attitudes and their learning, etc. Intergroup relations Organizational Intergroup relations in the operation of organizations Gender bias—glass ceilings Elite theory Power groups control means of societal communication, manipulate content in favor of prejudice, etc. to maintain their position. Marginal voices blocked from media/social communication structure. Market bias theory Media markets favor portrayals that cater to popular prejudices. Marginalized groups cannot develop economically viable media. Those with money will not invest in less profitable ventures that would cater to marginalized groups (not enough people/money to make advertising to them worthwhile). Critical cultural study The definition of the “other” serves to justify the distribution of power and wealth, reassure the majority and adjust minority groups to their fate. Political/social discussion takes place within presupposed “truths” of which race and ethnic categories are one significant part. “Otherness” allows majority to explain inequality, ignore legitimate demands and blame victims for their own victimization. Exoticism Mainstream, liberal pluralist research Media depictions have varied impact on prejudice, with effects both supporting and opposing stereotyping. Prime-time depictions reflect rather than drive overall cultural forces Media portrayals range from negative stereotypical to liberatory depictions Critique of white racism Invisibility Subtle racism Mainstream approach Negative depictions lead to both prejudice against, and low self-esteem among, denigrated groups Questions of categorization and media Do media depictions lead, follow, both or neither nature of depictions What impact do media have in group interactions, both cognitive and behavioral? Is media fare “read into” a set of socially structured interpretations based on categorization? Categorization schemes Race Ethnicity Gender Class Sexual preference Age Religion Nationality Subculture ‘Positive’ effects of media Diffusion of information on race/sex, etc. topics Exposure of segregation, bias, hate crimes, etc. Pressure on government to address discrimination, etc. Media campaigns against racism Modeling of positive intergroup associations, attitudes, etc. ‘Positive’ effects of media Production and dissemination of content opposing racism, genderism, heterosexism, etc. Exposure of hate crimes, etc. Depiction of groups in non- or counter-stereotypical ways Preservation of subcultures Development of community among group members In-group solidarity ‘Negative’ effects of media Stereotypic characterizations Generation of a culture of prejudice Many content analyses have identified sexist, racist, etc. depictions Viewer acceptance of images Reduced concern over plight of minorities Depiction of “causes” of group troubles “Explains” poverty, health and crime problems, lower status jobs, etc. Negative effects of media Modeling of intergroup prejudice, discrimination and even violence Depictions may have antisocial effects if perpetrators are attractive, rewarded, etc. Even negative depictions may have troubling effects given that they still depict a certain reality, set of loyalties based on difference, etc. Potential unintended effects Acts to legitimize categories, maintain and disseminate meaning attached to them Introduces categories, associated meaning to cultures, societies where they do not currently exist Influences self-conception Imposition of positive/negative evaluations Choice of affiliations according to social evaluation of groups Potential unintended effects Depicts intergroup conflict as deepseated, basic, unending, and ‘natural’ Does in-group bias lead to discrimination without prejudice? “Boomerang” effect of providing support to racist/sexist ideas as content is “selectively” attended to, interpreted, etc. All in the Family Historical change Depictions of African Americans, especially, have increased and become more positive However, Entman points out that relatively subtle forms of racism may well be at work Gender Change in gender roles has not been as significant, and more recent treatment of women has played to the ‘sex object’ depiction quite heavily Rather than put an end to such treatment for women, depictions of men have begun to emphasize physical attractiveness to a much greater extent Latinos/Hispanics Latinos and Hispanics remain heavily underrepresented in the media With some notable exceptions, portrayals of Latinos and Hispanics is concentrated in Spanish-language media Some evidence of overrepresentation in law enforcement and criminal roles Additional groups Native Americans Often treated as pastoral, nature-worshiping Rarely depicted Asian groups Relatively rare appearances Heavy emphasis on martial arts Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Much more commonly depicted than in the past Presentations now far less stereotypical Gay jokes, etc. still fairly common The most stereotypical representations Arabs are especially poorly represented in the media Despite clear attempts in nonfiction media and, to a lesser extent in fictional media, to combat stereotypes Terrorists Exotics Religious fanatics
