Е. Ф. Тарасов главный редактор

Вид материала

Документы

Содержание German Self-Perception

Подобный материал:

• Серия «Мастера психологии» Главный редактор Заведующий редакцией Ведущий редактор Литературный, 6744.57kb.
• 4-5 38—41 Методическая газета для педагогов-психологов. Выходит 2 раза в месяц Учредитель, 534.94kb.
• Методист кабинета общественных дисциплин арипк; А. В. Нашемук, 1313.16kb.
• Главный редактор Зав психологической редакцией Зам зав психологической редакцией Ведущий, 16568.8kb.
• М. Н. Кедров (главный редактор), О. Л. Книппер-Чехова, А. Д. Попов, Е. Е. Северин,, 7543.75kb.
• 7 ноября/понедельник, 345.99kb.
• -, 406.21kb.
• А. В. Федоров главный редактор, 1896.68kb.
• Тощенко жан Терентьевич член-корреспондент ран, главный редактор журнала "Социологические, 322.26kb.
• Предварительная программа, 64.81kb.

4.2 Evaluation

Let’s start with a short review of the research on stereotypes [Hansen 2000: 321-327]: Walter Lippmann introduced the term ‘stereotype’ in 1922. Later on stereotypes were subdivided into 1) ‘autostereotypes’ and 2) ‘heterostereotypes’. Autostereotypes are the image/notion of a nation, socio-cultural group, individual etc. of itself whereas heterosterotypes describe the image/notion a nation, socio-cultural group, individual etc. has about another nation, socio-cultural group or other groups. Both, autostereotypes and heterostereotypes are closely interlinked: often a positive self-perception goes along with a negative perception of the other, for example during the Cold War the United States and the former Soviet Union had respective positive self-images (that are positive autostereotypes) and a very negative image of the other nation (that are negative heterostereotypes). Tajfel [in Hansen 2000: 324] and Ertelt-Vieth [1993a: 18f.] point out that groups and therefore cultures are constituted through stereotypes. Especially important are positive autostereotypes as they are necessary for the integration of different social and political groups within a society, that is stereotypes can support integration but as well to a certain extent leave aside the perception of the individuals because they focus on groups, esp. nations.

The three major important characteristics of the German self-perception (autostereotypes) (5) are 1) neat/tidy, 2) accurate/precise and 3) pessimistic whereas the Russians name as the three major important characteristics of the German (heterosterotypes) (6) 1) economically, 2) business-like and 3) clever/intelligent. ‘Neat/tidy’ – place 1 as German autostereotype - are ranked as Russian heterostereotype only on the fifth place whereas the group ‘accurate/precise’ (place 2, German autostereotype) seem to me to be at least partially congruent with the group ‘business-like’ (place 2, Russian heterosterotype) and its semantic terms counting up for the attribution discipline because the term discipline is as well part of the group ‘accurate/precise’. The Russian heterostereotype ‘economically’ is unfortunately not further described in the available data to me and I therefore interpret it in the way of Germany as successful economic power. ‘Economically’ seems to me to correspond to the German autostereotype ‘determined’, ranked place 4, as the group ‘determined’ includes terms linked to success and business. The group ‘pessimistic’ as German autosterotype ranked place 3 has no corresponding group in the Russian heterosterotypes as well as the Russian heterosterotype ‘clever/intelligent’ ranked place 3 has no corresponding group in the German autostereotypes.

As mentioned I will now denote in the following sequence some axiological lacunas to demonstrate the immense potential of the lacuna model. Remember: axiological lacunas were defined as ‘different interpretation schemes of reality which come to existence through the emergence of other lacunas. They are culture specific connotations and evaluations. For in any encounter between different cultures any object, any activity might gain significance independent of whatever significance is attributed to them in their own cultural context.’ Due to the available data to me I will research the below chosen German autostereotypes more in a general sense not in the context of a specific intercultural encounter. Focussing hereby on the top three rankings in table 3 I want to pick out the groups ‘Neat/Tidy’ (place 1) and ‘Accurate/Precise’ (place 2) of the German self-perception: ‘Neat/Tidy’ and ‘Accurate/Precise’ are seen as positive characteristics by the Germans themselves as Schneider [2001: 178] describes in his book. Schneider [2001] interviewed (standardized interviews) Germans located in Berlin and the surrounding area, born in the period from 1957 till 1970 and involved in politics, media business and the field of culture. Based on my research results and Schneider`s book, I define ‘Neat/Tidy’ and ‘Accurate/Precise’ as important positive elements of the German self-perception. Yet, if for the Germans ‘Neat/Tidy’ and ‘Accurate/Precise’ account to a positive autostereotype which meaning to the Russians – in my data Russian schoolchildren aged 12-16 years – attach to ‘Neat/Tidy’ and ‘Accurate/Precise’ by analysing them through their ‘interpretation schemes’? Löwe [2003: 142] denotes as positive Russian heterostereotypes (about the Germans) besides the by the majority mentioned characteristic ‘Punctuality’, ‘Neat/Love for Tidiness’ and ‘Discipline’. Based on table 1 and thus on my grouping of terms to semantic groups, I define ‘Discipline’ as belonging to the semantic group ‘Accurate/Precise’ so that I assume that if ‘Discipline’ is a positive Russian heterostereotype ‘Accurate/Precise’ are seen as positively as ‘Discipline’. Eventhough ‘Neat/Tidy’ and ‘Accurate/Precise’ are positive Russian heterostereotypes Löwe [2003: 142] draws the attention to the different meanings Russian attribute to those two groups: Russians are often amused about the Germans being so ‘Neat/Tidy’ and ‘Accurate/Precise’ or they even feel disturbed by these two characteristics. Why? By perceiving the Germans as being ‘Neat/Tidy’ and ‘Accurate/Precise’ besides other characteristics [see Löwe 2003: 142] they associate that Germans have a fixed plan of life and consequently they do not live a real life; their eagerness to work is seen as a missing depth of the soul.

To conclude I want to note that Russians and Germans interpret the same characteristics (‘Neat/Tidy’ and ‘Accurate/Precise’) differently due to different knowledge, in its broadest sense, which is specific to their re­spective sociocultural group, here the nations Russia and Germany - re­member intercultural communication was defined as ‘taking place when­ever participants introduce different knowledge into the interaction which is specific to their respective so­ciocultural group [..]’ [Knapp & Knapp-Potthof in Schröder 1997]. The different knowledge leads to varied ‘interpretation schemes’ or ‘cultural glasses’ generating different meanings. Consequently, the different meanings might hamper intercultural communication (‘the gap over which one traps’), prohibit mutual under­standing (‘the precipice of lack of un­derstanding one can drop into’) or might motivate towards intercultural communication (‘to explore the gap of understanding or fill up with knowl­edge the precipice of lack of under­standing’). The denoted axiological lacunas are representative for inter­cultural axiological lacunas occuring in intercultural encounters. The dif­ferences in ‘interpretation schemes’ draw from historical, social and other reasons which are explored in the multitude of literature about intercul­tural communication, the Germans, the Russians etc. but cannot be con­sidered in this paper due to its re­stricted frame.