Category: Free Essays

Many feminists concentrate on gender inequality, particularly inequality in paid employment. Postmodernists place little emphasis on paid work, but both Marxist feminist and liberal feminists see employment opportunities as crucial to understanding gender inequalities. Liberal feminists have argued that a combination of legislation and changed attitudes can open up economic opportunities for women.

Equal opportunity legislation –

In 1970 the Equal Pay Act legislated that women should be paid the same as men for doing the same or broadly similar work. In 1984 an amendment stipulated that women should get equal pay for work of equal value. The 1975 Sex Discrimination Act made discrimination on the grounds of sex illegal in employment, education and the provision of goods and services. Legislation was further strengthened by the 2006 Equality Act required all public bodies to take an active role in removing illegal discrimination against women.

Despite these changes in the law, and considerable increases in recent years in the proportion of women who work in Britain, women remain disadvantaged at work:

The proportion of the labour force who are female has risen considerably. In 1971 92% of men of working age were employed and 56% of women. By 2005 80% of men were employed and 70% of women (Social Trends 2006, p.52).

In 2005 42% of women were part-time workers and 10% of men. In 2004 67% of women with dependent children worked (Social Trends 2006, p.54).

Gender and earnings –

Women continue to be less well paid than men. In 1970 women working full-time earned 63% of the average full-time male wage; by 2005 they were still only getting 82% of the average male wage (EOC, 1997, 2002a; New Earnings Survey 2005).

Horizontal segregation – where men and women tend to have different types of job – also continues. Women tend to be employed in areas such as personal services, administration, hotels and restaurants. Most routine clerical and secretarial workers are women, as are most primary teachers. Men tend to dominate in areas such as manufacturing, construction and transport. The proportion of women managers and professionals has increased recently. The Women and Work Commission (2006) found 75% of pharmacists, 40% of accountants, almost 50% of lawyers and over 30% of doctors were women.

The Equal Opportunities Report (2006) reveals the absence of women in elite positions across a number of occupations, and comments that at the present rate of progress it would 50 years before half of top directors were women and 200 years before women were equally represented in the House of Commons, whereby as many female MP’s as male MP’s.

Vertical segregation continues – i.e. men predominate in higher paid jobs whilst women predominate in lower paid ones. For example, in 2005 83% of directors and chief executives were men, 74% of waiting staff were women. Men predominate in all the higher paid lobs except personnel, training and industrial relations managers; while women predominate in all the lower-paid jobs except sports and leisure assistants, where the number of men and women are equal.

Generally, the more senior the position, the lower the proportion of women. According to the Equal Opportunities Commission report Sex and Power: Who Runs Britain? (EOC, 2006), women are under-represented in elite positions. In 2004 only 9% of senior judges, 10% of senior police officers and 13% of national newspaper editors were women. Women held only 10.5% of the directorships of the FTSE 100 companies and 19.7% of MPs and 27.3% of cabinet ministers were female. Although most teachers are female, in 2004 only 31.8% of head teachers were women. In 2005, less than 1% of senior ranks in the armed forces and only 10.2% of senior police officers were female. The report notes some improvements in the representation of women but calculates that at current rates of change it would take 40% before 50% of top directors were female, and 200 years before there were as many female as male MPs.

LINK SOCIAL WORK TO ABOVE.+REPHRASE MUCH OF ABOVE/SUMMARISE/CUT+CARE SECTOR STATISTICS

Explanations for gender inequalities

Textbook pp. 124-131

Functionalism –

Human capital theory suggests that women are less valuable to employers than men because they are less committed to work and more likely to take career breaks to raise children. This gives employers less incentive to promote women and invest in their training. However, a study by Peter Sloane (1994) found that gender continued to influence pay even when qualifications and experience were taken into account.

Catherine Hakim – preference theory –

Hakim (2004) argues that women now have more choice, and inequality stems from personal preference. Women have better labour market opportunities than ever before due to amongst others the contraceptive revolution from about 1965. The equal opportunities revolution and the expansion of white collar occupations as well as the expansion of jobs for secondary earners.

This has led, according to Hakim, to the emergence of three types of women:

Adaptive women who combine both paid work and family. This group is about two thirds of women who seek flexible or part-time work. Another type is described as work-centred women, these women are a minority who focus on career and fit family life around it, this group is less than 20% of women, so men will continue to dominate the workplace. Finally, home-centred women are women who prefer not to work. This group is about 20% of women, including some who are well qualified.

Crompton (1996), however, found no evidence of clear-cut categories among women working in banking and pharmacy in Britain and France. Houston & Marks (2003) found many factors other than personal preference influenced women’s attitude towards paid employment. Abbott et al (2005) criticize Hakim for ignoring structural constraints which limit and shape women’s choices.

***CONTINUE FROM HERE – -P126 (P121-130)

The dual labour market theory –

The dual labour market theory developed by Barron & Norris (1976) distinguishes between:

The primary labour market of well-paid, fairly secure jobs with prospects;

The secondary labour market of poorly paid, insecure jobs with few prospects.

Employers try hard to attract and retain primary workers, who are seen as key to the success of their enterprises, but secondary workers are seen as easily replaced. It is difficult to transfer from the secondary to the primary labour market, and women tend to be concentrated in the secondary sector. This is due in part to employer sexism but also to factors such as lack of unionization.

Beechey (1986) sees women as a cheap reserve army of labour, brought in during economic booms but thrown out during slumps. This creates flexibility for capitalists and depresses overall wage levels. Women tend to be in the reserve army because: they are often not in unions; they may be prepared to work for less if their wage is a second income; they are seen as combining work with domestic responsibilities.

However, this theory cannot explain horizontal segregation. Also, the continued growth of female employment suggests that women are not being used purely as a temporary, reserve army of workers.

McDowell (1992) applies post-Fordist theory to female employment. Post-Fordism suggests that there has been a move away from mass production to more flexible production of specialist products. Businesses keep a core of highly skilled workers, but most other workers are temporary or part-time, or work is contracted out to other firms. Women tend to be concentrated in the more flexible jobs, particularly part-time work, although some have benefited from gaining core jobs.

Research by Lovering (1994) found evidence to support this theory in some companies but not in others, suggesting that post-Fordist trends affect only some workers.

Some feminists stress the role of male trade unionists in restricting women’s opportunities. Walby (1986) argues that in some areas (for example, engineering) trade unions have used exclusion to disadvantage women, while in industries such as textiles, women have been disadvantaged by confinement to certain lower-paid areas of work. Low-paid work ensures that women are more likely to take on domestic responsibilities than men.

Radical feminists see patriarchy rather than capitalism as the main cause of female disadvantage. Stanko (1988) argues that sexual harassment in the workplace is used to keep women in their place. Men use their power in the workplace to protect their position. Women in jobs such as bar work and secretarial work are sexualized, and are not taken as seriously as workers or considered for promotion.

Adkins (1995) goes further, arguing that sexual work has become integral to many women’s jobs. In service sector jobs where women have contact with men they are expected to engage in sexual servicing: looking attractive, engaging in sexual banter, tolerating sexual innuendo and so on.

The Women and Work Commission (2006) argues that reform, legislation and tackling sexist socialization can solve the problem of unequal pay. They argue that:

Gender stereotyping in schools, in careers advice, and in work experience programmes, is based on traditional roles. This results in the concentration of women in lower-paid occupations. The Commission pointed out that the media could challenge these cultural expectations – two thirds of forensic science students are now women.

Combining work and family life leads to women taking career breaks and working part-time. Gosling (2005) found a single year working part-time before returning to full-time work led to a 10-15% reduction in pay, largely due to the quality of the part-time work available.

Women need more opportunities for lifelong training.

Workplace practices often disadvantage women. Job evaluations which rank male-dominated jobs more highly than female ones, even though these jobs have a similar skill level, need to be challenged.

1302

ADD GENDER ROLE AND STEREOTYPES AS PROHIBETER OF SEXES CROSS OVER TO DOMINENT SEX CAREER ROLES.

1605-1626

The conceptual framework of feminism, as a reactionary ideology, basically consists of ‘power,’ ‘woman,’ ‘rights,’ and ‘equality’. The same can be said of African feminism, which has on its priority list such goals as self-determination, which have economic overtones sewn on a materialistic metaphysic. African womanism, despite its pretensions to seeking co-operation or its advocacy for interdependency between men and women, uses a model of conscientisation of women that is foreign to Africa, and runs the risks of obscurantism, vulgarism, inauthenticity, and irrelevance. To put it cryptically, African womanism ‘can’t want and can’t not want’ men at the same time. Although gender has made tremendous strides in conscientising women about their plight vis-a-vis male-dominance, its future in Africa demands that it re-position itself appropriately. At least it must re-think three theories, that is, the labour theory, economic theory, and social theory.

Africa’s contemporary socio-political scene depicts theoretical and practical confusion of gender with feminism or, for that matter, gender with broad emancipatory movements, such as African womanism, which nonetheless use gender theory as an intellectual tool for critical analysis for the supposedly discriminatory social, religious and political organisational structures. Feminist thinkers loathe these structures because they see in them deliberate mechanisms for oppressing or marginalising women. This oppression of women characterises the present economic inegalitarianism in a male-dominated status quo. Consequently, it is argued that these male-founded and male-dominated structures can only be changed so as to render them balanced or equitable if and only if revolutionary measures are employed. The usual elements of such arguers form a class of people called feminist ideologues. Feminist ideologues are those people, male and female, minority or majority in one country, who share the ideas or beliefs or attitudes of male-dominance over women. They tend to look at society in one way; they are certainly unhappy, dissatisfied and critical of what they see around them as compared to what they would like to see. The rational justification of their discontent and critical attitude is quite another thing. Insofar as feminism comprises people, who share one set of ideas or Where is the Foundation of African Gender?

beliefs or attitudes as a group or community and who are (radically) organised, feminism is an ideology,1 which is posited to displace the prevailing male-dominated ideology. It is the core of an ideology or the ideological core, which is the most difficult part to change because it is the worldview of the people. The ideological core consists of the core ideas, core beliefs, or core attitudes of a people. By implication, if the core ideas, beliefs, or attitudes are purged out then the people’s practical reality is annihilated. The revolutionary spirit is germane to any feminist ideologue because he or she believes that lasting and effective change must be moral and intellectual. These detested moral and intellectual values are in-built in society so that their removal or reduction calls for a drastic revolutionary overhaul of the whole social fabric. This drastic revolutionary overhaul of society must be no less than a critique of the prevailing ideology because it purports to subject to intellectual scrutiny, and eventually refute or reject prevailing ideas, beliefs, or attitudes, which are rationally unjustified or prejudicial to the position of women in society. And then feminist ideology purports to create its own better ideas, beliefs, or attitudes. In other words, feminist ideology creates its own counter-consciousness, and eventually its own counterculture. This counterculture comprises a new set of beliefs and a new style of life that is intended or hoped to challenge and eventually expose the inadequacy of the prevailing culture. Only when the ideological core of the prevailing culture is removed and replaced by a new ideological core can lasting and effective change occur. Any change less than that involving the ideological core is superficial or transitory.

In a nutshell, feminism challenges the prevailing status quo and develops a counter-ideology that questions the prevailing status quo and then attempts to modify it. Feminism advocates change rather than order. It criticises the regime in power and existing social and economic arrangements. It advances schemes for restructuring and reordering society. It generates political movements in the form of women’s movements in order to gain enough power and influence to effect the changes it advocates. Feminism is an ideology of action for it motivates people to demand changes in their lifestyles and to modify the existing social, religious, political, and economic relations. It also mobilises its followers and adherents to preserve what they value.2 Ultimately, feminism is political and revolutionary. The revolutionary tinge of feminism has historically at times sanctioned the use of violence,3 which has not precluded bloodshed.

Gender thinking adopts this feminist stance, with little or no modification or retouching and with few or no disclaimers, so that it is conventional gender thinking to posit men as the perpetrators of female-oppression and discrimination in a society which is viewed as male-dominated, a society in which this sad scenario is ingrained in the fabric of the prevailing political regimes, and where the social, religious, political and economic relations and structures are arranged so as to embrace and promote inequality between men and women. The result is that the gender paradigm centrally addresses the problems of equality and liberty rights, more or less zeroing on a variant of welfare-state ideology. Gender thinkers see no need to take caution in distinguishing gender-ism from feminism. Feminism is taken for granted as the appropriate seed and vehicle of gender. In contemporary literary circles, the philosophical presuppositions of gender thinking and practice are not put to a litmus test because testing gender implies testing feminism, which, in any case, has withstood many a crucial test as evidenced by its record of persistence and triumph especially in Europe, Great Britain, America, Canada, and Australia. This being the case, the cogency of popular gender-isms can only be tested, or critiqued, against cross-cultural objectivity. This paper argues that the lack of demarcation between gender and feminism leads to confusion of western feminism with gender. By grounding itself in feminist ideology, gender inherits most of the weaknesses and shortfalls of western feminism. Gender finds its impetus and modes of expression in western feminism. Therefore, Africa needs to rethink a specific gender, which is appropriate to the African situation in this new millennium.

Conceptual analysis of gender and feminism becomes a problem for a start because there is a plethora of such offers on the contemporary intellectual and political scenes. Below, only extant literature is reviewed on the question of gender and feminism in Malawi and elsewhere in Africa. In the case of Malawi, only a few representative papers are considered. Any other contributions outside these papers are nonetheless worthwhile but very likely to be implicitly implicated and/or critiqued in one or more of the representative papers. The choice of the papers is free and deliberate: social philosophy, education, religion, and environment, i.e., unarguably, some of the hottest beds of gender debates and activism.

At this juncture, it should be appreciated that African intellectuals have for some time tried to conceptualise gender and feminism in their own situation. As far as philosophical writing is concerned in Malawi, Hermes Chidam’modzi was

116 Where is the Foundation of African Gender?

the first to notice and then critique this confusion between gender and feminism in the mid-nineties.

Feminism is a consecration of the moral and intellectual and hence universal values of equality purportedly denied of women by the dominance of males over women and the sacrosanct ideologies developed in society to legitimatise and perpetuate male-dominance. Thus conceived, feminism as a western reactionary and sacrosanct ideology is not African in origin and development so that the contemporary gender idiom is not a full theoretical framework and expression of the paradigm of African gender. This construing of gender invokes three important thoughts: (1) Gender does not mean and is not women. (2) Gender emerges in a specific situation depicting inegalitarianism embedded in social structures where one sex (male or female) is on the losing side. (3) Gender is a social construct of sets of behaviours, dispositions, ideas, beliefs, values, and attitudes of man and woman. (4) Gender has a strong materialistic tendency, for it grounds women’s qualities or modes of action in women’s daily lives in a spatio-temporal-specific resource base presumably conditioned by a sexual division of labour. Insofar as it is situationally embedded in the society’s power relations, gender is a reaction to constructed, i.e. real or imagined, male- dominance and female subordination. Gender thus conceived becomes an outgrowth from feminism.

28 The history of feminism is marked by two goals: equality and rights. Pioneer American feminists like Susan Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton had to battle it out with men for their right to vote as equals with men by dint of creation. In the days of old, liberalism provided the initial momentum toward the release of women from social bondage. To women’s disappointment, many a revolution (like the American Revolution in 1776 and the French Revolution in 1789) and nationalism did not specifically rescue them from subjugation by men. Social inequalities continued to prevail in the ‘new and independent’ states. Britain, America and the Continent of Europe clearly illustrate the sluggish pace of women liberation progress; Switzerland is the last European democracy to grant women suffrage in 1971.

Despite the universality of female subordination and male domination, the African woman’s situation is bound to make her suspicious of western feminist discourse, which is mostly the experience of the twentieth century middle-class woman in an industrial sexual division of labour. For the western woman of that era it was only natural for her to cry for balance of power. The feminist fight was a fight for power. She made lots of gains; her emancipatory efforts bore her more equality with men, more rights, and easier access to resources, increase in opportunities or incentives, especially in the public sphere.

The yardstick was always her ‘more privileged’ male counterpart in the already privileged middle-class. In labour, this historicity of western feminism has led to the misconception that women were solely fighting for the ‘soft’ or ‘top’ jobs such as company executive, manager, prime minister, parliamentarian, physician, news editor, professor, pilot; surprisingly, the women never zealously fought for ‘rough’ jobs such as undertaker, trench-digger, dockyard worker, heavy industrial worker, soldier,30 or night-guards.

In its counter-critique, western feminism penetrated the ‘rough’ jobs; eventually, the west saw more women engineers, women soldiers, and policewomen, thus virtually transforming western society into a ‘unisex’ club. In the inter-war period, and much more vehemently after W.W.II, feminist thinkers zeroed on marriage as the champion of female subordination, and so they strongly argued that the demolition of the marriage institution would automatically lead to total women liberation. It was then a normal spectacle for a woman feminist to be decidedly non-married, although she could be attached and have children. Domesticity, child rearing, or whatever family life stands for, was looked upon as an impediment to women involvement and participation in public life, especially to public employment. The feminist propaganda so narrowly construed was reduced to a feminist fight for space and time in the public spheres of life especially the workplace, which was supposed as a predominantly male territory. Two concepts dominated and still dominate the western conceptual framework.

Western gender categories dismally fail to provide a gender conceptual framework for the African woman. For instance, the category of ‘power’ cannot be used to conceptualise gender in Africa. To argue that a certain normative concept like ‘power’ has a gender meaning is to claim that its social usage, at least in part, is not what it ought to be for reasons that have to do with gender To claim further that the usage does not command universality and objectivity, due to considerations of differing hermeneutics, i.e. interpretation as grounded in historicity and context is not to advocate gender scepticism. Although the empirical realities of women world-wide are different, this paper argues for the abandonment of gender exclusivity in the face of equally competing, urgent and appealing discourses of, say, ethnicity, racism, and ‘class’.

In western traditional masculinist literature, power is viewed as repressive, poured from a leviathan above to his subjects below. The subjects are said to need the powerful leviathan because without him, they lack security, peace and well-being. In that western literary world, power is evidently and firmly associated with the male and masculinity, like virility, thus evoking the physicality of power. The correlate of man, woman, is therefore powerless.

So when feminists wrote about ‘power over our bodies’ and ‘power of our lives’ they were using the very same concept of power, which pervaded traditional masculinist discourses on power. They affirmed the male conceptualisation of power rather than providing an alternative. It comes to us as no surprise that contemporary gender thinkers mimic the same masculinist notion of power in theorising gender. They are not wary of historical, social and political situation of knowledge-claims.32 Trapped in their own ideological cocoon, the western feminist women still think that western rationality is the only rationality; that western science is superior to other forms of rationality (if any), so that in regard to, say, family planning strategy, African women have to be ‘helped’ by their more scientific counterparts from the west.

African women, so claim the western women, need to be conscientised because it is feared that the African women have internalised the oppression or suffering and therefore are in desperate need of awareness campaigns by women animators from the west. The western feminists already fall prey to the yet another ideology of dominance they vehemently fight in their own backyard.

Western feminists are totally oblivious to the reality of subject-object relations in research; the reality the helper and the helped are equals as they each experience the other from the viewpoint of their own situations and background knowledge and cultures. Each one (the helper and the helped) is the object of experience of the other so that objectivity is somehow tainted with subjectivity.

31 Oshadi Mangena argues likewise that if one is attentive to differences of ethnic origin, sexual orientation and class, the notion of gender disintegrates into fragments and cannot anymore be employed as a useful category. See K. Lennon and M. Witford, Knowing the difference: feminist perspectives in epistemology, London: Routeldge and Kegan Paul, 1994, pp. 275-282.

32 Annette Fitzsimons and Susan Strickland, Ibid. pp. 124; 265.

129 Nordic Journal of African Studies

That the helper enjoys the exclusive right to the objectification of knowledge of the Other is an ingrained feature of western cross-cultural research, after all the helper has scientific skills or rational advantage over the helped, and this ontological arrangement make the helped redundant in the objectification of knowledge of the Other. The only danger though is that the consequent helpers’ knowledge is partial or fragmentary. The implication is that western feminists cannot emancipate the supposedly un-conscientised African women.

2.2.2 Woman

Just as the concept of ‘human’, as narrowly presented in western literature, fails to command objectivity, the same literature fails to define ‘woman’. ‘Woman’ is amenable to many different things; it is shrouded by ambiguities about its ontological status. It can evoke intrinsic characteristics, like caring and love, but this smacks of essentialism, which does not have many adherents in gender mainstreams. It can also evoke familial relationships as the non-male member. Both of these evocations partially conceive ‘woman’ for they are normative since they are descriptive of a set of social facts or relations. As such, woman has no characterizable content and hence the challenge from postmodernist thought that ‘woman’ is not descriptively adequate since, it is observed, ‘woman’ is cross-culturally different.

According to postmodernists, ‘woman’ imposes unity over empirical reality.33 Postmodernism rejects the Enlightenment and the humanist presumptions of wonders of reason. The Enlightenment is rejected because of its veneration of masculine reason at the expense of sensuality; humanism is rejected because of its appeals to universal subjectivity or the human condition. Instead of seeking ‘sameness’ postmodernism celebrates ‘difference,’ partiality and multiplicity. It detests the search for coherence and hankering after the ‘right’ (or Platonic or Kantian) solution.

Postmodernist feminism equally opposes a hermeneutic parochialism of the present over the past or vice versa–of searching for a single given goal, a single representation of reality. This new brand of feminism transcends the historicist recognition of the inevitable peculiarity and contextuality of human thought and practice and hence it advocates the continuity of dialogue between interlocutors, between text and interpreter, and between subject and object, with no advantage, marked goal or reality. This postmodernist re-orientation of feminism is a deliberate step away from essentialism and universalism: marginalisation and exclusion of the Other.34 It puts emphasis on particularity and multiplicity with due attention to difference, diversity and locale. But postmodernists also impose a tough demand on gender thinkers: why should the absence of facts for

33 See Alessandra Tanesini, Ibid. pp. 211-212.

34 See Susan Strickland, Ibid. pp. 266-7.

130 Where is the Foundation of African Gender?

description of woman precludes the claim for the notion of woman, even where the possession of the notion may not warrant the description or analysis of the same?

Even the points of convergence of feminism and postmodernism are not adequate grounds for their formulation of their purported common aims because their concept-lingualities are different. For example, their meanings of a concept like ‘difference’ are different. In postmodernism, ‘difference’ is acknowledged as typical of human experience worldwide; it is at the same time evaded as a threat to dominant perspectives of understanding or interpreting reality. It is consistent within postmodernism to demonstrate that ‘woman’ was all along acknowledged as different but was included in universal humanity in name only by the dominating men. Feminists believe that the ‘dominant ideology’ in world history is the root cause of the subjection of women by men. In Rousseau’s language of ‘right,’ the emancipation of western woman, albeit noticeably incomplete as we enter the third millennium, began as late as mid nineteenth century.

However, feminism does not argue for the mere acknowledgement of ‘difference’; women’s experience and perspectives should be noticed and heard along with dominant male experience and perspectives. Feminists complain bitterly that that the dominant perspectives are exclusive of women because they are ideological and hence false, since they are interested and distorted. Feminists are not content with their inclusion in or numerical addition to universal humanity as read in liberal or Marxist theories. Whereas postmodernism stops at the recognition of ‘difference’, feminism posits ‘difference’ as a challenge, a paradigm of its critical dialogue with its situation, past, present and future.

The concept ‘woman’ is thrown into serious doubt because the notion of gender itself is slowly moulding due to its exclusiveness. What is being advocated instead of gender is a multiplicity of identities; for instance, if one widens one’s horizon, one cannot fail to realise that differences of ethnic origin and class, sexual orientation (gays and lesbians), should be priority items on the liberation agenda. In spite of its usefulness in certain emancipatory projects, ‘woman’ as a gender category stands to question now because it has dawned on contemporary gender thinkers that ‘woman’ is essentially embedded in misogynist literature and that it is conducive to, and promotes, exclusionary practices.

In short, a feminist survey of western languages shows that the meaning of some words, such as ‘power,’ ‘woman,’ ‘human,’ ‘reason,’ depicts gender bias against women; the words are not universal. The concept-lingual sources of western rightist discourses, like feminism, are liberalism or Marxism in their vicious attack of their respective archrivals, authoritarianism, and capitalism. Ironically, Karl Marx did not directly address the specific situation of women. He presumed that his communism would provide liberation for women just as it would for all the exploited masses and underprivileged minorities, male and female.

131 Nordic Journal of African Studies

Friedrich Engels (Marx’s lifetime friend, economic guardian, co-author, and Marx’s editor) also narrowly attributed women subjugation to property relationships of the conjugal family only in capitalist societies; he remained mute on the reality of their ‘enslavement’ in non-capitalist societies including communism and matriarchal societies. Marxism and capitalism cannot be plausible concept-lingual sources for the gender movement in the new millennium since both of them are ideologies of conflict: they pit man against man; the state exploits the proletariat-worker in the former, whereas the capitalist boss exploits the labourer in the latter.

The importance of authentic concepts of gender needs to be stressed. More importantly, the crucial concept of ‘power’ needs to be unambiguously stipulated in contemporary gender thought and practice.

The feminism of the 1970’s and 1980’s correctly revealed that the concepts that are presented to us as universal and trans-historically valid actually embody male biases. For example, normative concepts such as ‘reason,’ ‘science’ and ‘knowledge’ fail to pass the gender universalisation test, so to say. Even if these normative concepts embody ideals and express values, they nonetheless prescribe and evaluate behaviour in male-perspectives and so the values they express and ideals they embody are far from universal.

Normative concepts function as descriptions of the endorsements of a specific society, and are faithful to past usage. Hence the complaint that feminism has taken the experience, i.e. marginalisation, of white middle class women to be representative of all women. The glaring weakness of these normative concepts is that they leave little or no room for disagreement or difference within a situation like a community. Conformity is the order of the day since they are treated as truth-conditions, instead of being emendations of current thought and action. These contemporary feminists fear that these values and ideals are codifications of norms regulating masculinity, where the woman’s ‘normal’ is locus of the domesticity of the family, i.e. the private sphere of life. What current gender thought needs is the evolution of ongoing social practice. It should engage in evaluation of these concepts and influence the evolution of social practice in regard to concept-usage.

3. GENDER AND FEMINISM: THE AFRICAN SCENARIO

The argument that African women cannot identify with doctrinaire western feminism comes with cogent force because the knowledge and experience of African women have been ignored or marginalised by a feminism that reflects only the perspectives of white western middle-class women; that it indulges in false universalism and lacks critical awareness of its situation are simple inferences drawn from the argument. Its conception of ‘woman’ remains problematic and therefore vacuous because its ‘woman’ is intended to deny self-evident differences between woman and woman in situation and experience,

132 Where is the Foundation of African Gender?

privilege and power. It is apologetic of the peculiarities of ‘woman’ since it misconceives them as functional and not as formal differences (from ‘man’).

As a result, its content and purpose are not based on actual commonalties between women but on the experience and interests of some women who have the position and ability to impose upon ‘other’ women their own idiosyncrasies, terms and definitions, i.e. what they mean for themselves and others. For instance, when western feminism seeks to balance or reverse the social scales, it employs conceptual polarities such as nature-culture, strong-weak, reason-intuition, public-private, male-female-neuter sexual division of labour. To explain the position of women, it says women are closer to nature; they are more intuitive; they are more private or secretive, etc, not knowing that it simply endorses masculinist (and hence exploitable) viewpoints about ‘woman’.

Indeed feminism lacks a critical awareness of its situation. Feminism is not in dialogue with its context, past and present, and therefore cannot be used to forge emendations to any society, which cries for transformation of social relations. Feminism is engaged in a monologue, which mistakes its own ventriloquism for effectiveness since it is falsely generalising and insufficiently attentive to historical and cultural diversity.

Another unwelcome feature of western feminism is that, although it borrows critical tools from other emancipatory theories like Reformation, liberalism and Marxism, it does not put itself forward to challenging other forms of subordination like slavery, colonialism, racism, and their accompanying prejudices and complexes, which affect women as well. Its exclusiveness to the western middle-class woman’s experience undermines its universality and objectivity, and therefore puts to serious doubt its relevance to the African woman of the same era.35 Worse still, its silence could easily be interpreted as its assent to slavery, colonialism and racism, experiences that western middle-class men caused on both African women and men.

Though not unique, the situation of the African feminist and that of the Western feminist would not replicate. An African woman generally finds herself in a social setting where ‘power’ might not be the paradigm of interpersonal life. Jobs are just as hard to get for a female as they are for her male counterpart. In a marital situation, for example, she may dispense with the battle of balancing it out with her allegedly dominant male partner in terms of sexual division of labour, involving child-care and domestic chores due to the scenario of dependency, a creation of the extended family. Dependants fill in as auxiliary or surrogate mothers or fathers and as unofficial maids or cooks, etc. Even if dependants were not around, hiring domestic staff would be more affordable in her society than it would be in the west. As is well known, in the west, it is almost impossible to hire domestic staff.

3.1 TRADITION VERSUS MODERNITY: SOCIO-POLITICS IN

CONTEMPORARY AFRICA

Transformation is a rare occurrence in Africa. Perhaps devolution, rather than evolution or revolution, is the modus operandi for social transformation in Africa. The interface of the past and the present may not be conducive to the development of radical gender even among urban or elite women. Past attitudes and values tend to phase out far too slowly under the weight of new attitudes and values. The usual conceptualisation of ‘woman’ both among the rural and urban folk might have more conservative undertones than radical gender theorists wish. In Malawi, for instance, even after the legal repeal of the ‘indecent dress code,’ the woman in trousers or mini-skirt risks categorisation as a champion or promoter of moral turpitude. The continuing scenario of stripping off mini-skirted city women by vendors is testimonial enough of these slow-dying conservative undertones even in the urban or modernised areas of Malawi. Radical gender might be undaunted by this current negative public reception of trousers and mini-skirts in Malawi, dismissing it as a primary reaction of a bunch of male savages. Time alone will heal this negative attitude; gender activists console themselves. At this stage though, these attitudes should be of great concern because it is not unusual for radical gender women lobbyists to experience opposition and ‘disapproval’ from fellow women.

Another reality that might prevent replication of western gender in Africa is the social history of Africa. It is difficult to identify the dominant ideology for African societies outside Africa’s recent experience of slave trade, colonialism, and nationalism. However, anthropology and archaeology, which pretend to dig deeper into Africa’s past, and re-construct the Antique Africa antedating the three recent experiences of Africa, reveal to us that there are matrilineal and patrilineal societies in Africa. In the patrilineal societies, for example, Ngoni, Tumbuka, Sena, Ngonde in Malawi, males are dominant. However, broadly speaking, in matrilineal societies women are more ‘powerful’ than men, an issue that is accentuated by the husbands’ settling in their wives’ villages upon marriage. One would expect that in a setting where land is the most valuable property, due to reliance on agriculture, a landowner would command a lot of power and influence. Husbands, as co-opted landowners, will in principle and practice have less power and influence than their wives. Therefore, if the western gender’s ‘power paradigm’ is anything to go by, the matrilineal society depicts a reversal of the western gender model. In Malawi, Chewa, Yao, Mang’anja and Lomwe societies are largely matrilineal in principle. The Tonga of the northern shore of Lake Malawi can be included in gender-wise peculiar ethnic groups although the Tonga are bi-lineal.

In these ethnic groups, one must distinguish the formal from informal power structures and modes of social organisation; in the formal power setting, that is the traditional chieftaincy, chiefs hold only symbolic power since what they execute in public is largely the consensus, or the communis sensus, of the ruling

134 Where is the Foundation of African Gender?

Unlike feminist scholarship in the West, feminist theory and scholarship in Africa have formed neither a neatly

delineated field, nor one firmly rooted in theoretically-inflected politics. With the consolidation of Western

feminisms between 1960 and the early 1980s and the growth of the so-called second wave, clear political and

intellectual traditions were formed around radical, liberal and Marxist/socialist feminisms. Subsequent feminisms

drew on or deviated from these positions to engage increasingly with theories and politics emerging in the

nineties. African theories and women’s movements have taken very different paths.

In certain ways, African theories and women’s movements have been closely linked to politics, although this

politic

To what extent is feminism a coherent and distinctive approach to legal theory? Feminist jurisprudence is a broad church and reflects different strands of feminist thought but the unifying theme is that society and in particular, the legal system is patriarchal. Thus, feminist legal theorists have maintained their quest for a specifically feminist jurisprudence, aiming to make moral and legal philosophy more receptive to women. The dichotomy between the public and private is very much at the core of feminist legal theory. Notwithstanding the gains in formal equality and legal access to the public realm, feminists have argued that women remain subordinate to men. Catharine Mackinnon, a leading scholar in feminist jurisprudence, claims that the foundations on which jurisprudence lie are profoundly instilled with a masculine perspective, and women are denied full involvement in society. In contrast, there have been competing claims by Carol Gilligan that women are not necessarily considered inferior to men, but instead they simply reason differently. In an attempt to determine how coherent and distinctive a feminist approach to legal theory is, key concepts proposed by the above documented academics amongst others will be explored; the ways in which they have considered sex, sexuality, and gender to comprehend and criticise the legal system and its norms will be investigated.

Catharine Mackinnon, a law professor and legal scholar, is considered the most influential of all radical feminists theorising in the discipline of law. She contributed largely to the field of feminist jurisprudence in the early 1980’s, providing the theoretical rationality for her later pieces of work. Inequalities between men and women were at the core of her work, and she has continued to support constructive measures that challenge such inequalities. In her 1982 article, Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory, Mackinnon constructed a theory of women’s oppression where she recognised sex to be the central issue that constitutes such oppression.

In 1988, Mackinnon took a distinct approach to the issue of gender inequality in her publication entitled Feminism Unmodified, where she revealed a picture of collective oppression at the hands of men. She claimed that pornography demonstrates way in which male dominance is sustained in America’s patriarchal society. Traditionally, pornography has been defended on the grounds of the first amendment’s right to free speech doctrine. According to Mackinnon however, pornography should be outlawed on the basis that it is not an example of speech, but is essentially ‘a violation of civil rights and thus legally actionable sex discrimination’. She claimed that the concept of a freedom to speech simply allowed the more dominant speaker to silence the weaker one, stating ‘the free so-called speech of men silences the free speech of women’. According to Mackinnon, pornography goes beyond its content as it eroticises hierarchy, sexualises inequality, and portrays women to enjoy such abuse, but in reality, women do not enjoy the male dominance and are forced to accept this superiority. She argued that pornography is the clearest example of male dominance, claiming that ‘male power makes authoritative a way of seeing and treating women that when a man looks at a pornographic picture … the viewing is an act of male supremacy’.

Mackinnon’s stance on pornography is consistent with her stance on society, where she considers males to dominate the society and accordingly force women to change their identity. She highlights that pornography essentially ‘hurts men’s capacity to relate to women’ and consequently, men overlook the need for males and females to work together and instead consider it fundamental to have dominance. Mackinnon proposed a legal remedy for the injustices surrounding pornography, suggesting a movement away from the current masculine definition towards one that includes women. She argued for a new legal policy that made ‘visible a conflict of rights between the equality guaranteed to all women andaˆ¦the right of the pornographers to make and sell’ such material. Cass Sustein, an American legal scholar, upheld Mackinnon’s claims and stated that pornography could harm women as it enhances the extent of violence against them; accordingly, he proposed that the Government should ‘enact narrowly drawn restrictions on materials that combine sex with violence or coercion’.

Mackinnon’s claims of pornography have garnered criticisms as her approach is considered too extreme. Feminists have claimed that although some women experience the negative effects of pornography, there are nonetheless some women that find it pleasurable, liberating and to some extent, educating. It can also be argued that if pornography were to be banned, it would simply underpin the notion that particular sexual desires between two compliant adults are demeaning and immoral. On the Contrary, if Mackinnon’s work were given serious legal consideration, society would benefit from tougher policies. Although her approach may be radical, her underlying concepts of pornography and its affiliation with the male hierarchy are credible in some aspects to feminist legal theory. Men who approve of pornography and are unable to distinguish how it serves the male dominance, often force women into submissive positions in movies and even society; in this respect, pornography increases men’s need to dominate and tolerates such dominance. Furthermore, Mackinnon’s definition goes as far as to state that pornographic material would be justifiable if it portrayed both sexes evenly, and if this was achieved, the male desire to view pornography would significantly decrease and women could befit the power structure on their own terms.

Mackinnon studied the legal doctrine concerning rape to accentuate the extent of gender inequality within the law and male dominance amongst the sexes. She presented an argument criticising the concept that ‘rape is illegitimate because it is sex to which the victim has not consented’. Mackinnon argued that consent fundamentally failed in two ways: Firstly, women consenting to sex are in effect consenting to be dominated, involving an unacceptable level of domination; Secondly, women that actually consent to sex only do so because they have been taught to enjoy their inferiority. Natasha Walter, a British feminist writer, identified that in Britain, between twenty to forty percent of women claimed that they had been raped, while only three percent of men claimed that they had forced a woman into a sexual act. This suggests Mackinnon’s views on the notion of consent are indeed accurate, and women are not agreeing out of freewill. Consent could be invoked to disguise what had in fact been an act of force, and consent could have been used in trials as a way of legalising such an act.

Furthermore, MacKinnon used ‘the parallel between men’s inability to differentiate between rape and intercourse and the law’s inability to so’ to demonstrate the gender inequality. Considering the difficulties women were challenged with when having to prove rape, Mackinnon construed the legal principles of rape as a creation of male ideology. She stated that ‘rape and intercourse are not separated by any difference between the physical acts or amount of force involved, but only legally, by a standard that centres on the man’s interpretation of the encounter’. A man would only be culpable of rape if he had a guilty intent; accordingly, if he did not consider his act to be anything other than just sex, then under the eyes of the law, it was just sex and the woman had not been violated. Mackinnon fundamentally argued that men used the legal doctrine of rape to hold women in a position of inferiority, and the standard of impartiality in the legal system made it extremely difficult for women to succeed with rape cases. Carol Smart rightly noted that ‘Mackinnon is able to elaborate a complex argument which shows that only from a woman’s point of view is rape an injury’.

Friedrich Engels, a notorious scholar and philosopher that worked closely alongside Karl Marx, adopted a Marxist approach to account for the subordination of women and the patriarchal society, of which Mackinnon overtly critiqued. He argued that women’s status and the division of power between the sexes became an issue after the rise of the family, private property, and the state. According to Engels, the law could not provide a solution for women’s oppression as the root causes of such oppression were social inequities and class power. He claimed that ‘formal legal equality could not bring an end to patriarchal relations, and that paper equality could do little to eradicate inequalities that were embedded in social and economic conditions’. Nevertheless, in his 1972 publication, he upheld that legal equality was still imperative, stating that ‘real social equality between the two, will be brought out into full relief only when both are completely equal before the law’. To Mackinnon, Engels’s theory appeared a characteristic male bias; it was not reasonable that during a time when men accumulated property and made it private, women gave up their ‘economic power and sexual freedom, preferring monogamy in privatised families’.

Traditional liberal legal theory has offered two divergent ways in which women are able to achieve equality, known as the “sameness” approach and the “different” approach. The “sameness” branch of the theory proposes that individuals that are the same ought to be treated the same; women should reason that women are no different from men, and they should therefore have access to what men can access. The “difference” approach suggests individuals that are different ought to be treated differently; women who feel different to men should stress their differences. Mackinnon has overtly opposed the sameness/different debate, claiming that both approaches abide by a male dominance. She has argued that under the “sameness” approach, women were measured according to their correspondence with men; under the “difference” approach, women were judged according to their distance from men.

Despite the sameness/difference debate in feminist discourse, men and women remained in a sex-based hierarchical relationship, and consequently, the neutrality of the law upheld male privileges whilst claiming that legal policy was gender impartial. The “difference” aspect appears complex; if feminists were to command the law to acknowledge the different needs of women, they would be opposed with the impediment that any variation from the neutral rules of law would equate to special treatment; to treat people the same that were in fact different would be breaching the concept of equality. Thus, the sameness/difference axis is flawed as it permits individuals who are different to be subordinated and considered inferior. Moreover, the “sameness” stance suggests that for women to be regarded as equal to men, they should obtain this equality by being like men. It can be argued that this approach is heavily male-biased; the stance promotes a picture of masculinity which women are required to emulate, which in turns gives rise to an anti-women society.

Katherine Bartlett, a renowned A. Kenneth Pye Professor of Law, pioneered three underlying elements that were designed to serve as the foundation for the future development of feminist legal theory. The first of these elements is “Asking the woman question” which ‘is designed to identify the gender implications of rules and practices which might otherwise appear to be neutral or objective’. Bartlett claimed that the legal barriers allied with being a female were so obvious, that the question was more ‘whether the omission was justified by women’s different roles and characteristics’. The question essentially seeks to challenge the particular aspects of existing legal standards that have disadvantaged women. The second element is “Feminist practical reasoning” which ‘combines some aspects of a classic Aristotelian model of practical deliberation with a feminist focus on identifying the perspectives of the excluded’. Bartlett highlighted that although the approach does not always offer a clear-cut means for solving legal conflicts, it does build upon the practical in specific dilemmas caused by human conflicts ‘focusing on the real rather than the abstract’. The final element is “consciousness-raising”, which is ‘an interactive and collaborative process of articulating one’s experiences and making meaning of them with others who also articulate their experiences’. Leslie Bender states that consciousness-raising produces knowledge by exploring the collective experiences of women through a shared telling of individual life events.

Bartlett’s work appears to be highly credible and offers extensive direction to feminist jurisprudence and legal theory. Bartlett’s concept of “asking the woman question” allows the neutrality of the law to be questioned, and expose areas that may disadvantage women. By acquiring an answer and knowledge form this question, feminists can demand for an application of legal rules that no longer sustain the subordination of women. Furthermore, the voices and experiences of women must be heard in order to establish a climate for change, and consciousness-raising allows just this. It provides an opportunity for women to express their opinions, other experiences can be shared which may have otherwise remained unspoken. It has however been claimed that consciousness-raising alone will not eliminate male domination, but it is an important gateway and first-step which provokes wider institutional changes, particularly when challenging the law.

According to Mackinnon, the method of consciousness-raising is utterly fundamental to feminism, claiming that it comes to know different things as politics essentially in a different way. Mackinnon accentuates that feminist consciousness-raising is the ‘collective critical reconstruction of the meaning of women’s social experience, as women live through it’ and it is therefore paramount to the progression of feminist theory. Mackinnon’s classification of consciousness-raising has drawn great criticisms. Ruth Colker claimed that ‘we can only engage in consciousness raising with a limited number of people; thus, we can never be fully exposed to all the possibilities for ourselves’. Anne Bottomley et al similarly state that consciousness raising cannot be the only methodology, arguing that ‘if we are right that patriarchy is constituted in more than the sum of individual lives, then the response to it must be more than the sum of articulated individual experience’.

Carol Gilligan, an American feminist and developmental psychologist, presented a complete ‘new angle to the argument that law is male’. Gilligan based her work upon the notion of difference feminism. In her 1982 publication, In A Different Voice, she theorised that men and women tackle moral problems in a different manner to each other, and consequently she defined two ethics. It is important to note that she did not claim that the two forms of reasoning strictly related to gender, nor did she affirm that all men or all women speak in the moral voices stated. According to Gilligan, men embraced an ethic of justice, making decisions in a legalistic way using impartial principles, ‘they presume that the autonomy of individuals is paramount value and employ a rule-like mechanism to decide among the “rights” of those individuals’. Alternatively, Gilligan claimed that women maintain an ethic of care wherein preventing harm and taking care of others is crucial, and they seek to preserve relationships involved in situations. She primarily reasoned that women could gain personal autonomy once they looked past this ethic of care. Many of Gilligan’s critics have posed the question of whether valuing female characteristics and classing them as positive ‘will really change consequences and harms of perpetuating gender-based discrimination’.

As a developmental psychologist, Gilligan embarked upon her work by studying how boys and girls reason differently, as opposed to the underlying factors for why they reason so differently. This aspect of Gilligan’s work has been subject to immense criticism. Catharine Mackinnon disregards the concept of difference, stating that ‘Women value care because men have valued us according to the care we give them. Women think in relational terms because our existence is defined in relation to (men)’. Similarly, Carol Smart has argued that ‘using terms like ethic of caring Gilligan inevitably reaffirms that women are naturally caring – even though this may not be their intention’. She further highlights that Gilligan’s account of how women reason could ultimately lead to them being eliminated ‘from the corridors of justice’ as it is an unacceptable mode of reasoning. It seems that both ethics identified by Gilligan are essentially part of one inclusive system, with the ethic of care operating as an essential foundation for the ethic of justice. In addition, it appears that women were held responsible to both ethics, and as the two ethics often conflicted, women were frequently in a moral double bind. Although her work has been influential in the discipline of psychology as it has helped to include girls and women in studies and theories, its value to feminist jurisprudence should be questioned, as it appears to offer little direction with feminist legal theory.

Luce Irigaray, a leading author in contemporary French feminism, has been dynamically engaged in the feminist movement in Italy. In her publication, entitled Democracy Begins Between Two, she offered arguments for the formation of sex-based legal rights, stating that the ‘necessity of sexed rights thus belongs in the wider sphere of juridical reform’. She based her theory of sexed rights on the idea of differences between men and women. According to Irigaray, women are ‘different but equal’, and therefore the notion of equality is flawed as it enforces a standard that presumes sameness between both sexes, as opposed to an adjustment of women’s specific skills and abilities. She claims that gender and sexual identity has been embodied with a masculine perspective, and unsexed rights of traditional liberal values are heavily influenced by a masculine perception of human needs. The beliefs and needs of a woman were dismissed due to the lack of respect for females, a lack of respect for feminine genealogy, and a lack a of respect for women in a social or civil life.

Irigaray highlighted the importance of women determining a sexuality that is not centred upon serving the male, and appealed for a radical re-examination of the relationship between sex and democracy. She theorised that if individuals were to be considered wholly democratic, then primarily a complete recognition must be granted to both sexes that contributes to the functioning of a society. This recognition ‘is founded on two different identities, proof that we are living men and living women and not individuals in the abstract, impersonal, rather like robots or strange beings beyond the reach of death’. Irigaray’s work raised some strong, justifiable arguments. Gender equality cannot be achieved if the yardstick for such equality is the masculine figure. Furthermore, to attain gender equality, some elemental philosophical conceptions, predominantly sexed rights, require thorough reconsideration. It is fundamental to implement sex-based rights; society must, at a legal level, implement specific civil rights assuring women of a distinct civil identity, equivalent to such that is benefited by men.

Many feminists have criticised the concept of a private, non-political sphere where state intervention is utterly unacceptable. A key aspect to this debate is the potentially unfavourable consequences on a women’s career if she opts to start a family, which then results in her financial dependence on the male. Feminist Susan Okin highlighted the issue of unequal distribution of unpaid domestic labour between males and females, claiming the problem should be ‘given greater public recognition’. In her publication, The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism, and Political Theory, Carole Pateman stated that injustices, which occurred within the private realm, could only be confronted by political actions. In Towards a Feminist Theory of the State, Mackinnon argued that the right to privacy essentially emphasised the division between public and private, which ‘keeps the private beyond public redress and depoliticises women’s subjection within it’. Mackinnon held that the traditional liberal division between the public and private spheres enhanced male dominance, and that ‘the legal concept of privacy can and has shielded the place of battery, marital rape, and women’s exploited labour’. She argues the private sphere is a place where the law disregards such injustices, and rather than resolve them, legal principles perpetuate them.

These feminists are seeking for amendments of the public/private distinction, where a woman’s individual right to privacy is not considered only within the context of her involvement with the family, but is given overall greater concern. They were not necessarily criticising the public/private distinction, or the necessity for boundaries of state intervention, but were rather aiming to redefine specific aspects, i.e. childcare, in an attempt to amplify their importance in liberal political theory. If acknowledgment is given to those family responsibilities of a woman, then there must be a change in cultural practices in addition to a political reconsideration. This is could ultimately lead to greater consideration being given to private and public constituents of the family, and traditional gender roles associated with the family could be amended, consistent with the liberal appreciation of privacy and equality. From this angle, feminism can be beneficial to liberalism, as it demonstrates to individuals that the private sphere is not clear of political involvement.

Feminist jurisprudence has proved to be a highly contentious area of legal studies; nonetheless, its rapid evolution, and legal enhancement within society makes it one with considerable weight. Feminists such as MacKinnon have incessantly argued that men have more power than women do and consequently, male power perpetuates male dominance. Although contemporary society may not embrace the changes Mackinnon has proposed, and her critics have deemed her theories as excessively radical, her underlying claims are still worthwhile. She was deliberately provocative in proving that the American male power structure dominates women and must be changed. Establishing sexual equity in this power structure would be a key step in the struggle for gender equality within society. Bartlett’s feminist methodologies can be employed as a measuring rod to illustrate how, and the extent to which, the law favours males and excludes women, and in this respect, his work offers great assistance to feminists striving for gender-based legal equality. Irrespective of such debates and competing arguments, feminist jurisprudence has made enormous strides over the years. It has succeeded in pushing the boundaries of law and legal language, to the extent where the law now recognises that women were previously in a radically different social relation to the law than men. It essentially highlighted that women’s experiences and expectations were not adequately acknowledged by the definitions of law which traditional jurisprudence offered, and thus, it is reasonable to argue that feminism has offered a highly distinctive and coherent approach to legal theory.

In this essay, we will be explaining and giving the definitions of prejudice and discrimination. Also, we will go in depth and elaborate about the various kinds of discrimination in today’s society such as gender, disability, size, looks, monetary, status, education, sexual and racial discrimination. After which, we will give solutions and ways to reduce racial discrimination in Singapore. Finally we will end with a round up of conclusion.

Prejudice and discrimination is a rising issue in today’s society. According to Dictionary.com, prejudice is an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. Discrimination is the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

To be prejudiced is to have a cultural mindset and that is relied on negative or unpleasant stereotypes about individuals or groups because of their ethnic, religious, racial or cultural background. To discriminate is to have an active denial of desired goal from a certain group of people. The group can be based on sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion, language, or even class. More recently, disadvantaged groups now also include those based on gender, age, and physical disabilities.

Prejudice and discrimination are very common at both the individual and societal levels. Any attempt to eradicate or solve the problem of prejudice and discrimination must thus deal with prevailing beliefs or ideologies, and social structure.

Gender-

There are many types of discrimination. Gender discrimination, also known as sexism is very common. In most societies, women have been viewed as the ‘weaker sex’ who is in constant need of protection from the rough world. Women are more delicate by nature compared to men, and are often victims of physical, emotional and psychological abuse. Gender discrimination does not only apply in communities and sometimes families but also a lot of times in workplaces. In Chinese Culture, boys are more wanted than girls as they can pass down the family name. According to BBC news, around a million girl fetuses are aborted and tens of thousands of girl babies are abandoned in China, every year. A boy will bring status and he will also continue the family line. Families also throw big celebrations for baby boys while neglecting the less-wanted girls. The preference for boys is tied up in the Confucian belief that male heirs are necessary to carry on the family name and take care of the family spirits. A Chinese family worries that if there is no son no one will look after them and keep them company in the afterlife. Confucius once said, “There are three ways of being disloyal to your ancestors. Not carrying on the family name is the worse.”

In early Japan, there is large gender discrimination. They have a saying that goes “men as breadwinners and women as homemakers”. Even after Japan introduced the Equal Employment Opportunity Law in 1985, which prohibited discrimination against women in employment and urged employers to treat women equally in terms of recruitment, job assignment and promotion. But, they are still the last to be rehired in a full-time job. Japanese women are also expected to quit their job if they have children. Even if companies are facing a shortage of workers, they had no plan to try to hire more women. Women have to work twice as hard as man to advance their careers because of the prejudices within Japanese companies. Their university education is roughly the same as those without an upper secondary education. In 1997, statistics show that Japanese women hold only 9.3% of professional positions, compared to 44.3% in the United States. Women’s income is only 45%of men’s even though they make up 64% of Japan industry.

Females appear to be less strongly oriented toward personal terminal values than men, but more strongly oriented toward moral means.

Also in sports, especially soccer, where female officials/referees are slowly introduced to the male side of the game are being discriminated. One such example was Andy Gray, a former footballer, popular football pundit and commentator. He was British television channel Sky Sports main pundit since 1992. However, he was fired after he was found to made sexist comments and made offensive gestures to a female co-presenter. He had commented, “Can you believe that? A female linesman. Women don’t know the offside rule.” in which his fellow presenter, Richard Keys replied, “Course they don’t. Somebody better get down there and explain.” during a post-match show when they thought they were off air. In another show, he was caught on camera( in which it was edited out later on) tugging his pants and asking his female co-presenter Charlotte Jackson to tuck the microphone into his pants. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3371091/Andy-Gray-sacked-over-sexism-row.html)

In Singapore today, Gender discrimination while still existent, is less obvious.

Disability –

Besides the various types of discriminations stated above, there is also a discrimination against the disabled people. Having a ‘disability’ means that a person has a physical or mental impairment. This in turn has a substantial and long-term negative effect on one’s ability to carry out normal everyday activities. Disability discrimination occurs when one is treated less favorably because of their disability as compared to someone without a disability. This is known as direct discrimination. There are cases in which people with some form of disability are treated differently, or are victimized. People who are not disabled laugh at the disabled because of the way they walk or talk. These people gang up and make fun of the disabled. They belittle them, and feel satisfied with themselves. The disabled are not able to do anything about it because there are too many people treating them that way. There is also indirect discrimination where everyone is treated equally, but by treating everyone equally, the disabled is put to a disadvantage. This is more subtle and may also be unintentional. An example would be when there are stairs to enter a building but a person with a disability might not be able to use the stairs and may need a ramp.

Size/looks –

Being of a different size or looking different may also be a form of prejudice and discrimination. Often during first meetings, people are judged on first impressions, and first impressions are all about the visuals. Many a time people are discriminated against just because they are “too fat”, “too skinny” or “not good looking enough”. Society has set a standard where everyone wants an ideal body and face. This is known as the golden ratio. The ratio of “(foot to navel): (navel to head)” is the golden ratio of the human body. A person’s face has to be symmetrical and have “nice proportions” to be considered good looking. There is a reason why plastic surgeries are in demand. While applying for jobs, people are required to attach photos of themselves. More often than not, the people who are better looking tend to get the job as compared to those who are less good looking. Then there is the case of body size. People tend to make remarks about fat people and fat jokes. An example would be “Yo Mama So Fat” jokes, which is very common. Even though different cultures have a preference for people of different sizes, everyone in general prefer slim to fat.

Monetary/financially-

Financial discrimination is when people look down on others that they are poorer than them. This will affect them if they want to find a job, get a rent or buy an apartment. People tend to look at the appearance to analyze whether you are rich or you are poor. For example, salesman will normally look for people that are trendier from those who wear clothes that seem old and tear. Service staff of well-known brand in some regions might not serve or even come up to you if they think that you have no money to pay if they let you try. So, what is the point to spend so much time to serve you?

In United States, there is a case that they are discriminating against the blind people by refusing to make money readable for them as they think there do not have the need. They don’t go out a lot, there does not have many chance for them to use the notes. Even for the device that is specially made for them to differentiate the money is expensive. At the end, blind people have to folding their bills in different positions to tell them apart. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/395668/financial_discrimination_against_the.html?cat=15)

Financial discrimination also involved the low-waged workers. In a way that large number were paid lesser than the minimum wage that they should get and they had worked overtime without pay. When they get injured in the work place, they had to pay the bills themselves instead of having compensation from their company. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112506238)

Status/Education –

For status discrimination, most of this happens in the work place. We can see lot of who butter up status that up high and despise those who have low status than them. Everybody wants to get to a higher place. For these people that have status discrimination in mind, they normally think that this is a short cut and time saving way. For lower status in the society, they are always afraid of offending the people of the higher status. This is because they can’t afford to spend the money to fight cases with them.

We can also see employer refuse to hire people that have foreign name, speaks with accent, from another country or even locals who does not have a high level certificate. Competition is getting higher and higher in the work place.

Nowadays, it is the certificate of education that decides the fate of status in society. Without a certificate, you will get no jobs.

In Singapore, there are several foreign domestic worker abuse cases. Many do not know how to speak English and many doesn’t know where to seek for help.

There are also many cases about children bring their parents to old folks homes and do not care about them anymore, or old folks being abuse because they are a burden to the family.

Sexual discrimination (gay/sexual orientation) –

People often get confused between gender discrimination and sexual discrimination. While gender discrimination is biased opinions about the female/male gender, sexual discrimination is about their sexual orientation.

In society today, talking about homosexuality is still an uncomfortable and touchy topic. While it has progressed from the past where homosexuality was illegal and you could be hanged for admitting that you were a homosexual, it has now been legally acceptable to pronounce yourself one. However this does not stop the community around you to form perceptions and opinions about you.

The 2 main places where Sexual discrimination is most evident are in schools and the workplace. In the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), homosexuals and effeminate men are managed according to the dictates of a manpower directive issued. Probably its most well know classification is Category 302, a medical code given to servicemen who are “homosexuals, transvestites, paedophiles, etc.” homosexuals are further classified into those “with effeminate behaviour” and those “without effeminate behaviour”. This form of discrimination persists despite the fact that homosexuality was depathologised by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, and homosexuality is not regarded as a psychiatric condition by the local medical profession. More so, the categorization of homosexuality with transvestism and paedophilia by the SAF further backs up the public’s wrong impression that it is abnormal.

During the enlistment for Nation Service, any self-declared or discovered servicemen who are homosexual are immediately referred and sent to the Psychological Medicine Branch of the Headquarters of Medical Services for a thorough psychiatric assessment. After which, each of their parents are to come in for an interview. Once they are catagorised as a homosexual, they are instantly medically downgraded to a Public Employment Status of C (PES C), regardless of their level of fitness, and put through modified Basic Military Training. After Basic Military Training, they are deployed into a vocation which has no security risks, posted to non-sensitive units and given a security status which restricts their access to classified documents. (http://knol.google.com/k/discrimination-against-homosexuals-in-singapore#Singapore_Armed_Forces)

In Singapore, while being homosexual is legal, same-sex marriage is not, and any acts of indecency between two people of the same sex, will have you charged. Singapore being a diverse nation, which encourages harmony between different race, religion and background does not have as many Sexual discrimination cases as compared to America. In fact, according to BBC News on 16 May 2009, there was an event help by pinkdot.sg to commemorate love in all forms and between people of every orientation. The event was for Singaporeans in general – to affirm our respect for diversity and the freedom to love, regardless of sexual orientation.

Figure : 2,500 pink-attired supporters of gay rights, in a Singapore park.

“We recognize that many Singaporeans are conservative… so we planned an inclusive event that would reach all Singaporeans, straight and gay,” organizer Mr Soh says.

Racial –

Racial discrimination is the discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race, also known as Racism. Where most countries do not condone Racism, it is still exists and has become a stereotype in society today.

In the US, many laws forbid racial discrimination, and a number of these are directly derived from Title VII in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The first of these acts makes manifest that employers cannot refuse to hire qualified employees based on race or skin color, and they can’t do other things like harass them for race, refuse promotions, or pay them at lower rates. The 1991 Civil Rights Act defines some ways that people who have experienced racial discrimination can sue.

Till today, racial discriminations still exist, especially in workplaces where largely foreign workers are employed (mostly Chinese nationals, Bangladeshis and Indian nationals). Faced with language barriers and already lowly paid, they still have to follow orders and listen to vulgarities being thrown at them by their local employers and superiors. The same can be said for domestic helpers, where there are numerous reports of physical (and sometimes sexual) abuses by their employers and agencies.

Solutions that can be used to reduce prejudice and discrimination in Singapore
Education

It not right to judge someone base on his or her race. They might look different from others but they are still human. In order to make people minimize discrimination, it is better to start from the younger generation because they are the future. First step is to take down “the Special Assistance Plan( a programme that is catered to students who achieved the top 10% of the Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE)) school system” (Aaron, 2006). This school system concentrate on Chinese education as there are so many Chinese students and that most of these schools has rich Chinese traditions and history (eg, Hwa Chong Institution). Therefore, how can the racism be reduced in schools like this. Furthermore, government schools should also include religious subject in their system. In addition, universities should also organize some events that relates to intercultural exchanges. This will give an opportunity for students of any nationality to study different cultures.

Workplace

The company should take “racially and culturally staff” (Strategies for Reducing Racism, 2001). It is not only for worker and for employee but also apply for management or director. Talk to different people from different cultural and try to figure out what is problem that they have meet. By doing this, the organization will know what they need to do to improve better working environment for their employees. Moreover, try to put different pictures of multicultural so none will feel isolate. Furthermore, there should be a special team to solve any racial problem in the workplace. This group can also come up with some activities for employees so everybody can get closer to each other.

Race

In Singapore alone, the government has implemented racial harmony. It was in 1964, that Singapore went through 2 five-day periods of racial riots. First in 21st July and second was in 2nd September. The minority of Malays in Singapore had thought that they would benefit from the special rights for Malays that was part of the 1957 Federation of Malaya Constitution when Singapore merged with Malaya. However, it was not part of the agreement of the merger that the special rights were applicable for the Malays in Singapore as well, causing unrest among the Singapore Malays. Reason being that then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew had wanted equal rights for all Singapore citizens, regardless of race.

The riots that broke out in the 2 dates resulted in lives lost and many injured. (http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_45_2005-01-06.html)

And so, on 21st July, which was also the date that the first racial riot broke out in 1964, is celebrated as Racial Harmony Day, in which inter-racial harmony is emphasized and celebrated in schools which students are allowed and also encouraged to dress up in traditional costumes of races other than their own.

As most Singaporeans stays in HDB flats, the government have also implemented certain racial quotas for certain flats so that there is a balance between races in a neighbourhood. For instance, certain flats are only allowed to be bought by a certain race. If so happens that the owner of the flat wishes to sell the flat, the buyer would have to be of the same race as the previous owner so that there is always a balance in the races within the area.

Because of this rule, there are many cases whereby neighbours of different races have inter-cultural exchanges during festive periods. Like how an Indian neighbor share their homemade delicacies with their Chinese neighbour and vice versa.

Locality

Welcome new people no matter where they come from, give them some flower or small gift with nice saying such as “It is nice to meet you; I hope you will enjoy living here”. In this way, everybody will act equally with each other and there will be no prejudice or racism. Another way is that some family can even put the sign with the writing “All race are welcome here”. By doing this, the new people will feel just like at home.

Individual

People do not have to make a group in order to reduce racism. People can minimize discrimination by themselves. Just be nice and be polite to everybody. Be brave to stand up again racial discrimination, read book or research about racism on the internet. Talk to those who still a victim of discrimination so people will understand more about this issue.

Media

As Racial Harmony Day is only emphasized in schools, it can also be spread through the media like radio, television, movies, etc, so that both young and old can be more educated about the importance of racial harmony. Having Racial Harmony Day in school is not enough as the younger generations could still be influenced by others around them especially family members and neighbours. Even though the older generations might have grown up with different races in the older kampong days, there still might be possibility that they have prejudices against other races due to conflicts that might have happened in the past.

Conclusion

After looking at prejudice and racial discrimination in Singapore, there is still a lot to be done even though it is a multi-racial society as it is still very much a predicament in Singapore. Through our solutions such as more inter-cultural exchanges outside of schools where the government is only implementing the racial harmony idealism, in my opinion, racial harmony must still be educated to each and everyone regardless of age so that everyone knows the importance of racial harmony.

Bibilogy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1506469.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8054402.stm

http://aaron-ng.info/blog/racism-in-singapore.html

In the following assignment we will discuss the way of media representation of mental disorder. Additionally, a brief description of the film Me, Myself & Irene will take place in order to understand how the media misrepresent mental disorder. Furthermore, we will try show the real relationship between violence and mental disorder and thus, how accurate are media portrayals of this mental health problem. Ultimately, we will explain the impact of negative media representation on the mentally ill people and on the public.

Mass media representation of mental disorder is negative and describes mentally ill people as ‘monsters’. Media’s sovereign depictions of mental health problems appear to emphasize violence, dangerousness and criminality as long as “Poor, unbalanced press coverage of mental health issues fuels stigma and reduces the quality of life for sufferers, says a leading charity” (www.news.bbc.co.uk). This inappropriate representation causes severe stigma, moral panic, ostracism, as well as discrimination and victimization of these individuals.

Me, Myself & Irene, is a comedy film directed from the Farrelly brothers and was released in U.K on September 22, 2000. The plot of the movie is about one mentally ill man Charlie Baileygates who is passive and generally peaceful. He has ‘split’ personality and thus his alter ego (Hank) is aggressive, foul-mouthed and violent. Charlie has been diagnosed with delusionary schizophrenia with involuntary narcissistic rage, and whenever Charlie does not take his medication, Hunk takes his place causing several problems because of his turbulent mental state. His behaviour becomes obscene as he defecates on a neighbour’s lawn and suckles from a stranger’s breast.

This uncontrolled rage makes Hank to make fun of one man with albinism who explains that he killed his entire family but was released early just to make room for psychos. Both Charlie (good) and Hank (evil) try to protect Irene from a gang of corrupt cops who want her dead. Menacing Hank insults and punches nearly everyone he encounters and Irene apologises all the time for Hanks behaviour, explaining that he is a “schizo”.

The film raised many dilemmas about its inappropriate presentation of mental health problems and lot of people argues that the film makes fun of mentally ill people and perpetuates ugly stigmas about mental illness. Me, Myself & Irene is a perfect example of what the media represents about the relationship between violence and mental disorder, and as Thornicroft (2006) claims, schizophrenia is often linked to violence in films and media. This can be seen in my case example, when ‘Hank’ assaults a group of people and also when starts to drown a young girl who has insulted him.

The media today has become more powerful agent than it was in the past. Many support that the function of media is vital within societies as they have been acclaimed as agents of the democratic institutions and guardians of citizen’s rights (McQuail, 2003). Others believe that the media just represent extremity and exaggeration to earn publicity, and as Bennett (1999) claims “News is the policy of hallucinations”.

However, it is a fact that people collect most of the information from the TV, newspapers and radio and as Thornicroft supports “the majority of people gather what they know about mental illnesses either from personal experience and contact with people with such conditions, or from the mass media” (Thornicroft, 2007).

Media portrayals are most of the time inaccurate and sensationalized, depicting mentally ill people as different, dangerous, unpredictable and violent. According to that and what we see from the film My, Myself & Irene, Hank unpredictably assaults whoever is in front of him, making strange movements and behaving abnormally (especially during the personality change from good Charlie to villain Hank). Such representations make people to misunderstand mental disorder, and this misrepresentation appears to play an active part in shaping and sustaining what mental illness means in our culture.

As probably already shown, I am not a totally unbiased observer of what is happening these days. I have a point of view, based on what I have read so far (research) and on personal experience (once, I had the opportunity to have a conversation with a mentally ill friend) and what is going to be presented in this assignment convey this point of view.

I strongly believe that mass media portrayals of mental disorder are in the overwhelming majority inaccurate, inappropriate, unfavourable and harmful to mentally ill people. You only have to read a newspaper, switch on the TV or go to the cinema to spot such demeaning attitudes which can affect significant undesirable consequences. Such consequences will be discussed later in another chapter.

Mass media treat mental disorder as an object of ridicule, using psychiatric terminology inaccurately, and to overuse slang disrespectful terms for mental illness. For example, consider the use of Charlie’s diagnosis with delusionary schizophrenia with involuntary narcissistic rage. I am not an expert thus; I have had to do a research on that, just to find that, once again, misrepresentation took place and media used mental disorder as a source of humor. Britain’s two largest mental health charities, Mind and National Schizophrenia Fellowship, have joined with the Royal College of Psychiatrists and claim that “people affected by schizophrenia don’t switch from gentle to mental, as the billboard advertisements say, but are more often withdrawn. In fact, split personality is a totally different condition; it is a dissociative disorder rather than a psychotic illness”. Furthermore, they argue that the behaviour portrayed in the film, has nothing whatever to do with schizophrenia (www.findarticles.com).

I am a member of mass media consumer myself. I am continually entertained by the television programmes, movies and newspapers which I eagerly consume. However, this will not stop me from looking carefully and critically the media misrepresentation of mental health problems.

Comedy portrayals tend to depict mental illnesses as primarily involving little more than specific oddities that the individuals manifest repetitively. This notion of mental disorder as a humorous oddity is conveyed in our movie and movies, whatever their titles, continuously find ways to present mental illnesses as laughable and ridiculous. The fact that our film has a funny plot which involve violence, mental health, beautiful girls and bad guys hunting good guys, succeeds to attract viewer’s attention and interest (Charlie, Hank and Irene produce fun during the film for example when Charlie is trying to make Hank go away etc).

Media images are emotionally arousing, they do not only provide information, but they manipulate emotions in deliberate, skillful and effective way. Thus, I believe that it is very important to understand that movies which are not about mental illnesses, (our movie is categorized as comedy) they make viewers to merely absorb what they see, and therefore reinforce their biases and already inaccurate views, without being particularly aware that they are learning about mental illness. According to that, and as one film critic commended, “Comedies may be mindless, but that does not mean it is not affecting minds” (Wahl, 2003).

Society’s lack of knowledge, negative attitude and discriminatory behaviour is one of the central paradoxes because we live in a world in which up to half of all adults will be diagnosed with mental disorder in their lifetime. Furthermore, up to three-quarters of adult population know someone directly who has mental disorder, and yet we all act as if nobody knows anything (Thornicroft, 2006). Thus, I cannot understand why people who still feel threatened by it, allow stigma to thrive.

Mental disorder misrepresentation by the media also poses significant limitations in the initiatives to normalize mental health services within the community and therefore reduce harmful stigma. According to that, many mentally ill people face prejudice and severe discrimination when happens to live next to ‘healthy’ people “…Just because I have a mental health problem, I am now shunned, my life made even more difficult to live. Maria is a woman whose only crime is to live in an area in which a hostel for people with mental health problems is planned” (Thornicroft-Shunned-2006).

Public’s perception of mental illness is one of fear and paranoia, bordering on mass media as they often use words such as ‘nutter’, ‘psycho’ and ‘schizo’. This can be seen in the film Me, Myself & Irene, when Irene used to apology for Hanks behaviour, saying that he is a ‘schizo’. These words are derogatory which should not be used. In relation to this, I have the obligation to express my opinion that a civilization should be judged by how it behaves towards mentally ill. Likewise, I believe that the well-being of a social system depends on the prosperity of the teams within this social system. Thus, any discrimination and stigma makes social system dysfunctional as a whole.

Equally important to be mentioned is that during the movie, I have realized that misrepresentation of mental disorder not only took place on Charlie/Hank but there was a pervasive and persistent pattern to degrade mental disorder through Whiteys portrayal that according to the plot, have killed his entire family.

As mentioned before, everyday people are learning, from everyday sources, concerning mental illnesses and it appears unfortunate that the majority of those people learn about mental illness from what they see and hear in the mass media. However, even if I believe that the mass media are not wholly to blame for negative perceptions, but every time programmes, articles or film portrays a stereotype, they fail to clear up a misunderstanding about mental disorder and thus, this helps to perpetuate the myths.

In the following extract taken from the book Media madness: public images of mental illness (Wahl, 2003), there is an interesting, clear illustration of how the fearful mass media with the bold headlines tend to misrepresent mental disorder. The case is about a 30 year old woman who entered an elementary school in Winnetka, Illinois in May 1988 and shot a number of children.

“..Time’s May 30, 1988, headline introducing the story of this tragic incident was ‘One Lunatic, Three Guns’. The event was truly tragic, and it is likely that mental illness was a contributing factor in the woman’s actions. Referring to the mentally ill person involved as a ‘lunatic’, however, was both unnecessary (Newsweek’s article on the same incident was titled simply ‘I Have Hurt Some Children: Nightmare in Winnetka’) and inconsistent with standards applied to other groups. If the Winnetka school killing had been committed by someone in a wheelchair, it is unlikely that the Time’s headline would have read ‘One Cripple, Three Guns’. If the incident had involved a black woman, the headline would not have proclaimed ‘One Nigger, Three Guns’. There seems not to be the same hesitancy about using similarly disrespectful terms in referring to people with mental illnesses…” (www.time.com).

Hence, it is obvious that the mass media tend to misrepresent mental illness with disrespectful patterns, fueling public fear and letting stigma to thrive.

Stigma, in ancient Greece was bodily sign for those who were different. Stigmata were cut and burnt onto these different people (most of the time slaves) bodies to mark them as different from the rest population (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk). Nowadays, mentally ill people are no longer physically mutilated, but still depreciation and hostile attitudes towards them can be just as hurtful to them. Individuals with mental health problems are stereotyped and stigmatized through the media as mad and violent, and thus this stigma causes serious obstacles in their life. Shame, blame and secrecy are taking place as they are the “black sheep of the family”. Mentally ill people experience severe stigma, discrimination, social exclusion and thus, isolation.

Media represents mentally disordered as individuals dangerous to the public, strange and unpredictable like Hank (after all, who would want to live next to somebody who parks a car inside a shop and fights a cow?). But, the relationship between violence and mental disorder is not what the mass media simply represents. It is a complex matter that needs further consideration and critical thinking. Thus, in the following paragraphs we will try to understand what the real relationship is.

Having said that the representation of a phenomenon by the media reflect the frame in which a phenomenon is socially placed, it is considered essential at this point to mention that it is much more likely for people to become victimized from “healthy” offenders than becoming a victim from a mentally disordered individual.

The depiction of the mentally ill individual as violent, unanticipated, dangerous and potential criminal appears to be extremely “popular” in the media’s interest. Furthermore, in the connection between mental illness and violence, schizophrenia possesses a prominent place, mainly because of its complexity. According to this, researches in Great Britain shows that the frame of violence outclasses against other approaches in proportion 4:1 and the individuals with mental illness almost always are presented with negative way, as violent, murderers or rapists, or, in the better case, as objects of sneer (Wahl, 2003).

Additionally, and as empirical evidence show us, actually, the percentage of crimes of violence that has been committed by individuals with mental disturbance does not abstain perceptibly from what is attributed to the general population (Eronen et al., 1996), and the majority of acts of violence that are committed by mental patients are located in cases of incomplete therapeutic confrontation or even parallel use of substances (Swanson, 1997).

However, this study, and most of the studies conducted until recently, have focused on the rates of violence among people with mental disorder, based on those who were hospitalized (inpatients) or on rates of mentally ill which were arrested, convicted or incarcerated for violent crimes. For example, one national survey showed that the lifetime risk of schizophrenia was 5% among people convicted for homicide, a prevalence that is much higher than any published rate of schizophrenia in the general population (suggesting the relationship between schizophrenia and homicide). (http://content.nejm.org).

These studies, however, have many limitations as they only refer to individuals who were arrested, hospitalized or incarcerated which are by definition more likely to be violent or very ill and thus are not accurate representative of mentally ill in the general population.

However, according to a study conducted by NIMH Epidemiology Catchment Area it was found that mentally ill patients suffering from serious mental disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or major depression were two to three times as likely as “healthy” people to be assaultive. At this point it is very important to mention that not all mental illnesses are linked to violence. For example, anxiety disorders do not increase the risk of violence. However, although the overwhelming majority of mentally ill with major depression, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder do not produce criminal behaviour, the presence of such disorders is significantly linked to an increased risk of violence.

Furthermore, this study which had representative sample of 17.803 subjects, showed that people with no mental health problems who abuse alcohol and drugs are seven times as likely to report a violent behaviour as those without substance abuse whereas, mentally ill with substance abuse compounds the increased risk of violence (alcohol and substance abuse far outweigh mental disorder in contributing violence) (http://content.nejm.org).

I am aware of the fact that the link between violence and mental disorder is not that strong. It is a controversial subject and hence, I believe that whether or not, mentally ill are more likely than others to engage in violent behaviour, the subject is not an idle and needs further consideration.

Thus, the public should not losing sight that most people who are violent are not mentally ill, and most people who are mentally ill are not violent. A look at the broader picture is essential, thus even though the media represents dramatic statistics in order to underscore their cases, mass media consumers should know that serious mental illness is quite rare and actually contributes little to the overall rate of violence in the general population.

Furthermore, it is crucial for us to understand that, most of people who are violent do not suffer from mental illnesses. More specifically, mentally ill are more likely to be the victims, rather than the perpetrators of violence “current research shows that people with major mental illness are 2.5 times more likely to be the victims of violence than other members of society” (http://www.cmha.ca).

Moreover, a 1996 Health Canada review of scientific articles found that the strongest predictor of violence and criminal behaviour is not major to mental illness, but past history of violence and criminality (http://www.cmha.ca).

To conclude, and as mentioned before, mental disorder plays no part in the majority of violent crimes committed in our society. However, mentally ill people who live in a stressful, unpredictable environment with little family or community support may be at risk high risk of becoming violent (in relation to our case, Charlie/Hank was away from his family and chased across the country by corrupt cops).

However, mental disorder misrepresentation by the media continues and it is not hard to understand why. Pamela Kalbfleisch claims, that “aˆ¦nothing sells like an insane, unpredictable, undetected, glory killer on the loose who has caused a great deal of pain and anguish to the friends and relatives of the victim” (Wahl, 2003).

To the question why are people with mental disorder depicted consistently from the media in such inaccurate and inappropriate way (dangerous, different) the answer would be for profit. There is no question that mass media selection of what to present to the public is based on financial factors). Mass media operate for profit and wants to fulfill the public’s thirst and excitement for violence related to mental disorder, and thus should present what the public will buy. Hence, it was considered essential for the films trailer to show Charlie explaining that he suffers from delusionary schizophrenia with involuntary narcissistic rage so that, attract viewers attention.

Nevertheless, mental disorder produces profits (the film grossed $83 million in the USA according to The Guardian, July 28, 2000), (http://pb.rcpsych.org). Phenomena that are dramatic and puzzling have always been attractive to the public. Thus, what is more buy-able than a ‘funny’ and unpredicted character acting like ‘mad’. Mental illness is therefore, transformed into madness, and madness related to fun is even more ‘fascinating’. Media representation of serious mental disorder, challenge public’s appetite for arousal and excitement as stories about violent crime linked to mental illness provide titillation.

However, the most important thing during the movie is that there was an inappropriate and inaccurate depiction that whenever a mentally ill individual does not take the medication becomes villain (Hank wanted to fight a 10-year-old boy, he vanished a cow, almost drowned a young girl). Thus, this misrepresentation contains an explicit message that the public needs vigilant protection from mental patients.

Consequently, when viewers see such misrepresentation of mental disorder taking place, they become fearful that those ‘different’ people are highly likely to cause physical harm to other people. In other words, this pervasive portray of mentally ill as violent and extremely dangerous, will only lead media consumers to a general belief that mentally ill individuals will attack and therefore harm their community. Such belief will, in turn, create moral panic, and fear in the presence of mentally ill. After all, and as previously expressed, who would feel safe next to somebody who parks a car inside a shop? According to this, and as many believe that homelessness is closely related to mental disorder, moral panic lead to a random attack on a homeless man with schizophrenia in Toronto June 4, 2000 “…Fillmore was attacked as he lay sleeping in a bus shelter last June: he was stabbed and bled to death” (http://pb.rcpsych.org).

Just imagine that once patients leave psychiatric hospitals and therefore eager for support and acceptance, are instead treated with suspicion and fear. This misrepresentation will fuel panic and increase the prejudice and fear, and will make people to cross the street or exit buses or move away when they happen to be next of mentally ill. Moreover, it is highly likely that people who are persuaded by the media to ignore and fear of mentally ill, to become mentally ill. This, in turn, will lead them to self-loathing as they now know that they have become violent, dangerous, and different and so forth.

Moreover, mentally ill are bombarded with unfavourable information about them and therefore perceived as ‘threat’ (self-stigma) and thus, these attitudes towards them have devastating effect on their relationships, employment, housing and social functioning. The discrimination and stigma, excludes them from any social activity and the issue of employment as well (http://bjp.rcpsych.org). According to this, I believe that the most important step to recovery is to work, because of employment offers a social network, route out of poverty.

To conclude, I would like to mention that it is very sad when viewers (including myself) see the way films and mass media in general, portray people with mental disorder as if there is not anyone who is positive. But I guess, ‘non aggressive’ mentally ill do not sell. It is also very inappropriate the fact that the mass media misrepresent mentally ill people and portray them as monsters who want to harm us.

Additionally, I have concluded that the mass media inaccurately present the relationship between mental disorder and violence. Furthermore, I found that the mass media fuel public fear by generalizing all mental illnesses and stereotyping its patients. I also found that the impact of stigma and the discrimination against mentally ill is both common and severe.

Ultimately, I suggest that all the incorrect beliefs of previous generations should not be passing on to new. The stigmatizing and discriminating attitudes towards mentally ill people have been going on for a long time and it is time to stop as I am a believer that the way our society behaves the mentally ill, is not only an issue of mental health care but human rights issue. According to this, I would like to conclude with the following words written by a relative of one mentally ill patient.

“For me stigma means fear, resulting in a lack of confidence. Stigma is loss, resulting in unresolved mourning issues. Stigma is not having access to resources… Stigma is being invisible or being reviled, resulting in conflict. Stigma is lowered family esteem and intense shame, resulting in decreased self-worth. Stigma is secrecy… Stigma is anger, resulting in distance. Most importantly, stigma is hopelessness, resulting in helplessness.” (http://apt.rcpsych.org).

.

Intergroup relations started to take form in understanding individual characteristics from the beginning of the twentieth century. The theory of intergroup relations for individual, group, intergroup, and organizational relations defines boundaries, power, cognition, and leadership behaviors. Intergroup relations can be examined from so many different angles. There is even a wide variety of areas of study that have theories into a multitude of issues concerning intergroup relations. However, with the array of research into intergroup relations, narrowing down the topic of research to social psychology, and studying the characteristic, and behavior will be sufficient enough to have a wide range of understanding into group and individual behavior. Certain perceptions can be developed toward a group member or members involving negative or positive intergroup relations, such as: social categorization, stereotypes, intergroup bias, motivations, prejudices, and the functional relationship process within a group.

INTRODUCTION TO INTERGROUP RELATIONS

What is the meaning behind intergroup relations? Why is it so widely studied in social psychology? These are questions that are asked when analyzing the meaning of intergroup relations. To better understand intergroup relations you first have to dive into where it all began and how the term was discovered. In the 1960s and 1970s social psychologists began studying individuals and social interaction. The study of group dynamics proved to be unsuccessful and expensive, so they decided to research the dynamic on a smaller scale by breaking down individuals rather than placing them in larger social structures for their research. However, this setting failed and the setting became inaccurate. As time went on though, investigation of group dynamics was not a dead topic. The research into intergroup relations was yet again opened up for study in the 1980s and 1990s, but this time investigation into human behavior in a group setting (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). The numbers of issues found were: cooperation, conflict resolution, distributive justice, intergroup relations, and cross cultural interactions. This was a major step in research for group and individual behavior among a group setting. It was then a doorway to other fields for research that ultimately became one of the most dominated areas of study on group dynamics.

Intergroup relations in simpler terms can be described as feelings, evaluations, beliefs and behaviors that groups and members may have toward one another. It can have both positive and negative impacts among those individuals that are among the group or outside their group. The psychological process that is associated with intergroup relations among many is social categorization. This can be described as the personalities, motivations of group members, observations, and the practical relationship between groups and those outside groups.

SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION

Social Categorization is a fundamental part of intergroup relations. It involves identifying people that are within your group and those that our outside of your group members. The theory behind social categorization arises from the earlier work of Tajfel of social identity theory. By evaluating an individual’s self-image for which they perceive him or herself; these aspects can also contribute positively or negatively as well when defining their group identity with “we” or “us” as one would with “me” or “I”.

Social categorization is social perception that involves relating to those within your group and discriminating against those that are not in your group. This can cause conflict when one relates with their individual self image to their own group and then having to work with others that are outside of your group members. When relating yourself characteristic and building a trusting relationship with those within your group, members tend to view others more negatively when others from the outside are brought into your group; even if those from the outside have similar characteristics of your own. Once group membership has been established people distinguish individuals who are members as the in-group and those who are members of other group as the out-group (Dovidio, April 21, 1990).

When intergroup boundaries between out-group and in-group have been pronounced people tend to discriminate against the out-group than those in their in-group. People then attribute more strongly to their in-group, and then in turn favor and contribute more toward their group. This is because one’s self-esteem is more enhanced in their own group than in different group memberships. When different groups are not interdependent and group memberships are thrown together; intergroup biases are produced.

INTERGROUP BIAS

Intergroup bias generally defines the members (the in-group) to be more favorable to their own group than to the non-members (the out-group). Bias can cause such behavior such as: discrimination, stereo-typing, and prejudice. This essentially means that trust is turned over to the in-group and not given to the out-group. Individuals tend to give more to their own group than relinquishing those rewards to members of other groups. When social identity is developed among members in a group, it is hard for those members to be able to reach out and identify with outside group members. Once a trust line has been established it is difficult to create non derogation towards the out-group (Dovidio, April 21, 1990).

In order to decrease intergroup bias is to make group members aware of the consequences that surround this behavior. Or by placing groups with other groups on more of a daily basis in order to establish less competition and less trust issues among others. By taking out the element that can cause intergroup bias can help those participating in a group environment to see that each member, whether in their group or others, are key factors to being successful. Being able to observe other’s culture, style and individual character without discriminating from the beginning will help each member find balance in their group and other’s they become involved in. No one group is better than the other. Each has separate tools that can make the ease of intergroup relations work victoriously.

GROUP CULTURE

When evaluating group dynamics in intergroup relations one benefit, as stated, is the culture and style that each individual will bring such as: the history and common ancestry, as well as cultural characteristics. But when viewing culture as it relates to intergroup bias, groups that are involved in intercultural encounters tend to run into conflicts due to sociocultural adaptation. The more different the languages, family structures, religion, standard of living and values of the two groups, the more cultural distance there will be between these groups.

With these cultural characteristics and cultural distance that is placed in groups it can have a tendency to take shape as ethnocentrism where one ethnic group view’s their culture as better than another. When ethnocentrism is present we measure our culture based on others of different ethnicity. This is derived from the cultural conditioning that each individual has encountered as children. Children are typically raised to fit into particular cultures and sometimes when individuals are conditioned we see others ethnic background in a more negative light than positive (Messick & Mackie, 1989).

Groups tend to place distance between those that are of different in cultural background because they perceive them with dissimilarity to their own culture. Sometimes, it is difficult for groups to adapt to those with greater cultural dissimilarities. It is important for those placed in groups to be able to learn more about each individuals own interaction styles, and be able to set structure within those group to have a higher success rate in their groups. When structuring a groups interaction styles and applying everyone’s cultural differences; you can take those differences and use them to benefit a higher success rate. Being able to learn and understand others cultural beliefs and backgrounds can truly add benefit to each group established (Spielberger, 2004).

GROUP BEHAVIOR AND MEMBERSHIP

A group is a social system that involves interaction among members and a common group identity. When discussing group dynamics and how it correlates with intergroup relations, evaluating the conflicts, social categorization, and cultural differences; it is also important to evaluate the fundamental behaviors of group processes as a whole. Groups have a sense of we-ness that helps them to identify themselves as belonging to a certain entity. A group is an important part of sociological concept since it plays such a complex part in everyday life.

Group membership is part of an individual’s social identity. It is a key element of social control over individual’s social pressures towards having to conform. Especially when they can deviate risking their membership as a result of that risk. However, social consequences help establish an important understanding of social life as a whole. We live in a very physical and cognitive world and when discussing group membership and the social pressures, understanding the social influence and group behavior in group memberships is one of the most important keys to everyday life (Messick & Mackie, 1989).

There are several types of group environments that we encounter in a life time; from sports, school, work, family and peers. Every type of group contact comes with social influence and behaviors from each individual involved in the group setting. Individuals affect one another in several different ways depending on their experiences. Experiences that each individual has encountered in their lifetime; is the key tool in intergroup relations. It is what makes group behavior an important asset when discussing the theory behind intergroup contact and how they all in the end relate to one another. Ultimately, the individual’s experiences, needs, social influences and relationships are what make up how individuals approach group membership.

SUMMARY

Intergroup relations are essentially determined by how people relate to one another as well as how they categorize others. Perceptions is what shapes individuals personal needs and values, and by the behavior between groups. This process intermingles and works in sync with each other. With this categorization of people in groups it can sometimes cause the intergroup bias and conflict among the group members or members outside of the group (Dovidio, April 21, 1990). However, with conflict and social categorization come goals to help implement positive group membership. Different groups and culture can help organize and produce efforts to achieve a mutually desired outcome; as long as conditions and discipline is applied. Being able to work together and understand everyone’s individual needs and goals will help establish a positive intergroup dynamic.

Certain perceptions are developed toward a group member or members that are involved in a negative or positive intergroup relation. Social categorization, stereotypes, intergroup bias, motivations, prejudices, and the functional relationship process within a group. These basic processes are the fundamental interpretations of intergroup relations and the dynamics that in turn produce a group membership that can successfully be achieved with hard work, understanding and the basic desires to work as a group and overcome the biasness that can take place.

Everything we read…constructs us, makes us who we are, by presenting our image of ourselves as girls and women, as boys and men” (Mem Fox, 1993).

Besides being an important resource for developing children’s language skills, children’s books play a significant part in transmitting a society’s culture to children. Gender roles are an important part of this culture. How genders are portrayed in children’s books thus contributes to the image children develop of their own role and that of their gender in society.

HOW IS GENDER PORTRAYED IN CHILDREN’S LITERATURE?

Gender bias exists in the content, language and illustrations of a large number of children’s books (Jett-Simpson & Masland, 1993). This bias may be seen in the extent to which a gender is represented as the main character in children’s books and how that gender is depicted.

Numerous studies analyzing children’s literature find the majority of books dominated by male figures. For example, Ernst (1995) did an analysis of titles of children’s books and found male names represented nearly twice as often as female names. She also found that even books with female or gender-neutral names in their titles in fact, frequently revolve around a male character. Many classics and popular stories where girls are portrayed usually reflect stereotypes of masculine and feminine roles. Such gender stereotypes are prevalent not only in mainstream children’s books but also in Newbery and Caldecott medal winners. Children’s books frequently portray girls as acted upon rather than active (Fox, 1993). Girls are represented as sweet, naive, conforming, and dependent, while boys are typically described as strong, adventurous, independent, and capable (Ernst, 1995; Jett-Simpson & Masland, 1993). Boys tend to have roles as fighters, adventurers and rescuers, while girls in their passive role tend to be caretakers, mothers, princesses in need of rescuing, and characters that support the male figure (Temple, 1993). Often, girl characters achieve their goals because others help them, whereas boys do so because they demonstrate ingenuity and/or perseverance. If females are initially represented as active and assertive, they are often portrayed in a passive light toward the end of the story. Girl characters who retain their active qualities are clearly the exception (Rudman, 1995). Thus, studies indicate that not only are girls portrayed less often than boys in children’s books, but both genders are frequently presented in stereotypical terms as well.

WHY IS GENDER-REPRESENTATION IN CHILDREN’S LITERATURE SIGNIFICANT?

Many researchers and authors argue that readers identify with characters of their own gender in books. Therefore, the relative lack of girl characters in texts can limit the opportunity for girls to identify with their gender and to validate their place in society.

The manner in which genders are represented in children’s literature impacts children’s attitudes and perceptions of gender-appropriate behavior in society. Sexism in literature can be so insidious that it quietly conditions boys and girls to accept the way they ‘see and read the world,’ thus reinforcing gender images (Fox, 1993). This reinforcement predisposes children to not question existing social relationships. At the same time, however, books containing images that conflict with gender stereotypes provide children the opportunity to re-examine their gender beliefs and assumptions. Thus, texts can provide children with alternative role models and inspire them to adopt more egalitarian gender attitudes.

Gender stereotypical roles are constraining to both genders. Just as girls are trapped in passive and whiny roles, boys and men are rarely described as people demonstrating emotions of sadness and fear, having hobbies/occupations that are not stereotypically male and in roles where they aren’t competing or meeting high expectations. These stereotypes limit boys’ and girls’ freedom to express themselves (Fox, 1993; Rudman, 1995) and pressure them to behave in ways that are ‘gender appropriate’ rather than ways best suited to their personality.

WHAT SHOULD TEACHERS KEEP IN MIND WHILE SELECTING CHILDREN’S BOOKS?

Ideally, all children’s books used in the classroom should have well-rounded male and female characters. However, teachers seldom have much control over the children’s books they use as their selection of books is often restricted to what is cheap, easily available, or contributed by parents and well-wishers. Despite these constraints, it is possible to take active steps to ensure the use of books that promote gender equity among the sexes.

One recommendation is to look actively for books portraying girls/women in a positive light with active, dynamic roles. Another suggestion is to look for books and stories that do not portray either gender in a stereotypical manner. Rudman (1995) recommends gender-neutral books where

*individuals are portrayed with distinctive personalities irrespective of their gender

* achievements are not evaluated on the basis of gender

* occupations are represented as gender-free

* clothing is described in functional rather than gender-based terms

* females are not always weaker and more delicate than males

* individuals are logical or emotional depending upon the situation

* the language used in the text is gender-free, etc.

Teachers can also choose books that have counter-sexist attitudes embedded in them, such as feminist texts that can help children recognize gender-stereotypical messages. Combining traditional and non-traditional books can also spark discussion of how genders are portrayed in different books (Jett-Simpson and Masland, 1993).

Regardless of the type of book chosen, the message of respect for both genders should be subtly contained in the texts. It is important to avoid books that have strident messages on gender equity, as children tend to reject books that preach. In Mem Fox’s (1993) words, “laboring the point kills the point of the laboring.”

HOW CAN TEACHERS USE CHILDREN’S LITERATURE TO PROMOTE GENDER EQUITY?

Before using strategies to identify gender stereotypes and develop gender-equitable perceptions among children, it is important for teachers to first recognize and articulate their own attitudes (Rudman 1995). Then they can guide children to be critical by using scaffolding strategies like the following:

* collectively analyzing gender assumptions in the text

* raising questions about main characters and their portrayal.

* asking children to reverse the genders of individuals, e.g., “What if Sleeping Beauty was a boy?” (Temple, 1993)

* having children guess a writer’s gender on the basis of the story they have just heard (Lawrence, 1995)

* asking children to use gender-neutral names in the stories they write and read this aloud to other students so that they can guess the protagonist’s gender (Lawrence, 1995)

* have children adopt the opposite sex’s point of view about a very gendered issue (Lawrence, 1995)

Children can discuss a novel by participating in the above activities in heterogeneous groups. It is important for teachers to support children’s group discussions by posing thought-provoking questions and facilitating student exchanges. McGowan, McGowan & Wheeler (1994) have described a number of children’s books that can be used as catalysts for discussions, and suggested different group activities for primary grade students. The authors have designed these activities for the purpose of promoting gender awareness and using them to explore issues such as: respect for yourself and other individuals, similarities and differences between boys and girls, traditional and non-traditional gender roles, gender stereotypes, and friendships between boys and girls. Along similar lines, Lawrence (1993) suggests getting older students to conduct surveys and create collages to sensitize themselves to gender issues they encounter in books they read.

Trites (1997) reminds us that during discussions with children, it is important to validate both feminine and masculine voices, and to listen to dissenting individual opinions. Teachers need to recognize that many children may have attitudes that are gender stereotyped only towards certain issues. Students need to be allowed to make choices that are consonant with their own personalities and which are self-empowering. It is also important to keep in mind that rethinking gender roles cannot be achieved in a day but is an ongoing process.

Imagine for a moment that you find yourself in an exotic and far off land. You have been forced to live in a foreign country that speaks a completely different language than yours. You struggle day after day not just to articulate yourself in this strange, foreign tongue, but to simply be heard and have your opinions appreciated by your new peers. Instead you find your new neighbors disregard every word you say and write you off as inarticulate or just plain dumb; or even worse they ignore your unique existence and experiences altogether. This is exactly the sort of phenomenon that Muted Group Theory details and why it is so incredibly fascinating. This literature review will define exactly Muted Group Theory and its basic tenets are, delve into the theory’s origins, and provide a few examples of its further use before moving on to several research studies illustrating the theory in practical, scientific application.

The Muted Group Theory of Communication seeks to explain and rationalize the faults inherent in language and the ways in which it fails many of its users. While most individuals would simply dismiss language merely as a tool of communication to be molded in order to fit their specific needs; in actuality, language acts as a dominant and controlling factor in establishing and shaping its users. Muted Group Theory asserts that because language was developed primarily by the dominant group of society; specifically white males of greater income and socio-economic status, that minority cultures and non-dominant groups such as women, individuals of lower economic means, and non-whites are thus ‘muted’ by their own lack of influence on the formation of their language (Wood, 2008, as cited in Turner & West, 2009). Because non-dominant groups have had little to no contribution towards the creation of their language they are poorly served by it. Muted Group Theory emphases a minority group’s inability to fully and properly articulate themselves or designate their unique experiences due to the necessity of translating their individual views and opinions into what is essentially a foreign language (Wood, 2008, as cited in Turner & West, 2009). The language of a particular group does not consistently support or function for all of its members with any sense of equality due to the disparity in their involvement in their language’s development (Kramarae, 1981 as cited in Orbe, 1998). Muted Group Theory posits that language acts as a representation of a society’s overall ideologies. The dominant sector of a group conceptualizes a means of communication which not only maintains, but perpetuates their specified worldview and establishes it as the correct and proper language for all of said group’s remaining members (S. Ardener, 1975, as cited in Orbe, 1998). As it is defined as a “critical theory,” the Muted Group Theory of Communication is both valuable and worth exploring because it strives to reexamine the established status quo of a society or culture, it highlights the imbalances and unfairness within said society for its possibly unsuspecting inhabitants, and lastly; and most importantly, it proposes potential solutions to these problems plaguing said culture (Turner & West, 2009). Muted Group Theory interestingly illuminates individuals to the unconscious methods through which a language and its creators dictate and manipulate interpersonal behaviors and relations as well as concepts of one’s own self-identity.

Muted Group Theory finds its origins within the research of social anthropologists Edwin and Shirley Ardener and their work on social hierarchy and structure. Muted Group Theory developed following the Ardener’s examination of the, at the time, male dominated fields of ethnography and social anthropology (Turner & West, 2009). Individuals and groups which inhabit the highest tiers of a social hierarchy define the specific communication system within a culture and the non-dominant groups are thus relegated to working within the confines of whatever communication guidelines the ruling class has consciously or unconsciously imposed upon them. Subordinate groups are thus rendered mute as the mainstream structures of communication echo the dominate groups perceptions (E. Ardener, 1978, as cited in Orbe, 1998). A further implication of Muted Group Theory founded by the Ardeners is that the silencing of women as a muted group bears a direct correlation to deafness of their male counterparts. The notion put forth here is that even if a minority group has yet to be muted, on the whole or in a specified subject, the continued obliviousness committed by the dominant group as they ignore the assessments and opinions of their subordinates results in a lack of any further articulation on said subject by the non-dominant group as they thus become muted over time (S. Ardener, 1978, as cited in Turner & West, 2009). Put simply, a dominant group, by not understanding or completely ignoring the views of their subordinate counterparts, can in essence silence these views completely. The repercussions of this sort of passive thought suppression are staggering. The undesirable ideologies and wishes of a silent minority can be expunged over time simply by ignoring them. This idea is highly reminiscent in the old adage to ignore a bully into leaving one alone.

Though its genesis lies with the work of Edwin and Shirley Ardener, Cheris Kramarare is commonly regarded as the true founder of Muted Group Theory. Kramarare’s work expanded on the ideas brought on by the Ardeners, and tailored it primarily to the study of communication. Kramarare focused Muted Group Theory into three paramount assumptions: women, and other minority groups, view the world far differently from men due to the division of labor, due to male-centric political superiority, men’s views and communication systems are given priority, thus restricting the communication of women, and other subordinate cultures, and lastly, in order to effectively partake in a society, non-dominant groups are forced to shoehorn their own ideologies into the dominant groups established system of expression (Kramarare, 1981, as cited in Turner & West, 2008). Kramarare’s work expanded the bounds of Muted Group Theory and inspires further inquiry and analysis to questions and concepts raised by the Ardener’s initial research.

Far more intriguing than the unfortunate in-articulation of minority groups brought on by Muted Group Theory are the stunning implications of the theory on the development of an individual’s self-concept. From birth men and women are treated vastly different by society at large. From the color of the clothes they are put in to the way in which they are described, male and female infants are immediately indoctrinated by the societal views and expected gender roles of the dominant group they were born into. Muted Group Theory further invades into ideas of self-concept via the ways in which dominant groups perceive society. Female nurses, for instance, are limitedly defined by society’s dominant group as either hardened “battle-axes” of anti-femininity, or ultra-compassionate and sensitive “angels of mercy.” These highly constricting labels, imposed by dominant groups, limit these women to identifying themselves as one of these two, polar descriptors (Callan, 1978, as cited in Turner & West, 2009). Because of the restricted definitions provided by dominant groups, these nurses can only potentially conceive themselves as aligning with one of these completely differing camps and are thus limited in the development of their own self-concept and individual identity.

The first of the research studies examined here focuses on the muting inherent in the culture of date rape found on many college campuses. A rape culture can be defined as an environment which supports attitudes conducive to rape and increase sexual violence risk factors (Buchwald, Fletcher & Roth, 1993, as cited in Burnett et all., 2009). The study in question, “Communicating/Muting Date Rape: A Co-Cultural Theoretical Analysis of Communication Factors Related to Rape Culture on a College Campus” was authored by Ann Burnett, Jody L. Mattern, Liliana L. Herakova, David H. Kahl, Jr., Cloy Tobola, and Susan Bornsen and was first published in the Journal of Applied Communication Research in November of 2009. Burnett et al. (2009) sought to uncover how certain attitudes and outlooks regarding the act of rape, as expressed by social, individual, and cultural perspectives, stemmed from various behaviors preceding a possible rape, during a rape itself, and as a response to a rape occurring. These attitudes served to mute college students, primarily women, and possibly perpetuate the continued creation of a rape culture on college campuses. Their research primarily utilized Muted Group Theory in a co-cultural theoretical paradigm in order to define campus rape culture through communication focused on rape and sex, the negotiating of sexual consent, the potentiality of a rape to occur, a rape itself, the aftermath and repercussions of a rape, and people’s perceptions of, and reactions to, date rape (Burnett et al., 2009).

Burnett et al.’s (2009) study methodology chiefly utilized hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry. Hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry involves delving into the shared, lived experiences of individuals who have been involved in a specified phenomenon (Lanigan, 1979, as cited in Burnett et al., 2009). Researchers utilizing a phenomenological approach search for any central, underlying themes behind a given experience and attempt to develop general or universal implications from them (Creswell, 2007, as cited in Burnett et al., 2009). Phenomenological inquiry involves researchers gathering descriptions of lived experiences, reviewing the various capta found to uncover any essential themes of the experiences, and discovering any interrelatedness among the established themes (Nelson, 1989, as cited in Burnett et al., 2009). The capta for Burnett et al.’s (2009) study were gathered through nine separate focus groups at a Midwestern university. These focus groups contained five with just women, two of only men, and two groups were co-ed in composition. The university in question housed an approximate population of 12,000 students, contained fifteen fraternities or sororities, and had a Division 1 athletics program on campus. The study did not specify a need for focus group members to have been rape victims to be involved. Focus group moderators utilized an open-ended conversational style in order to encourage member participation (Nelson, 1989, as cited in Burnett et al., 2009). Topics put to the focus groups included various definitions of, and motivations for, rape, alcohol’s role in rape, post-rape options, potential reasons why rape is not reported, how to avoid possible rape scenarios, and group members’ perception of the prevalence of rape on their campus (Burnett et al., 2009). Following this, the gathered capta were reduced by recognizing what given factors were essential to the experience and which were not, and then attaching meaning to the essential elements remaining by contrasting and comparing the different given experiences and how the identified themes contributed to them (Nelson, 1989, as cited in Burnett et al., 2009).

Burnett et al.’s (2009) results indicated an ambiguity surrounding date rape that silences potential, meaningful intercourse on the subject and mutes both possible and actual victims of date rape. Burnett et al. (2009) found that focus group members had great difficulty in pinpointing a firm definition of date rape as they felt situational factors affected any interpretation of the event. For instance, although sexual consent was suggested as an essential element, focus group members probed which non-verbal and verbal actions could be construed as consent. Because they had no firm way of defining what date rape was, both male and female participants were muted from recognizing the signs of date rape or when to report it. Students are thus forced to rationalize their notions of rape because their culture, the college campus, fails to do so (Burnett et al., 2009).

On an individual, psychological level, the focus group members, even the women, utilized primarily dominant, male-driven language to characterize known date rape victims as overtly promiscuous individuals whose state of dress could almost function as a form of consent. Participants also noted how males are often praised for extreme sexual prowess and a high number of partners whereas women are cast in a negative light for the same sort of behavior. These common views reiterate the dominant position of men in society and their influence on the language and ideologies concerning date rape (Burnett et al., 2009). From a post-rape perspective, female focus group members questioned the strength and validity of their ability to communicate a lack of consent. This sort of interrogation places the responsibility for the rape on the victim (Burnett et al., 2009). Both female and male focus group members agreed that the reporting of date rape is muted due to further ambiguity regarding the correct steps to take following a rape and a fear of other’s reactions to said rape. This fear of victim blaming only serves to further isolate and mute anyone who has been the victim of date rape or knows a victim who is choosing to remain silent (Burnett et al., 2009). Additional dominant groups such as a college’s administration and staff can silence victims and perpetuate a date rape culture through a lack of backing for anti-rape preventative education and post rape support services on campus. This lack of recognition of date rape in the dominant discourse leads individuals to mute themselves via various explaining-away tactics in order to not contradict the mainstream. Following their study, Burnett et al. (2009) concluded that both male and female students participate in the inherent muting of a date rape culture and that date rape victims are actively muted before, after, and even during a rape’s occurrence.

The largest factor in the continued perpetuation of campus date rape culture is the failure of the student population to properly and affectively define what constitutes date rape and sexual consent. Because there is no firm classification of either of these, date rape victims, and potentially the rapists as well, have no clue they are actually involved in a date rape. The scope of this study, while thorough on the campus it took place, is in actuality quite limited. Because Burnett et al. limited their focus to one specific college campus in one specific area of the country it cannot be considered an entirely accurate representation of possible rape cultures on college campuses across the board. Along with its scope, the study’s testability is extremely limited because of their research methodology. While relying on interpersonal communication allowed for a more personal and in-depth examination of various individuals’ experiences with date rape, these particular views are that of the individual in question and cannot be affectively measured with any sort of documentable accuracy. The parsimony and heurism of the study are both notable, however. At its core, the explanation for the continuance of date rape culture is exceedingly simple and direct and the new thinking initiated by the study is of paramount importance. Hopefully, colleges can use the data provided here to better arm their student bodies against possible date rape in the future.

The second research study being examined here involves the gender specific effects of muting on outdoor ropes challenge courses. The study, authored by Phillip A. Irish III, first appeared in the Journal of Experiential Education in 2006. Irish (2006) sought to discover the myriad of effects that verbal muting, a primary means for modifying a course’s objectives, has on both genders and how successfully they can accomplish the tasks set forth by the moderators of these ropes courses when thusly limited. The ultimate goal of the study was to better arm ropes course facilitators with documented research to supplement their own experience and intuition in an effort to further the communication enhancing nature inherent in these sorts of challenges. The ropes course study examine two primary hypotheses: on specifically masculine-attributed outdoor ropes courses, muted males will experience stronger goal engagement, specified by proximal distance to said objective, than their muted, female counterparts, and, conversely, the greater time spent on a particular task will result in greater disengagement of muted males, measured by increasing distance from goal, than muted females in the same given time span.

The methodology of Irish’s (2006) study involved adult groups being given one of three possible outdoor ropes challenges: Doughnut, Thread the Needle, and Water Wheel. These challenges were selected specifically for because they involve the team members navigating a specific, centralized piece of equipment while simultaneously not limiting participants free movement about the challenge arena. These trials were also selected due to their generally male oriented objectives, such as lifting individual members up into the air. In differing groups, either all of the men or all of the women were verbally muted though gesturing and pantomime were allowed. The average group makeup consisted of five males to three females with individuals being lined up and divided my height in an effort to spread the height advantage out to each group. Distance measurements were taken every two minutes during the planning phase of the given challenge.

The results of Irish’s (2006) study indicate varying shifts in involvement by both sexes in regards to factors of group composition and the handicap of verbal muting. When looking at group makeup, there was no correlation on the involvement of males or females in the task based upon the increased number of females in the group, or male involvement based on the increased number of males in the group, however, when the number of males increased, regardless of other factors involved, female involvement dropped significantly. When the influence of verbal muting is examined, again, male involvement is curiously unaffected by muting or not, but female involvement dramatically lowered when they were muted.

Irish (2006) felt his research was successful in terms of providing future researchers a methodology for empirically measuring involvement and interest in a task with relation to muting and non-muting factors. While muting had little variant effect on the position and involvement of males, muted females were generally twice as far away from the specified goal as non-muted females (Irish 2006). Muted females seemed to disengage entirely from the task as the positioned themselves farther away from the goal than their male counterparts. Irish’s (2006) research shows slight correlation to male disinterest and disengagement overtime, but not enough, he felt, to be entirely conclusive and supportive of his original hypothesis. Irish posits that greater effect of muting on women may be due to the verbally communicative style generally attached to women.

The implications of Irish’s research on future Muted Group Theory are compelling. Even though Irish was not trying to illustrate the ways in which male dominant groups subjugate female non-dominant groups, the results of his research still support that central tenet of Muted Group Theory. As discussed previously, Muted Group Theory posits that male originated language forces women to translate everything into what essentially amounts to a foreign tongue. Irish’s examination demonstrates how the severity of the male language barrier places women in an ingrained mindset of near constant verbal translation in order to be heard and understood by their male counterparts. When this verbal element is removed from their repertoire, women are left with no further tools to successfully navigate the ropes course or contribute in any meaningful way; because of both an inability to fully articulate themselves in a now non-verbal, male-centric language and because their male counterparts will essentially ignore their female-oriented non-verbal communication tactics. The scope of this study is quite narrow as it only delves into a small aspect of muting; however, the study provides a high level of testability as the data provides an easily repeatable experiment in an effort to replicate the results and has great utility as it can be used to reinforce the basic notions of Muted Group Theory.

The third research study being explored delves into the realm of email communication and how the once gender neutral communication arena now exhibits gendered voices which are being muted. The study, authored by Heather Kissack and Jamie L. Callahan was first published in the Journal of European Industrial Training in 2010. Kissack and Callahan (2010) sought to critically asses the validity of newfound research indicating increased textual gender cues in regards to preferred language use in email based communications. Kissack and Callahan’s goal was to illustrate how the muting of feminine voices occurs even in email communications.

The methodology of Kissack and Callahan’s (2010) study is fairly straightforward. The study utilizes a vast array of previously completed research into the foundations and implications of Muted Group Theory on subjugating the speech of women and draws logical correlations to previous research on male-female communication in a structured organization as well as studies on gender’s impact on email conversing. The arguments posited are logically consistent and draw understandable conclusions between already researched topics.

Kissack and Callahan (2010) discovered that feminine voices are more than simply marginalized in the work place as was once believed, but are in fact muted as well. Despite lacking the visual and audio cues of verbal language, email communication has still developed unique male and female centric consistencies which allow them to be easily distinguishable to a given reader (Corney, de Vel, Anderson, & Mohay , 2002, as cited in Kissack & Callahan, 2010). Even if the names of sender and receiver are omitted, either sex can easily identify the gender of email senders as gender specific language cues aid in this accuracy (Savicki et al., as cited in Kissack & Callahan, 2010). Kissack and Callahan (2010) successfully accomplish their study’s goal of shedding light on the still prevalent issues of feminine voice muting, specifically in an arena that most thought to be gender neutral be default.

What is most intriguing about the work of Kissack and Callahan is that the majority of email users would claim the format to be primarily without gender bias. After all, the anonymity presented on the internet allows a user to appear as any gender they wish. This research study shows great logical consistency and scope through the great volume of research Kissack and Callahan have done to draw successful correlations between preexisting research topics. This study also shows potential to stand the test of time because it initiates a heuristic response to a fairly modern invention and the biases that have unfortunately come along with it. These growing trends could even be reexamined in the future to further track the validity of Kissack and Callahan’s work and to measure if any improvements have been made in the field. Kissack and Callahan focus strongly on the critical aspects of Muted Group Theory in an effort to inform (re: warn) our modern, technology-dependent society; as forward thinking as we think we are, to the dangers of gender muteness now creeping its way into email communication. The suggestions of their work are frightening. If gender bias and muted groups can find new life thriving in technology can these relics of a bygone era ever truly be stamped out?

The fourth study observed focused on the application of two primarily feminism based theories, standpoint theory and Muted Group Theory, to emphasis the resilience and fortitude of individuals living in rural America and plan more effective methods of community-based healthcare promotion to better suit their needs. The study was authored by Deborah Ballard-Reisch and was first published in Women & Language in 2010. Ballard-Reisch (2010) sought to rectify the vast differences in her previous research on the lives of rural Americans with that of some of her statistician and epidemiologist peers whose own research painted a vastly different, and far less optimistic, picture of frontier life.

Ballard-Reisch’s (2010) methodology, in a similar fashion to the previously explored work of Kissack and Callahan, utilized a veritable melting pot of formerly gathered research and theoretical ideologies in an effort to repurpose them into a grounded, community based approach to better serve the healthcare needs of diverse rural and frontier constituents. Ballard-Reisch (2010) combined aspects of Muted Group and Standpoint Theories together with engaged scholarship and a community-based participatory research approach to more effectively recognize the strengths, needs, health issues, and dynamics of these rural residents to create and exercise far more efficient health promotion interventions.

Ballard-Reisch’s research showed that rural areas contain a higher percentage of older adults than anywhere else in America (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009, as cited in Ballard-Reisch, 2010) and that women constitute a far larger portion of this percentage than anywhere else in the country; representing 52% of individuals aged sixty to sixty-four, and representing 68% of individuals aged 85 or older (CDC, 2010; ERS/USDA, 2001, as cited in Ballard-Reisch, 2010). Ballard-Reisch also discovered that despite containing a far larger portion of elderly Americans, one of the largest groups of consumers of healthcare products and services in the country (Wright, Sparks, & O’Hare, 2008, as cited in Ballard-Reisch, 2010), rural areas hold a far lower concentration of able, effective healthcare professionals than their urban counterparts (ERS/USDA, 2007, as cited in Ballard-Reisch, 2010). The engaged scholarship approach suggested by Ballard-Reisch emphasizes “collaboration and cooperation between both researchers and collaborators in a learning community” to cultivate a “theoretical and practical knowledge” base (Van de Ven, 2007; Barge & Shockley-Zalaback, 2008, as cited in Ballard-Reisch, 2010) and the community based participatory approach she posits underlines the participation of community members along with scholars to more properly research and address various issues of mutual interest (Israel et al., 2005, as cited in Ballard-Reisch, 2010). Ballard-Reisch (2010) theorizes that these two approaches in tandem can be utilized to unmute the healthcare issues of the disenfranchised elderly population of rural America and more successfully serve their needs. Ballard-Reisch believes the older individuals living in rural America must un-silence themselves and take an active role in shaping the future of their health.

Ballard-Reisch’s research highlights the ways in which rural Americans, primarily older women, have their problems muted by a mainstream that instead chooses to focus its attention on the healthcare needs of urban individuals only, leaving the frontier population to fend for themselves. Because they are members of several non-dominant groups; elderly, female, and rural-based, these individuals are triply muted and to such an extent ignored by the urbanite healthcare professionals they so desperately need. Ballard-Reisch’s proposed solution would seem to be the most effective approach as it plays to the community focused nature of these rural areas and allows them the forge their own path to health moving forward instead of relying on the otherwise preoccupied dominant, urban groups for a hand out that may never come. Ballard-Reisch’s ideologies most notably show heurism as they seek to stimulate new kinds of thinking to solve old problems. The utility is less substantial as Ballard-Reisch’s ideas require a lot of additional legwork and extensive knowledge and research of individuals who are often less educated, and less willing to educate, than their urban counterparts.

The ramifications of Muted Group Theory are astronomically important. Something as simple and taken for granted as one’s language has astounding implications towards one’s ability to not only articulate their thoughts, but also generate said thoughts in the first place. By not having a specified word for something; whether it be an object, an idea, or a feeling, that notion cannot exist. It is fascinating to explore how; hopefully unconsciously, white, heterosexual, upper-class, males have strictly dictated for muted groups exactly how they can not only think, but perceive.

Examine critically the view that the idea of ‘race’ is endemic to the formation of the modern state.

The critical examination mandated by the present question requires an introductory note concerning the appropriate definition to be employed regarding the terms formation and racism.

Formation is suggested to be a less than ideal expression to describe the processes of modern state development. In this sense the term evolution is preferred as the more accurate and organic experience of modern state development.

Racism is a more complicated term due to the variance between its dictionary meanings and etymology on one side, and its popular connotations on the other. The meaning of racism is both closely associated and intermingled with its near cousins culture and ethnicity. It is important to bear in mind as this examination is advanced that racism may be considered as both a scientific term and as a catch –all descriptor for all manner of conduct and attitudes that fosters the discrimination or antipathy of one person or group against another.

This review will proceed on three distinct but related lines of examination: (1) how racism should be conceptualised (2) the legal definition of racism as it has developed in the UK, the European Union and in other jurisdiction as a pluralistic societal initiative (3) examples of how racism has contributed to the development path taken by modern nations. Sports examples are tendered as illustrations of how racism in modern culture remains a constant in the face of wide ranging legislative schemes aimed to eradicate it.

The concept of racism

Racism has been explained by way of both science and social perspectives through history. From a purely biological orientation, debate has raged as to whether there are distinct physiological differences between various peoples sufficient to permit a rational, science based differentiation between them; DNA research and the genome projects confirm this distinction exists to a slight degree in all fundamental human construction.^[1]

In modern times, where Western societies have attempted to formulate a comprehensive definition of race, an overwhelmingly white / Caucasian identity is invoked as the societal norm, with others who are not a part of the white definition cast in the position as a racial ‘other’.^[2] Goldberg and other academic commentators have employed the contrasting analytical devices of racial naturalism, where race is accepted as an outgrowth of science, and racial historianism, the concept that shapes and defines race through legal enactment.^[3]

The historian view of race implicitly involves a consideration of racism as an evolving concept. Much academic commentary has considered racism in terms of outsiders, even where the population subject to racial treatment was born within the nation. Paul Gilroy had considered a defined ‘new racism’ in the UK in the late 1980s not to be exclusively linked to skin colour or other physiological differences between humans, but a logical extension of ‘…discourses of patriotism, nationalism, xenophobia, Englishness, Britishness, militarism and gender differences’^[4] – a sweeping rationale that represents the basis for national anti-racism legislation. It is submitted that Gilroy’s observation is much keener than the ability of the law to counter the problem.

Racism is rooted in the establishment of separate and conflicting identities within a society, where a people define themselves as the norm, and those different to them are automatically presumed to possess all opposite characteristics.^[5]

The Enlightment thinking that was powered by the philosophies of Hobbes and Locke, among others, has also been the subject of significant criticism as the root cause of racism in modern state evolution. This approach centres upon the Enlightment era reverence for rationality, where the conclusion that there must be positions of natural superiority and inferiority between races was regarded as a scientific outcome. Emphasis upon enlightened and rational thought placed Europe and the supposed civility its race in contrast with all primitive places.

In contrast, other commentators have placed racism on a different historical footing. The leaders of the Enlightment did not articulate racial principles or a presumed white European superiority to a significant degree. ^[6] Malik places the historical progression of the racial definition as one of class distinctions, with racial divisions bearing a greater relation to economic status than physiology.^[7]

As nations were elevated in status throughout the nineteenth century, it is suggested that imperialism is an intrinsically racist concept; the subjugation of another people, by relatively peaceful colonialism or starker military conquest, requires a national mindset of superiority.^[8]

The encoding of race has also been a distinctly evolutionary process. ‘Black’ (or worse) was a simple blunt force description of the racial distinction between the Caribbean immigrants to the UK and Canada during the 1950s and 1960s; in modern times, the code words of immigration and naturalisation carry a subtle but equally powerful message.^[9]

Racism has evolved to both include and modify popular concepts of culture and ethnicity. Whether one accepts race as a genetic based circumstance, or as a purely social invention, it clearly exists and prospers in Western culture. In modern societies, racism has expanded dynamically as a concept to occupy the same ground as ethnicity, where each has become interchangeable with the other as a means of differentiation.

Ethnicity occupies this common ground with racism because it relies upon racial principles in its definition. In each of the five circumstances enumerated as ‘ethnicity’ generated in a society, namely: the existence of an urban visible minority; ethno national groups, such as the Kurds in Turkey; distinct groups that exist in plural societies (e.g. Asian and Caribbean peoples who live within the UK); indigenous minorities, such as North American or Scandinavian native peoples; post-slavery minorities, such as Afro-Brazilians. Each ethnic definition contains a racial thread.^[10]

For the purposes of the legal definition outlined below, ethnicity and racism are afforded similar treatment.

The legal definition of racism is at once subtle and bluntly constructed. Legislated definitions, such as those contained in the UK Race Relations Act^[11] or the European Convention of Human Rights^[12], are comprehensive in their scope. It is equally important to note that such definitions are often an ‘after the fact’ response to societal change, not a signpost for a nation’s future.

The UK legislation enacted in 1976 was built upon the legacy of the Notting Hill riots and the ‘moral panic’ associated with black street crime in urban Britain of the early 1970s.^[13] It is impossible for modern states to enact laws that map a future treatment of racism, as ethnic boundaries are in a constants state of flux. Germany’s uneasy relationship with its Muslim minority is generally cast in racial terms that incorporate the religious, cultural and linguistic differences of the migrant labour attracted to the formed West Germany in the late 1970s.^[14]

Statutes that proclaim as a purpose the eradication of racism are a constant in modern pluralistic Western nations. The Race Relations Act as interpreted by the House of Lords in Mandla^[15] determined that British Sikh people were a racial, as opposed to a religious or cultural group within the meaning of the Act; race was defined by the Law Lords as a combination of a long common history, a distinct cultural tradition, and any confluence of the factors of geography, language, literature, religion or the existence of the people within a larger community. The effect of Article 14, ECHR, combined with Protocol 12 of the Community and the UK Human Rights Act reinforces this definition.

In this sense, the law dictates race. In 1982 the enshrined constitution of Canada elevated racial and cultural diversity to a fundamental national status.^[16]The Australian constitution embraces a similar regime. These nations are highlighted here to illustrate the evolution in racial notions in these states, as both countries had previously engaged in efforts to assimilate its aboriginal peoples into a mainstream white culture.^[17] Each country was overtaken by the realisation that pluralism and multiculturalism were desirable societal goals, with pluralism used as its own code for racial / ethnic diversity. Declining birth rates throughout the Western world have created a dichotomy between the economic imperative to boost population and labour forces through immigration, and ethnic / racial attitudes.^[18]

It is suggested that simply legislating an end to such societal strife will be unsuccessful. Fitzpatrick’s Mythology of Modern Law^[19] and the theories of H.L.A. Hart^[20] share an important explanatory principle as to why racism exists among peoples. Fitzpatrick’s myth basis to modern law and Hart’s concepts of pre-legal societies that are founded upon shared cultural traditions and observances each exclude those who are different.

The relationship between racism and economic standing mentioned briefly above is also important in this context. It is contended that a wholesale economic re-ordering of the world nations would do more to achieve racial harmony than any legislation. The United States, Brazil and South Africa are prime examples of nations where modern racism and socio-economic status are indistinguishable. ^[21]

On one level, sport may seem an odd illustration of racism in the modern state. In the predominately white cultures of the UK, USA, and Canada, the black athlete is a well – established figure, particularly in the professional arenas. It is submitted that the elimination of racism in sport has proved as illusory as with any other segment of society. Owusu detailed the contradictory aspects of race in UK athletics through the contention that black athletes are rewarded if they publicly espouse the view that racism is non-existent in UK sport; those athletes who express contrary opinions as to the fact of racism are characterised as paranoid or ungrateful.^[22] UK sprinter Linford Christie and boxer Frank Bruno are presented as the opposite ends of this argument – each man is of Caribbean heritage who achieved success in athletic pursuits. Bruno never achieved the ultimate success in his sport, but maintained a steadfast image as a ‘mainstream’ athlete, while Christie was outspoken throughout his career regarding the UK athletics establishment. . It was Christie who was cast as a disruptor of the normative codes for the UK black athlete.^[23]

There is little question that racism is endemic in the progression of the development of all Western nations. The period that has followed World War II has been marked by ever-increasing contact between peoples of different national origin, cultures, traditions, and heritage. The black letter of the law is not necessarily a stimulus to changes in racial attitude, as the multi-faceted physiological, ethnic and economic creature cannot be eliminated by legislation alone.

Bibliography

BBC News ‘Polish Immigration’ (June 16, 2006) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/england/5080924.stm (Accessed April 22, 2007)

BBC News ‘Coe’s racial jibe’ (2001) http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/1171320.stm (Accessed April 22, 2007)

BBC News ‘History of UK race laws’ (December 13, 2005) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4510062.stm (Accessed April 22, 2007)

Fitzpatrick, Peter (1992), The Mythology of Modern Law (New York: Routledge)

Guardian ‘Since when did Seb Coe learn to Jive talk?’ (2001) http://sport.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,5274602-108365,00.html

Gilroy, P. (1987) There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack: The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation (London: Routledge)

Goldberg, David Theo (1993) Racist Culture (Oxford: Blackwell)

Goldberg, David Theo (2002) The Racial State (Oxford: Blackwell)

Hart, H.L.A. (1961) The Concepts of Law (Oxford: Clarendon)

Keita, L. (2002) The Problem of Race in the 21st Century The Western Journal of Black Studies 26: 1, 55

Malik, Kenan (1996) The Meaning of Race: Race, History and Culture in Western Society (New York: NYU Press)

Miller, Mark J. “Muslim Immigration to Europe” (University of Delaware) http://www.udel.edu/poscir/mjmiller/MuslimImmigrationtoEurope (Minaret)-1.htm (Accessed April 22, 2007)

Owusu, Kwesi (2000) Black British Culture and Society: A Text reader (London: Routledge)

Riese, Matt ‘The Biological Meaning of “Race”’ (Spring 2005), University of California at Santa Cruz http://www.cbse.ucsc.edu/pdf_library/MeaningOfRace_Riese101005.pdf (Accessed April 21, 2007)

Solomos, John and Martin Bulmer (2004) Researching Race and Racism (New York: Routledge) Routledge

Thomas, Cora (2001) Australian Aborigines to White Australians Australian Aboriginal Studies 1, 21

Thompson, Kenneth (1998) Moral Panics London: Routledge

Werner F. Menski (2005) Immigration and multiculturalism in Britain: New issues in research and policy http://www.art.man.ac.uk/CASAS/pdfpapers/osakalecture.pdf (Accessed April 22, 2007)

Table of Cases

Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] 2 AC 548

Table of Statutes and Conventions

European Convention on Human Rights

Race Relations Act, 1976

1

Non-White Americans to some extent are haunted by their own inferiority. For example, Asian American undergraduates express similar implicit biases, and view their own group as less American than White Americans (Devos and Banaji, 2005). Thus, for both majority and minority groups in the US, it appears that White Americans form the prototypical exemplar of ‘real America’.

In Western Europe, the term subtle racism is used to capture these more hidden forms of prejudice (Pettigrew and Meertens, 1995). In spite of this, research efforts to develop measures of old-fashioned and modem racism have evolved independently. Hence, a general framework integrating these various prejudice dimensions is not available.

Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn (1993) develop a model in which four alternative expressions of racism are arrayed on a single dimension that runs from blatant racism through subtle racism to egalitarianism. The most extreme racist position is called biological racism, which refers to a belief in White supremacy. Those who adhere to this form of racism agree that differences between racial groups are inherited from parents or possessed from birth. Symbolic racism is the second form of racism on the cumulative dimension that also refers to an eagerness to discriminate, but symbolic racists do so because they believe that minorities’ different moral values threaten their own culture. The third form of racism, namely ethnocentrism, does not imply the wish for racial segregation, but instead is characterized primarily by the differentiation between in-groups and out-groups, as well as by the demand for the submission of out-groups. Finally, aversive racism-the least severe sort of prejudice-refers to reluctance to interact with out-group members. People who do not score high on either of these facet scales are labeled egalitarians. In this sense, Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn (1993) view threat as characteristic for all forms of racism, although threat manifests itself in various ways. In the case of biological racism, out-groups are seen as a biological threat that endangers in-groups, and intergroup conflict represents a racial problem. In the case of symbolic racism and ethnocentrism, the out-group poses a cultural threat, and the conflict is experienced as a societal problem. In the case of aversive racism, contact with members of outgroups is considered threatening, and this is considered to be a social problem. Still, Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn (1993) explicitly arrange the various forms of racism according to their potential to elicit threat and dominance motivations. They assume that superiority is a component of biological and symbolic racism, as well as ethnocentrism, whereas superiority is not typical for aversive racism. In the case of biological racism, superiority translates into biological superiority; in the case of symbolic racism and ethnocentrism, superiority takes the form of assumed cultural supremacy.

3.4 Nationalism

Nationalism, plainly speaking, is a political and social attitude of a group of society that has identical culture, language, and regional background. Thus, those people in that group feel the intense loyalty toward the ingroup. In modern sense, nationalism can be traced back from the French Revolution, in which its roots have grown with the resurgence of centralized kingdoms, with the doctrine of Mercantilism economic policy, and birth of strong middle classes. Smith (1998) argues that while there is significant debate over the historical origins of nations, nearly all specialists accept that nationalism, at least as an ideology and social movements, is a modern phenomenon originating in Europe. Precisely where and when it emerged is difficult to determine, but its development is closely related to that of the modern state and the push for popular sovereignty that came to a head with the French Revolution in the late 18th century (Laqueur, 1997). Since that time, nationalism has become one of the most significant political and social forces in history, perhaps most notably as a major influence or cause of World War I and especially World War II due to the rise of fascism, a radical and authoritarian nationalist ideology.

According to Smith (1993), nationalism refers to an ideology, a sentiment, a form of culture, or a social movement that focuses on the nation. He notes that the paradigm of nationalism, which was so dominant till recently, is that of classical modernism. This is the conception that nations and nationalism are intrinsic to the nature of the modern world and to the revolution of modernity. Nowadays, nationalism is associated with desire to unify or national independence, such as the reunification of the two German states; on the other hand, it could be a destructive force in countries with multiethnic society, such as in India, Indonesia, or Israel.

It is necessary to have a clear idea about the term ‘nationalism’ and other key concepts as ‘nation’, ‘nationality’, or ‘national identity’. In this sense, Young et al. (2007) argues that the terms ‘nation’ and ‘national identity’ need to be analytically distinguished from that of the ‘state’, especially in the case of composite state-nations like Great Britain. This means that the much-vaunted ‘decline of the state’ in a post-modern epoch is not the same as a decline of nations; analytically, these are quite separate issues. At the same time, substantively, the national state is heavily involved in the question of the decline or persistence of ‘nation’ and ‘national identity’. In the same way, terms like ‘nation’ and national identity’ need to be sharply distinguished from ‘nationalism’, seen as an ideology and movement, or ideological movement. They also need to be separated from ‘national sentiments’, defined as overreacted sentiment directed at a particular nationality.

As an ideology, nationalism holds that ‘the people’ is the nation, and that as a result only nation-states founded on the principle of national self-determination are legitimate. In many cases nationalist pursuit of self-determination has caused conflict between people and states including war (both external and domestic), secession; and in extreme cases, genocide.

Miscevic (2001) explains that although the term “nationalism” has a variety of meanings; it centrally encompasses the two phenomena noted at the outset: (1) the specific attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their identity as members of that nation and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take in seeking to achieve (or sustain) some form of political sovereignty. Each of these aspects requires elaboration. First, it raises questions about the concept of nation or national identity, about what it is to belong to a nation and about how much one ought to care about one’s nation. Nations and national identity may be defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties. Second, it raises questions about whether sovereignty entails the acquisition of full statehood with complete authority for domestic and international affairs, or whether something less than statehood would suffice (Miller 1992 and Miller 2000).

Despite these definitional worries, there is a fair amount of agreement about what is historically the most typical, paradigmatic form of nationalism. It is the one which features the supremacy of the nation’s claims over individual allegiance and which features full sovereignty as the persistent aim of its political program. The state as political unit is seen by nationalists as centrally ‘belonging’ to one ethno-cultural group and as charged with protecting and promulgating its traditions. This form is exemplified by classical, “revivalist” nationalism, that was most prominent in the 19th century in Europe and Latin America. This classical nationalism later spread across the world and in present days still marks much contemporary nationalism, such as in United States, India, or Indonesia.

Nationalism and ethnicity are related, though different, concepts. The distinction between nationalism and ethnicity as analytical concepts is a simple one. Eriksen (1993) notes that a nationalist ideology is an ethnic ideology which demands a state on behalf of the ethnic group. In practice, however, the distinction can be considerably problematic in several ways (Ericksen, 1993). First, nationalism may sometimes express a polyethnic or supraethnic ideology which stresses shared civil rights rather than shared cultural roots, such as in the United States of America. Second, certain categories of people may find themselves in a grey zone between nation and ethnic category. For example, in Indonesia, the Sundanese tribe feels different from the Javanese tribe, but as an Indonesian (nation), they do not feel different. Third, in the mass media and in casual conversation the terms are not used consistently. Nevertheless, nationalism does not necessarily imply a belief in the superiority of one ethnicity over others, but some people believe that some so-called nationalists support ethnocentric protectionism or ethnocentric supremacy.

In societies where nationalism is presented as an impartial and universalistic ideology based on bureaucratic principles of justice, such as in Indonesia, ethnicity, ethnocentrism, and sometime ethnic organization may appear as threats against national cohesion, justice, and the state. A different kind of conflict between ethnicity and nationalism, which is perhaps more true to the conventional meaning of the term nationalism, can be described as a conflict between a dominating and a dominated ethnic group within the framework of a modern nation-state.

The concept of nationalism can be scrutinized from different viewpoints. Weiss (2003) explains that theories of nationalism have been developed by different disciplines. Social-psychological research centers on interaction processes between groups (competition and conflict, social identity), whereas investigators with a depth-psychology approach conceive features of the individual’s personality as a primary causality (e.g., research in the fascist or authoritarian personality). By contrast, sociological and political theories derive nationalism from societal developments-modernization, disintegration, or crises-and postulate that such social conditions as inequality or rapid change will be reflected in individuals’ interpretations of a given social situation, attitudes, orientations and nationalism.

Smith (1998) argues that nationalism as a sentiment or form of culture, sometimes described as ‘nationality’ to avoid the ideology’s tarnished reputation, is the social foundation of modern society. Industrialization, democratization, and support for economic redistribution have all been at least partly attributed to the shared social context and solidarity that nationalism provides (Gelner, 2005; Miller, 1995).

From a normative typology, Gans (2003) divides the term ‘nationalism’ into two types, namely statist nationalism and cultural nationalism. According to statist nationalism, in order for states to realize political values such as democracy, economic welfare and distributive justice, the citizenries of states must share a homogeneous national culture. In cultural nationalism, members of groups sharing a common history and societal culture have a fundamental, morally significant interest in adhering to their culture and in sustaining it across generations. In spite of these similarities, these types do not have a common origin. Within statist ationalism, the national culture is the means, and the values of the state are the aims. Within cultural nationalism, however, the national culture is the aim, and the state is the means. Moreover, within statist nationalism, any national culture, not necessarily the national culture of the states’ citizenries or a part of their citizenries, could in principle be the means for realizing the political values of the state. Within cultural nationalism, on the other hand, states are the means or the providers of the means for preserving the specific national cultures of their citizenry or parts thereof.

The term statist nationalism (Gans, 2003) expresses the normative essence of a nationalism that historians and sociologists call territorial-civic, while cultural nationalism expresses the normative essence of the type of nationalism that is called ethnocultural by historians and sociologists. In making the distinction between territorial-civic nationalism and ethnocultural nationalism, Gans (2003) emphasizes that historians and sociologists have mixed geographical, sociological, judgmental and normative parameters. Territorial-civic nationalism is Western and ethnocultural nationalism is Eastern. The former involves a strong middle class whereas the latter involves intellectuals operating in a society whose middle class is weak or which lacks a middle class. The former is progressive and is inspired by the legal and rational concept of citizenship while the latter is regressive and is inspired by the Volk’s unconscious development.

To interpret the distinction of a normative typology of nationalist ideologies (statist and cultural nationalism), Seymour et al. (2000) characterize territorial-civic nationalism as a type of nationalism within which individuals give themselves a state, and the state is what binds together the nation. It entails that the concept of nation is subjective since it emphasizes the will of individuals. And it is individualistic since the nation is nothing over and above willing individuals. Voluntarism, subjectivism and individualism thus characterize this type of nationalism. Ethnic or ethnocultural nationalism is based on a conception of the nation as the product of objective facts pertaining to social life. These facts are that members of the nation share a common language, culture and tradition. In this type of nationalism, the nation exists prior to the state. It is also a collective that transcends and is prior to the individuals of which it consists. Objectivism, collectivism and a lack of individual choice characterize this form of nationalism.

Again, Gans (2003) points out that cultural nationalism, according to which members of national groups have a morally significant interest in adhering to their culture and preserving it for generations, is not concerned with how a national culture can contribute to the realization of the state’s values but rather with the support which states should extend to national cultures. Statist nationalism, according to which citizenries of states must share a homogeneous national culture in order for their states to realize political values, is not concerned with the support which states should extend to national cultures. Rather, it is concerned with the support which national cultures should extend to states.

It is important to emphasize that calling the one type of nationalism ‘cultural’, and the other ‘statist’, does not mean that cultural nationalism is a-political, and that statist nationalism is a-cultural. Cultural nationalism is political, for it seeks political protection for national cultures. Statist nationalism, with regard to civic nationalism, is cultural for it requires that citizenries of states share not merely a set of political principles, but also a common language, tradition and a sense of common history. In other words, the difference between statist and cultural nationalism is not due to the fact that the former is purely political and the latter is purely cultural but rather because of their different normative and practical concerns.

Nationalism may manifest itself as part of an official state ideology or as a popular (non-state) movement and may be expressed along civic, ethnic, cultural, religious or ideological lines. These self-definitions of the nation are used to classify types of nationalism. However, such categories are not mutually exclusive and many nationalist movements combine some or all of these elements to varying degrees. Nationalist movements can also be classified by other criteria, such as the magnitude and location.

Civic or cultural nationalism is focused on cultural rather than hereditary connections between people. Civic nationalism promotes common cultural values and allows people of different origins to assimilate into the nation. Ethnic nationalism is based on the hereditary connections of people. Ethnic nationalism specifically seeks to unite all people of a certain ethnicity heritage together. Ethnic nationalism does not seek to include people of other ethnicities. Irredentism is a form of nationalism promoting the annexation of territories, which have or previously had members of the nation residing within them, to a state which composes most or all of the nation’s members. Expansionist nationalism promotes spreading the nation’s members to new territories, usually on the claimed basis that existing territory which the nation has resided in is too small or is not able to physically or economically sustain the nation’s population. Many nationalist movements in the world are dedicated to national liberation, in the view that their nations are being persecuted by other nations and thus need to exercise self-determination by liberating themselves from the accused persecutors. Finally, fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology which promotes national revolution, national collectivism, a totalitarian state, and irredentism or expansionism to unify and allow the growth of a nation. Fascists often promote ethnic nationalism but also have promoted cultural nationalism including cultural assimilation of people outside a specific ethnic group.

There are several critiques on nationalism (Smith, 1998). Some political theorists (Zakzaky, 1992) make the case that any distinction between forms of nationalism is false. In all forms of nationalism, the populations believe that they share some kind of common culture. A main reason why such typology can be considered false is that it attempts to bend the fairly simple concept of nationalism to explain its many manifestations or interpretations. Nationalism includes civic nationalism, ethnic nationalism, irredentism, expansionist nationalism, and radical or revolutionary nationalism, which consists of liberation

Nationalism is sometimes seen as an extremely assertive ideology, making far-reaching, if sometimes justified, demands, including the disappearance of entire states. This has attracted vehement opposition. Much of the early opposition to nationalism was related to its geopolitical ideal of a separate state for every nation. The classic nationalist movements of the 19th century rejected the very existence of the multi-ethnic empires in Europe. This resulted in severe repression by the (generally autocratic) governments of those empires. That tradition of secessionism, repression, and violence continues in Europe and elsewhere today. Even in the early stages, however, there was an ideological critique of nationalism. That has developed into several forms of anti-nationalism in the western world. The Islamic revival of the 20th century also produced an Islamic critique of the nation-state, that Islamic nations in the world must be led by one Muslim ruler, such as Pope in Rome.

Nationalism remains a hotly contested subject on which there is little general consensus. The clearest example of opposition to nationalism is cosmopolitanism, with adherents as diverse as liberals, Marxists, and anarchists. Even nationalism’s defenders often disagree on its virtues, and it is common for nationalists of one persuasion to disparage the aspirations of others for both principle and strategic reasons. Indeed, the only fact about nationalism that is not in dispute may be that few other social phenomena have had a more enduring impact on the modern world.

3.5 Authoritarianism

According to Gelfand et al. (1996) ‘authoritarianism, as a political philosophy is the negation of democracy’ and is associated with three attributes:

(a) the political system is not based on the consent of the governed but on the rulers,

(b) there is a monopoly of power, and

(c) discussion and voting are replaced with the decisions of leaders.

This philosophy denies freedoms of the individual and requires individuals to submit to the wills of authorities, such as the King. It is widely believed that obedience to authority is essential to control excessive individualism, and avoid lawlessness and anarchy.

In a simpler way, ‘authoritarianism’ can be regarded as a dictatorial movement that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism. The supporters of authoritarianism may be against the democratic system, accusing that the democratic system is lame and inefficient. Altemeyer (2006) notes that authoritarianism is something authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders cook up between themselves. When the followers submit too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want, an undemocratic, tyrannical and brutal system may arise. It is not surprising if nowadays authoritarian fascist and authoritarian communist dictatorships pose the biggest threats to democracies.

Theorists, as asserted by Kemmelmeier et al., (1999), generally agree that authoritarianism is incongruous with the pursuit of individual rights and liberties. The authoritarian type of man may threaten to replace the individualistic and democratic type. Hence, it may not be surprising that Gelfand et al. (1996) propose that authoritarianism is the conceptual opposite of individualism.

Authoritarianism has been found to be correlated with conservatism, militarism, nationalism, and religiosity (Adorno et al., 1950), leading to what was labeled the “Authoritarian Personality”. This “Authoritarian Personality” was criticized as the right-wing authoritarian, without regarding the left-wing version.

Many conservative movements and groups have flourished in continental Europe. Some of the Continental conservative movements ultimately gave their support to authoritarian and totalitarian movements-for example, fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany-in the years between 1920 and the end of World War II.

Eckhardt (1991) emphasizes that authoritarianism and conservatism are closely related to each other. They share many affective, behavioral, cognitive, ideological, and moral characteristics. Moreover, they project the denied or disliked aspects of the self upon others (especially inferiors), which justifies the actualization of denied values (such as aggression and dominance) in order to contain or control these values as perceived in others. This psychological pattern makes authoritarianism, like conservatism, a self-destructive and antisocial guide to human relations. Another outstanding feature common to both authoritarianism and conservatism is a pattern of punitive and restrictive childhood training which tends to contribute to both of these personality patterns, especially (and perhaps only) if reinforced by similar disciplines at church, school, factory, and office.

Eckhardt (1991) proposes an interesting construction between authoritarian and democratic social structure. If human beings are basically evil, according to the conservative philosophy of human nature, then it follows logically that we need to be controlled by an authoritarian social structure. But, if we are basically good, according to the radical philosophy of human nature, then it follows logically that it would be better for us to treat one another as free and equal human beings, that is, in a democratic social structure. If neither conservative nor radical philosophies are correct, but rather some combination of the two applies [as suggested by Eysenck and Wilson (1978)], then a basic task of political psychology would be to find that combination and then to find ways of promoting and actualizing it.

Presently, the most comprehensive and widely accepted theory of authoritarianism is that proposed by Altemeyer (1988, 1996, 2006). Altemeyer defines authoritarianism as a value syndrome that comprises three distinct elements:

(a)conventionalism,

(b)submission to authority, and

(c)aggression.

Authoritarians (a) adhere to conventional morality and value compliance with social norms, (b) emphasize hierarchy and deference to authority figures, and (c) possess a “law and order” mentality that legitimizes anger and aggression against those who deviate from social norms and conventions.

Altemeyer (2006) also notes that authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled, customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these followers have personalities featuring: (1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society; (2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and (3) a high level of conventionalism.

Since the publication of “The Authoritarian Personality,” there have been several attempts to reformulate the theory of authoritarianism (e.g., Altemeyer, 1996; Rokeach, 1960; Duckitt, 1989; Feldman, 2000, 2003, Oesterreich, 2005). However, according to Stellmacher and Petzel (2005), at least three important problems have not yet been solved:

The problem of reductionism. Authoritarianism research started with the aim of explaining collective social behaviors. Theories explaining such social phenomena have to be located on an intra- and intergroup level of explanation (Duckitt, 1989). However, most current theories of authoritarianism focus on the individual level of explanation only.

The social context. Authoritarianism research gains greater explanatory power if the social context is taken into account (Pettigrew, 1999). Several studies over the last decades have shown that authoritarianism and the relationship between authoritarian attitudes and authoritarian behavior is much more flexible and influenced by the social context than was originally proposed by the theory of the Authoritarian Personality (cf. Altemeyer, 1988; Feldman, 2003; Doty, Peterson, & Winter, 1991; Rickert, 1998). Until now this fact has not yet been integrated into most authoritarianism theories.

The political bias of the measurement. Authoritarianism measurement has often been criticized because of its confusion with conservatism. Most current authoritarianism scales focus solely on right-wing political orientations. The question about the existence or nonexistence of left-wing authoritarianism is still unanswered (Stone & Smith, 1993).