Ethnocentrism, Stereotypes, and Immigration in the United States
description
Transcript of Ethnocentrism, Stereotypes, and Immigration in the United States
Running head: IMMIGRATION IN U.S. 1/ 25
Ethnocentrism and Stereotyping as it Concerns
Immigration in the United States
Paul Hopper
University of South Alabama
Immigration in U.S. 2/ 25
To understand ethnocentrism in the United States, one must first understand
the subject in every aspect of the classic journalistic style: who, what, when, where,
why and how. William Sumner said it best when he described ethnocentrism as “the
technical name for this view of things in which ones own group is the center of
everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it” (Sumner, 1906).
Now, ethnocentric thinking is born – in the most basic form – from the belief in a
useful quality in every person’s culture. This useful quality – or virtue as this paper
will refer to it – can be one or many and about any area of society. When one
identifies with this virtue because they have been taught to do so, they naturally
reason at the most basic level of intercultural comprehension, if their way to think
about a virtue is good, then any other way is bad. This is only a very simplistic
example; however, it does demonstrate how ethnocentric opinions form in everyone
– the difference being a person’s low or high-ethnocentric thought. This belief not
only affects intercultural communications but also affects intra-cultural
communications as well when it concerns micro-cultures within a larger society. The
frame-of-reference that we use to view other societies outside of and within our own
is colored by our degree of ethnocentrism.
This paper has explained who, what, when, and where concerning
ethnocentrism. Next the why behind ethnocentrism’s importance and when that
importance means the most will be discussed. Ethnocentrism provides a
fundamental and perhaps necessary service to societies. According to James
Neuliep, “ethnocentrism fosters ingroup survival, solidarity, conformity,
cooperation, loyalty, and effectiveness” (Neuliep, 2009). But how do people
experience ethnocentrism every day? A common example of intra-cultural
ethnocentrism comes from the ‘typical’ high school experience in the United States.
Immigration in U.S. 3/ 25
Imagine one clique of students – the “nerds” – sees another clique – the
cheerleaders – being loud in the library while they’re trying to study. Later that
same day, the cheerleaders are practicing in the gym and the nerds are sitting
around waiting for the bell so they can leave, but this time they’re the ones being
loud. Now think of how the nerds perceived the cheerleaders when they were in the
library. Their attitude towards being loud in that location was that the cheerleaders
were being rude. On the reverse side, the cheerleaders never thought their
behavior was rude in the library; however, when they were trying to practice in the
gym they did think that the nerds were being rude. The assumption that people
should be quiet in the library or the gym is based upon each group’s views about
those places providing them with a chance to work and for that they need quiet. But
to the opposite group in either situation, the assumption that there should be
silence does not apply and is in fact seen as rude; this is ethnocentric thinking.
Sense Europeans first began colonizing North America, in what would become
the United States, until the year 2000, almost 50 million people immigrated into the
U.S. (TSL-EIF, 2008). Between 2003 and 2008, more than six million more
immigrants permanently, legally, settled into this country (DHS, 2009). Now the
total population of the United States as of October 27th, 2009 was only 307,793,118
people, meaning the total number of immigrants is roughly equal to 1/6 the total
population today; so that fraction does not include the posterity of the families who
have lived here for over 200 years (USCB, 2009).
This paper will begin by discussing immigration in the U.S. by what factors
have affected it, its ‘waves’, and current policy. Next stereotypes will be explored,
discussing U.S. citizen’s views on stereotyping as a concept and some important
points of theory to know to understand stereotype formation. Following stereotypes,
Immigration in U.S. 4/ 25
ethnocentric critiques will be discussed as well as the threat ethnocentrism poses.
Racism’s association with ethnocentrism – or lack-there-of – will follow and be
discussed including studies to illustrate the point of the section. Finally, the
questions of how to change ethnocentric views, should stereotypes be changed, and
if ethnocentrism is a negative idea will be discussed. Regardless of one’s stance on
the issue of immigration and the attitudes of U.S. citizens towards these
newcomers, it is undeniable they have made their impact on the States. It was
Thomas Paine who first said, “This new World hath been the asylum for the
persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe,” little did
Paine know the same could be said for every corner of the world before the United
State’s 200 year anniversary (1776).
Immigration
Factors Affecting Immigration
Many factors have affected immigration into the United States. Chief among
them are the wars fought inside and out of the country as well as the laws enacted
on the subject. The first United States census was taken in 1790 (USCB, 2009).
Before then, more than 875,000 people from all parts of Europe, Central America,
and Africa had moved to the States. In Florida the Spanish had been established
sense the late 1500’s and by the early 1600’s the English had settled New England
and Virginia. The Dutch had done the same in New York and New Jersey, and the
Swedish in Delaware. That first census counted 3.9 million people in the country –
not including Native Americans that lived in the colonies. The largest of the
nationalities were the English, followed by people of African descent1 (around 20%)
and behind them the Germans, Scotts, and Irish making the only other sizable
national demographics.
Immigration in U.S. 5/ 25
Laws affecting immigration.
In the same year as the first census, the United States Congress passed its
first piece of legislation concerning naturalization of foreign peoples in the new
country.2 To this point, Congress only stated “…any alien, being a free white person,
may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States” (TSL-EIF, 2008).
However this could be done only after a period of two years residency. Until 1802,
Congress passed laws every few years making it increasingly more difficult and
complicated for aliens to become naturalized. In 1802, however, a new
naturalization act made it significantly easier to become a citizen, decreasing the
residency period from 14 years to only five (USCIS, 2006).
It is important to note that in 1865 after the end of the American Civil War,
Congress and the states passed the 13th Amendment making slavery illegal. Since
1808 slaves were prevented from being brought into the U.S.; however those
already in slavery and their posterity were doomed to stay there until the 13th’s
passage, though it was not only Africans and Caribbean islanders who were brought
in as forced labor. For a nearly 50 year span at the beginning of the colonization of
the English colonies, poor Europeans would barter four to seven years of their life to
unpaid labor in the colonies in exchange for a one-way trip there and land after
completion of their time. Also (and this will be discussed more later on), Asian
immigrants were forcibly brought over to work in California even after the passage
of the 13th Amendment and the freedom of the slaves (TSL-EIF, 2008).
Over the following decades many acts on immigration, naturalization, and the
treatment of trans-Atlantic passengers were enacted. In 1875, Congress passed
their first act prohibiting undesirable immigrants from entering the country as well
as the forced immigration of Asian immigrants as a new form of slave labor. In
Immigration in U.S. 6/ 25
1882, the “Chinese Exclusion Act” marked the first piece of racially motivated
legislation in the U.S. It primarily ordered the suspension of Chinese workers
immigrating into the country, barred any Chinese already in the States from
becoming naturalized, and only allowed Chinese intellectuals who were “proceeding
to the United States… from curiosity” to enter the country on a temporary basis.3 In
1885, the first of a series of Contract Labor Laws was passed, making it illegal to
import foreigners into the country by contract for performing a certain number of
years service – with a few exceptions (USCIS, 2006).
Decades came and went with immigration legislation being passed, mostly
making it more difficult and expensive to do so. Key legislation included: 1891’s
legislation formally organizing immigration procedures for the Federal government;
1910’s “Mann Act” (ironically named) provided for the illegalization of interstate
trafficking of women for “immoral purposes;” the “Immigration Act of 1917” that
further limited those immigrants who would be allowed into the country based on
literacy, mental health, and ethnicity (USCIS, 2006).
Nineteen hundred and twenty one saw the first Quota legislation passed on
immigration. This and the acts that followed were attempts by the Federal
government to limit immigration from certain areas of the world. The total number
of allowable immigrants would be a certain percentage of that nationality already
present in the country based on earlier census data – effectively making sure that
minorities stayed minorities. Congress continued cutting the percentage of
allowable immigrants down further and further with each new quota law (USCIS,
2006). It wasn’t until 1965 that Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Hart-Cellar Act,
throwing out the quota system and adopting the current immigration system we
have today (TSL-EIF, 2008).
Immigration in U.S. 7/ 25
Wars affecting immigration.
War always affects immigration in two ways: first, it changes the ethnocentric
perceptions of the citizens in each country; and second, it almost always results in a
changing of immigration and naturalization law. For the sake of time and length,
only two examples will be shared in this paper; however, this is not to undermine
the importance of conflict – even if the country being studied is not involved – on
immigration stereotypes and ethnocentrism.
From 1938 until 1945, Ellis Island in New York was used to detain around
7,000 legal aliens from Japan, Italy, and Germany as well as naturally born Japanese
citizens (TSL-EIF, 2008). Not being limited to the east coast, the majority of the
forced resettlements of Japanese Americans as well as legal aliens from Axis nations
occurred on the west coast. Nearly 120,000 Japanese were relocated into
internment camps during World War II, many of whom were American citizens.4
Though the pretext for this move was security, 17,000 children under ten-years-old
were relocated including orphans and adopted children with European-American
parents. Also, 1,000 handicapped or infirm were taken from hospitals as well as
2,000 men and women over the age of 65 (Burton, Farrell, Lord, & Lord).
Following World War II, the “Internal Security Act of 1950” excluded aliens
who had been communists or fascists in their countries from entering the U.S. The
Cold War had a drastic impact on immigration to the States; however, the many
waves of refugees will be covered later on.
Waves – Mass-migrations
It is, for the most part, common knowledge there have been mass-migrations
of people from all over the world into the U.S. over its lifetime. These waves go from
the Pilgrims, to 5,000 English prisoners creating what’s now Georgia, on to the
Immigration in U.S. 8/ 25
waves of Irish immigrants during the potato famine years, and so on and so forth.
Some other migrations that are not so well known include the massive influx of
Norwegian immigrants in the late 19th century. In the decade of the 1880’s, a total
of 9% of Norway’s total population immigrated to the States (TSL-EIF, 2008).
Other migrations were stopped in their tracks by harsh immigration law, such
as the influx of Asian and Western Europeans attempting to take refuge in the U.S.
just before the outbreak of WWII in the late 1930’s. These people were sent back
across the Atlantic and Pacific by the thousands because of strong isolationist
feelings.
Mass Naturalization.
Of particular interest when studying the views of U.S. citizens and its
government are the in-mass naturalizations that occurred during the country’s
history. There are many examples of this in our nation’s history, but only a few
recent cases will be discussed. Earlier, we reviewed the affects of war on
immigrants. After 1945 when the Japanese, Italians, and Germans began being
released from internment camps in the west – as well as a few on the east coast
such as Ellis Island – it became a great concern over what to do with them. United
States citizens were allowed to return to their lives, though without reimbursement
for the losses of their property and jobs. Interestingly enough, during the war, the
U.S. had acquired some 3,000 Japanese from Peru and following the war, Peru
would not take them back – mostly because the motivation for ridding themselves
of the minority in the first place was not for security but rather anti-Asian
sentiments in their country. So, the U.S. government had to decide what to do with
them. Some of the people were sent back to Japan, but the large majority were
Immigration in U.S. 9/ 25
given citizenship in the U.S., making it one of the first recent examples of this
practice, though certainly not the largest or last (Burton et al).
With the Cold War beginning, Europe began taking sides. In a 1947 State of
the Union address to Congress, President Harry Truman had this to say about
refugees fleeing Europe, “I urge the Congress to turn its attention to this world
problem in an effort to find ways whereby we can fulfill our responsibility to these
thousands of homeless and suffering refugees of all faiths.” At the time, only around
5,000 immigrants fleeing Europe had been admitted, much less than the number
being turned away (Woolley & Peters). Surprisingly, this statement seems to
illustrate the stance of the government during the Cold War years; however, it does
not entirely represent the view of the people. The following year Congress passed
the “Displaced Person’s Act,” and later the “Refugee Relief Act” which gave a few
hundred thousand immigrants refuge in the States while still turning away hundreds
of thousands more (USCIS, 2006). Three years later in 1956 and ’57, 38,000
Hungarians who had failed to overthrow the Soviet Union in their country were
granted refugee status in the States, constituting the first true mass nationalization
of one nationality in the Cold War (TSL-EIF, 2008).
Under international pressure from the United Nations and Western European
allies as well as the executive branch, Congress passed the 1965 “Immigration and
Nationality Act Amendments.” No one at the time considered the legislation to be as
groundbreaking as it would soon become, but the sheer number of immigrants
between 1966 and 2000 proves its effectiveness. Almost 23 million people came
into the States as a result of that law (Daniels, 2007). How this law relates to mass
nationalization of immigrants is how the law affected refugees. Of those 23 million
people, only a little over 10 million immigrated into the U.S. via normal means – not
Immigration in U.S. 10/ 25
using any factors other than their wanting to enter the country (TSL-EIF, 2008). The
rest of those people were considered refugees from all parts of the world.
The final group to be mentioned were brought in under another Immigration
Reform Act passed in 1986. The legislation granted amnesty to 3,000,000 illegal
aliens – most of whom were from the south, Mexico and other Central American
countries – who had been in the country continuously sense 1982. The other side of
the bill contained new controls to discourage illegal immigration as well as making it
a crime to hire or seek to hire illegal immigrants.
Immigration Now
Current Policy.
Today, the basic criteria to become a naturalized citizen for the United States
are:
Five years of residency starting when you are granted legal permanent alien
status.
Three months in the district or state where you will be when you apply for
citizenship.
Good moral character.
Knowledge of civics (history & government).
Understanding of the English language (reading, writing, and basic speech).
An attachment to the United States Constitution (oath).
This information came from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
website (USCIS, 2009).
Current attitudes.
In a 2008 Gallup poll, 57% of U.S. citizens over the age of 18 believed the
level of immigrants coming into the country was either fine the way it was or should
Immigration in U.S. 11/ 25
be increased. Thirty nine percent said that the level should be decreased while
three percent were unsure. Less than a month after the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks, the same poll was taken with only 38% of the population saying
the level was fine where it was or wanted it increased and 58% of the people
agreeing that the level needed to be decreased. However, after that year (as the
same poll has been taken each year since), the population returned to roughly the
same view as it has now. In the same Gallup poll in 2008, 64% of U.S. citizens agree
that immigration was a good thing for the country today (Gallup, 2008).
According to a September 2009 USA Today/ Gallup Poll, 84% of citizens
believe that the country is in a recession, and just over fifty percent of the country
believes the economy is getting better to some degree (either a lot or a little)
(Gallup, 2009). This information is relevant because, according to scholars on
immigration, a trend exists between immigration disapproval and times of economic
instability or recession (Fetzer, 2000).
Stereotypes
Out-group Homogeneity Effect
To understand stereotype formation, one of the key theories to identify is the
out-group homogeneity effect theory. This theory has been proven many times over
in scholarly experiments all over the country and in different cultures. However, the
reason behind this effect is still being debated. In essence, the Effect is the
tendency of individuals to see out-groups (those groups they are not a part of) as
more homogeneous, or less variable, than in-groups (those in which they are a
part). In layman’s terms, people see other groups (cultures/ micro-cultures) as more
similar – and thus more stereotypical – than their own, which they see as variable
and not stereotypical (Judd & Park, 1987).
Immigration in U.S. 12/ 25
United States’ View of Stereotyping
In the U.S., stereotypes always carry a negative connotation, whether or not
they identify a positive or negative trait in a group of people. Psychologists Donald
Taylor and Lana Porter have researched why this is so in the States while it is not
generally true in other parts of the world. First, the history of stereotypes here is
filled with negative and destructive connotations from European Americans towards
African Americans. This automatically taints any usage of stereotypes today in any
context. Secondly, they believe the idea of the United States being a “melting pot”
of the world’s cultures is directly contrary to the acceptable formation of
stereotypes. For by definition, stereotypes call out differences in groups while the
“melting pot” idea emphasizes hegemony and the lack of differences. Lastly, Taylor
and Porter recognize the well documented truth that people (or groups) are more
attracted and willing to like someone (or another group) if they are alike. This
means the more differences groups have, the more likely it will be that negative
stereotypes will develop (Neuliep, 2009).
The fact has been known for some time that stereotypes are one of the first
ideas assimilated by children, even before they’re old enough to fully understand or
question them (Neuliep, 2009). In fact, a study performed by Ashton Trice and
Kimberly Rush on 4-year-old children in varying schools around the U.S. found these
children had already developed gender stereotypes about what jobs belonged to
men and what jobs belonged to women (Trice & Rush, 1995).
One-shot Illusory Correlation
In 1976, two researchers, Hamilton and Gifford, published an article titled,
Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic
judgments. Essentially, this article identified and began to explain the cognitive
Immigration in U.S. 13/ 25
perception process an individual watching rare or unusual behavior performed by
minority or out-group members goes through. This pairing of rare-behaviors (most
commonly given negative connotations) and rare-groups is identified as a rare-rare
combination. The theory created by Hamilton and Gifford, called the Illusory
Correlation Theory, is contested still with researchers debating the meaning of the
experiment results.
However, despite doubts as to the legitimacy of Hamilton and Gifford’s
theory, three researchers – Risen, Gilovich, and Dunning – published four studies in
2007 introducing and confirming the emergence of what they termed a One-shot
Illusory Correlation. The census of the four studies showed this:
Rare-group/ Rare-behavior combinations require more processing time for
subjects (Study 1)
Rare/Rare combinations require more processing time because subjects
admittedly considered the rare-group member’s association with that group
as a cause of their rare-behavior while not doing the same for any other
behavior/ group combination (Study 2)
Subjects wondered more about rare-behavior in general, regardless of if it
was committed by a rare or common group (Study 2)
Successful cognitive recall of information – as well as the increased
processing time and behavior attribution – was proven attributed to rare/rare
pairings and not negative-behavior/rare-group combinations (Study 3)
Terms out-group and rare-group were found to not be synonymous when
creating one-shot illusions. Rare-groups specifically brought a greater
response than out-groups only (Study 4) (Risen, Gilovish, & Dunning).
Immigration in U.S. 14/ 25
Though how does the One-shot Illusionary Correlation work in a real world
scenario? An example would be a man in the Midwest of the United States standing
in line at the grocery store. This day he sees a woman from the Middle East wearing
a chador – the traditional covering for a Muslim woman particularly in Iran. He’s
never seen a woman from that part of the world before or one wearing a cador, but
he knows it is something worn by Muslim women. While at the store waiting in line
he notices that the woman never looks the man who’s bagging her groceries in the
eyes and continues to stare at the floor while he’s helping her with her purchases.
After leaving the store the man begins to wonder if the woman wouldn’t look at him
because she was from the Middle East and a Muslim. The man’s cognitive thoughts
about why she would not look the worker in the eyes is a simple example of the
One-shot Illusory Correlation. He took extra time to register the event and
attempted to identify her background as its source.5
Group Related Stereotype Formation
Perceived group variability.
When discussing stereotypes anywhere in the world, two other theoretical
trends are helpful in understanding their formation and supposed validity. The first
one of these is the premise of perceived group variability. Perceived group
variability is usually seen as a gateway to understanding other factors of
in-group/out-group effects, though, Bernadette Park and Charles Judd assert P.G.V.
is a field of study unto itself. Their research in how variability is measured and
factors contributing to its formation helps to improve all aspects of group effects.
Simply put, a perceiver (one forming the judgment) witnesses behavior by an
exemplar (member of the in/out-group being perceived) and encodes that behavior
to be recalled later. Controversy surrounds the factors associated with the recall
Immigration in U.S. 15/ 25
and implementation of variability assessments though. One camp, led by Lineville
et al, would assume that exemplars are the only encoded memory of groups.
Therefore, when one is recalling a stereotypical judgment about a group, they do
not recall group level information but only exemplars and thus each time come up
with a new construct of the group variability and stereotypes. On the other hand,
Park and Rothbart have come up with a more mixed approach, wherein the
perceiver encodes exemplar information but also their judgments of the group at
that time. So when information about the group is recalled, the perceiver brings up
first group level generalizations of variability and stereotypes and secondly
information on specific exemplars. These two leading theories represent how P.G.V.
forms and is recalled. Understanding this is fundamental to further group variability
research (Judd & Park, 1990).
Out-group homogeneity effect.
The second trend that is helpful in understanding stereotype formation in any
culture is the out-group homogeneity effect. In its essence, it is the tendency of
people (members of their own in-groups) to perceive others who are not members
of their group (out-group members) as less variable and more homogeneous than
their in-group. This OH effect – as it’s called – has been documented across many
types of groups in multiple studies. Now why is it important? If one believes in this
effect, then it helps to explain the confidence level of peoples’ stereotypes as well
as their extent. The level of prejudice in study subjects has also been found to
correlate to these factors (Rubin & Badea, 2007).
Gender based stereotypes.
It should be noted and referenced that stereotype formation is a much
broader spectrum than different cultures, races, religions, or socio-economic status.
Immigration in U.S. 16/ 25
Studies have shown over and over that gender stereotypes are among some of the
most prominent in our society. A study by Ashton Trice and Kimberly Rush
demonstrated the sex-related stereotype of 4-year-olds in preschools when asked
about professions. The results of the study demonstrated a stereotypical trend in
which professions the children deemed appropriate for males and females (1995).
Beyond profession related stereotyping, another study by Amanda Durik et al
compared gender stereotypes among different ethnic groups. Studying European,
African, Hispanic, and Asian Americans, the study found that “across ethnic groups,
women are consistently stereotyped to express more fear, guilt, love, sadness,
shame, surprise, and sympathy” than men in those same ethnic groups (2006).
Both of these studies were performed in the United States but demonstrate the
ability of stereotypes to form cross cultural similarities.
Ethnocentrism
Critiques of Study
Crisis of modernity.
This paper has already discussed ethnocentrism in detail above, what it is
and why it is important. Before one may begin to analyze how ethnocentrism
presents itself in the society of the United States, one should be aware of its
criticisms. Normally, the Crisis of Modernity would not be an issue when discussing
ethnocentrism in one’s own culture. However, in the case of the U.S. and a handful
of other nations, the CoM is an issue which must be explored. In short, the CoM is
the new doubt that what is considered the modern view of human history and
cultural evolution is the true picture of how things occurred. This issue threatens the
frame or context in which most if not all social science studies are conducted.
Universalistic convictions.
Immigration in U.S. 17/ 25
Next, a branch of the CoM is the belief in a Universalistic Conviction.
Essentially this is the risk of assuming all world cultures have as their final “goal” –
one could say – a Western society with its behaviors and beliefs at their core. This is
obviously a fallacy in any argument; though many researchers find these fallacies in
others analyses of non-Western culture. Cultural Pluralism is what threatens the
universalistic approach to thinking (Cabrera, 2008).6
The Ethnocentric Threat
“Racism and ethnocentrism are not synonymous, they are related” says
Neuliep. The relationship he refers to is also the threat ethnocentrism can form in a
culture. Ethnocentrism is almost a requirement for racism; however, racism is not a
requirement of ethnocentrism. The traits and motivations of racism will be
discussed later. Ethnocentrism on the other hand is a natural process of human
nature. In fact, many researchers believe we as humans are born into
ethnocentrism through our ethnicity and cultural upbringing. It has been described
as a “survival instinct” relative to all “people in all cultures” (2009). However, when
ethnocentrism is taken to extremes, it can become a learned cognitive process with
alternative motivations and bases for its ideology.
Racism
Racism, unlike ethnocentrism, is a process rooted in biology. It is the
hierarchical belief that all other racial groups are inferior to the one and this cannot
be changed through education or culture. Racism is unchanging and takes no other
factors into consideration when deciding racial dominance.
The differences between racism and ethnocentrism are relatively easy to
identify. The differences between racism and stereotyping may sometimes be
blurred. Stereotypes are thought to be altered whenever new stimulus is brought to
Immigration in U.S. 18/ 25
the perceiver’s attention. Although with racism, again, no factors beside the genetic
component play any role. So one might ask why racism would ever be taught to a
culture. The main argument for the propagation of racism is a society’s ignorance of
another, fear of their cultures, and hatred towards their actions (Neuliep, 2009).
Merits of Ethnocentrism and Stereotypes
Stereotype Functionality
This paper has covered the pros and cons of stereotypes. It has discussed
how they are formed and why. Though it has not, until now, speculated as to if they
should or should not be changed. Stereotypes by their nature are moldable. They
are created from impressions given to us by exemplars or by third parties such as
the news media and we then use the information to develop a group association.
In short, yes, some stereotypes should be changed. Though, only some
should be changed because – unlike the belief in the United States – not all
stereotypes are considered bad everywhere in the world. Stereotypes can serve a
purpose in helping micro-cultural groups retain important values of their groups.
Stereotypes may also serve as a warning, a defense mechanism for some societies
where law and order are not so readily enforced.
Stereotypes should however be changed when they begin to solidify and
border on racism. Society, not just in the United States but elsewhere, must be
careful to caution micro-cultural groups as well as the dominant culture from
believing too firmly in stereotypes. There must be a line in the sand – so to speak –
where a society can tolerate the individual stereotypes of its people but step in
before those stereotypes become dangerous racially based beliefs.
Ethnocentrism Functionality
Immigration in U.S. 19/ 25
For much the same reason stereotypes can be useful to society, ethnocentric
thinking can also be useful. Things like ideas, train of thoughts, and cultural
evolution as a whole are culturally specific. One of those things created in the
United States will not work the same if it is put into practice in the Middle East, Asia,
or a number of other societies. However, a train of thought which has been working
well in the United States might – and most likely will – continue to do so and is
therefore perfectly acceptable.
So where one must remain cautious is how they treat other civilizations. One
cannot apply their own ethnocentric notions of conditions and measures of culture
to other areas of the world and expect them to be accurate measurements. These
types of areas of research must be rethought from outside of the mold in order to
find ways to accurately understand and categorize different cultures. These new
ways cannot be biased or subject to Universalistic Convictions from Western
Civilization or any other.
Changing Ethnocentric Viewpoints
When a society, such as the United States’, hopes to develop a “melting pot”
culture where many religions, traditions, and a variety of other ways of life are
brought together and treated equally, cultural education becomes paramount to
change ethnocentric viewpoints. Especially in the beginning, with the first
generation to attempt this, cultural literacy must be stressed in curriculum with the
goal being to override the ethnocentric viewpoints each child is taught from birth.
This is certainly easier said than done. Kenneth Carano, a doctoral candidate
at the University of South Florida, is a Peace Corps veteran who has spent much of
his career teaching school children about other cultures. A 2006 National
Geographic and Roper survey cited in Carano and Michael Berson’s paper
Immigration in U.S. 20/ 25
announces, “90% of young Americans were unable to locate Afghanistan on a map”
and only 63% could find Iraq. This geographic literacy deficiency is not only limited
to physical geography. Studies have proven that young citizens of the United States
are more apt to the Out-group Homogeneity effect than people of similar ages in
other areas of the world.
Carano and Berson give our best chance to increase children’s cultural
literacy to technology. They first propose using the Internet in Social Studies
classrooms to connect children from different backgrounds so they may share their
opinions and beliefs. The other important use of the Internet, according to Carano
and Berson, is to allow children to find news sources of their own to expand their
knowledge of the world (2007).
Even the use of the Internet in these ways is not enough. Educators must
incorporate global perspectives into Social Studies curriculum. There are eight
Dimensions of Global Perspective listed by Carano and Berson but created by other
researchers. According to these two men, inclusion of technology into the classroom
and the Either Dimensions of Global Perspectives into the curriculum would be
enough to begin altering the naive cultural perceptions of youth in the United
States.
Conclusion
This paper has given an overview of most of the topics one would need to
understand in order to accurately begin to measure and discuss ethnocentrism and
stereotypes in the United States. The point of the theory explained and history
given is to educate the reader in how stereotypes and ethnocentric thinking effect
their everyday lives. Ironically, it is the desire of the author to promote the reader of
this paper to change not their actions towards others or even their thoughts
Immigration in U.S. 21/ 25
(stereotypes) but instead to rethink the perceptions they have made about others in
out-group settings, whether those out-groups be micro-cultures here in the United
States or other cultures which interact with the United States. It was the 1864
Republican Party platform that might have summed up the author’s view on
immigration the best when they said, “Foreign immigration which in the past has
added so much to the wealth, resources, and increase of power to the nation…
should be fostered and encouraged” (TSL-EIF, 2008).
Immigration in U.S. 22/ 25
References
Burton, J. F., Farrell, M. M., Lord, F. B., & Lord, R. W. Confinement and ethnicity: An
overview of
World War II Japanese American relocation sites. Retrieved from
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/anthropology74/index.htm
Cabrera, M. A. (2008). A critique of ethnocentrism and the crisis of modernity
[Review of the book
Culture troubles: Politics and the interpretation of meaning]. History and
Theory, 47, 607-
616.
Carano, K. T., & Berson, M. J. (2007). Breaking stereotypes: Constructing geographic
literacy and
cultural awareness through technology. The Social Studies, 65-70.
Daniels, R. (2007). The Immigration Act of 1965: Intended and unintended
consequences of the 20th
Century. In Historians on America (11). Retrieved from
http://www.america.gov/st/educ-english/2008/April/20080423214226eaifas0.
9637982.html
Department of Homeland Security (2009). Yearbook of immigration statistics.
Retrieved from
http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/data/
Dixon, T. L. (2008). Network news and racial beliefs: Exploring the connection
between national
television news exposure and stereotypical perceptions of African Americans.
Journal of
Immigration in U.S. 23/ 25
Communication, 58, 321-337.
Durik, A. M., Hyde, J. S., Marks, A. C., Roy, A. L., Anaya, D., Schultz, G. (2006).
Ethnicity and gender
stereotypes of emotion. Sex Roles, 429-445. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9020-4
Fetzer, J. S. (2000). Public attitudes towards immigration in the United States,
France, and Germany.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gallup Poll. Immigration [Charts]. Retrieved from
http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm
Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1987). Out-group homogeneity: Judgments of variability at
the individual and
group levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (5), 778-788.
Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1990). Measures and models of perceived group variability.
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (2), 173-191.
Neuliep, J. W. (2009). Intercultural communication: A contextual approach (4th ed.).
United States:
Sage.
Paine, T. (1776). Common Sense. Philadelphia: Bell.
Risen, J. L., Gilovish, T., & Dunning, D. (2007). One-shot illusory correlations and
stereotype
formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1492-1502.
Rubin, M., & Badea, C. (2007). Why do people perceive ingroup homogeneity on
ingroup traits and
Immigration in U.S. 24/ 25
outgroup homogeneity on outgroup traits? Personality and Psychology
Bulletin, 33, 31-42.
Sumner, W.G. (1906). Folkways. Boston: Ginn.
Trice, A. D., & Rush, K. (1995). Sex-stereotyping in four-year-olds’ occupational
aspirations.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 701-702.
The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation (2008). Ellis Island. Retrieved from
http://www.ellisisland.org/genealogy/ellis_island.asp
Trice, A. D., & Rush, K. (1995). Sex-stereotyping in four-year-olds’ occupational
aspirations.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 701-702.
United States Census Bureau (2009, October 27). Population clocks. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/
United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (2006). Legislation from 1790-
1900 [PDF].
Available from http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis
USA Today/ Gallup Poll. Economic outlook [Charts]. Retrieved from
http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer2.htm
Woolley, J. T., & Peters, G. (n.d.). The American Presidency Project. Santa Barbara,
CA: Gerhard
Peters. Available from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=12762
Immigration in U.S. 25/ 25
Footnotes
1 In 1619, the first slaves began being forcibly brought to the colonies from the
Caribbean and afterwards increasingly from Africa (TSL-EIF, 2008).
2 The Federal government, it was believed, did not have the authority to
regulate or monitor immigration into the United States until 1875 and did not do so
until 1890. Before then, Congress had only monitored immigration. Essentially the
states themselves turned over that power to Congress (TSL-EIT, 2008).
3 The “Chinese Exclusion Act” was not repealed until the end of 1943.
4 The U.S. government decided a person would be considered Japanese if they
had a 1/16 Japanese heritage (Burton, Ferral, Lord, & Lord). That comes down to
one of your great-great-grandparents being of Japanese descent.
5 Though not a true One-shot Illusory Correlation, a study performed by Travis
Dixon with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign conducted a study of what
could be considered a One-source Illusory Correlation. In his study, Dixon found with
respondents to his randomly sampled phone survey there was a correlation
between network news exposure and a negative estimation of African American
income, a positive relationship with African American stereotype endorsement, and
a positive relation to racism in its modern context (2008).
6 Authors Patrick Chabal and Jean-Pascal Daloz critique the current status quo
in their book, Culture Troubles: Politics and the Interpretation of Meaning. Among
many other things they dispel the idea of seeing cultures as sets of norms, beliefs,
creeds, and values as well as the idea of seeing cultures as universally unconscious
networks integrated into human nature. The two propose a new way to study
culture which encourages a “System of Meaning,” hopefully to uncover the “webs of
significance” behind cultural actions without ethnocentric bias (Cabrera, 2008).