Representing each other

by Sylvie Shaw

 
The issue of representation can't be ignored. It fills TV screens, news reports and is fashioned from narrow and negative stereotypes which acts to diminish and marginalise people who are deemed other. As a stereotyped group, people representing certain religions, ethnicities, sexualities are labelled, stigmatised and belittled.

Labelling has two main functions - one is to demean the individual, the second is to reinforce the narrow and prejudiced views of the labeller. The person being labelled as a deviant, criminal or threat can begin to take on that label as a fait accompli. For some it may be a mark of resitance. For others, a sign of resilience. The label sticks for both groups - those who are negatively stereotyped, and those who label.  

The result is a loss of agency and voice among the marginalised. It can affect people's health, wellbeing and quality of life. Adams et al. (2007) point to the issue of prejudice and oppression as an outcome of social pressures and social norms or habitus. They argue that dominant ideological beliefs about 'the other' are internalised - by those targeted as well as the perpetrators. To highlight this issue, the authors state: 

'The ideas that poor people somehow deserve and are responsible for poverty, rather than the economic system that structures and requires it, is learned by poor and affluent alike. Homophobia, the deep fear and hatred of homosexuality, is internalised by both straight and gay people. Jews as well as Gentiles absorb antisemitic stereotypes' (Adams et al. 2007:4). 

The result has both social and political consequences. Jackson et al (2011:114), for instance, focuses on the political meanings and consequences of such judgemental processing saying that negatively stereotyping a social group also has the effect of stifling the exploration of 'alternative understandings' of that group or issue.

Stereotypes then are short shots, often promulgated by the media, reinforced through gossip and interpersonal communication whether online or off. Having only a superficial rendering of a person or social group can lead to discimination, persecution and worse. The view of David Schoem (1991) is straightforward and clear. He writes: 

'The effort it takes for us to know so little about one another across racial and ethnic groups is truly remarkable. That we can live so closely together, that our lives can be so intertwined socially, economically, and politically ... is clear testimony to the deep-seated roots of this human and national tragedy.' (1991:98) 

When the labelling is about religion, to use Schoem's framing, that too is a human and national tragedy. Getting along, getting to know the other, is a process that can also be 'truly remarkable'. Interfaith gatherings create understanding and relationship as people share their inner heart-workings and learn the beauty of each other's essence and their profound religious identity. 

 Questions

- What is the effect of marginalising people according to superfical gossip, social media or news headlines? 

- What is the effect of the stance of a dominant group who labels the other in terms of negative stereotyping. How is the dominator group affected? How is the marginalised group affected?

- How can marginalised groups become resilient? Or is the only direction for action to resist the ideological framing? 

 References

Adams M, LA Bell and P Griffin. 2007. Teaching for diversity and social justice. A sourcebook, 117-285. New York: Routledge.

Jackson RA, L Jarvis, J Gunning and MB Smyth. 2011. Terrorism: A critical introduction. London: Palgrave MacMillan. 

Schoem D. 1991. Inside separate worlds: life stories of Blacks, Jews and Latinos.

Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

 Image source
http://pixabay.com/en/church-inside-interior-ceiling-89409/