Transcript Identity and History - Victoria University of Wellington

Social Representations
Dr. James H. Liu
Centre for Applied Cross Cultural
Research
School of Psychology
Victoria University of Wellington
With globalization, is there a shared
representation of history, or do different
regions and nations construct the history of
the world in a different way?
• Social (shared) representations (Moscovici, 1988)
facilitate effective communication and
coordination– a knowledge based approach to
culture, based on more explicit arguments and
discourses than implicit theories
• Differences in representation can become the
basis for lack of coordination, miscommunication
and mistrust (Chiu & Krauss, 1999; Liu et al.,
1999).
Following Malinowski (1926), history
provides “foundational myths” that can be
used to construct a basis for legitimising
social order in society
• Are there representations of history so widely
shared across cultures that they might be used to
construct a “foundational myth” for world order?
• Alternatively, there may be differences in the
representation of history that could be implicated
in a “clash of cultures” as posited by Huntington
(1996). What alternative world disorder would
these support?
Social Representations Theory
• Social representations theory (Moscovici, 1984,
1988) is concerned with the processes and
structures that enable knowledge and beliefs in
society to be shared. The means by which different
institutions propagate biased representations is of
central concern to the theory. However, it has not
been used extensively in a cross-cultural context,
where global society is the topic and governments
are the primary actors.
Defining Social Representations
• Social representations are systems of shared
knowledge that facilitate communication
about social objects. They include but are
broader than stereotypes. For example, a
social representation of poverty might
include stereotypes of poor people AND
theories about why they are poor AND
communication used to describe poor
people in both everyday conversation and
mass media AND the distribution of these
representations across society
The Power of Representations
• Hegemonic (consensual) representations are
a source of social power because they are
social constructions that people accept as
“reality”. They could be used to construct
“foundational myths” for world order.
• Polemical representations, by contrast, are
those that divide different populations of
people and mark divisions between them.
Cross-Cultural Differences
• A “differences perspective” has become a central
tenet of cross-cultural psychology, which has
shown that many psychological processes operate
differently, depending on the cultural worldviews
subscribed to by a particular group
• Substantial universality in the representation of
world history across cultures would come as a
surprise to most cross-cultural psychologists.
Globalization
• With global flows of people, money, technology,
and mass communication, should we not expect a
sharing of knowledge representations as well?
• The topic of “world history” is possible only by
globalization; before, we only had histories of
peoples. Western civilization has dominated the
process of globalization, and now controls most of
the world’s capital, technology, and mass media.
History Provides Resources and
Constraints for International Actors
• Eurocentric representations focused on the recent
past would provide a privileged position for the
victorious Western powers in World War II to take
action in the international arena in a way that is
perceived as legitimate, relative to other nations.
Phrases such as “defender of the free world” come
more easily to the United States than other nations
given the process and outcome of World War II.
METHOD
• Student Samples from 6 Western nations:
Australia, N=102; France, N=102;
Germany, N=81; Great Britain, N=39; New
Zealand, N=112; USA, N=86
• 6 Asian Samples: Hong Kong, N=123;
Japan, N=91; Malaysia, N=180 ;
Philippines, N=302; Singapore, N=201,
Taiwan, N= 663 (half students, half adults)
Open Ended Questions used
• Write down the names of the 5 people born
in the last 1,000 years whom you consider
to have had the most impact, good or bad,
on World History.
• Imagine that you were giving a seminar on
world history. What 7 events would you
teach as the most important in World
History?
Most Important Events in World History
according to Western Samples
Rank
USA
(N=82)
Pct
Great Britain
(N=39)
Pct
France
(N=99)
Pct
1
WW II
86%
WWII
77%
WWII
64%
2
WW I
50%
WW I
64%
French Rev
54%
3
American Indep
38%
Vietnam War
28%
WW I
30%
4
Sept 11 Terrorism
27%
Man on the Moon
26%
US History
28%
5
Discov Americas
26%
Birth of Christ
26%
Colonization
27%
6
Vietnam War
20%
Industrial Rev
18%
Atomic Bombing
20%
7
American Civil War
20%
Discov. Of America
18%
German Reunification
19%
8
French Rev
14%
Roman Empire
18%
Man on the Moon
16%
9
Birth of Christ
14%
Atomic Bombing
15%
Decolonization
14%
10
Breakup of USSR
12%
Slavery
13%
Nazism/Facism
12%
Gulf War
13%
Rank
Australia
(N=98)
Pct
New Zealand
(N=107)
Pct
Germany
(N=81)
Pct
1
WWII
68%
WWII
73%
WWII
68%
2
WW I
60%
WW I
64%
WW I
60%
3
Man on the Moon
24%
Man on the Moon
37%
French Rev
49%
4
Holocaust
21%
Women's Suffrage
21%
Discov. Americas
32%
5
Atomic Bombing
21%
Birth of Christ
21%
German Reunification
23%
6
Industrial Revolution
19%
Industrial Rev
20%
Russian Rev
23%
7
Vietnam War
18%
Roman Empire & Fall
19%
Cold War
21%
8
Discov. Of Australia
16%
German Reunification
16%
Vietnam War
20%
9
Women's Suffrage
16%
Discov. Of America
16%
Crusades
15%
10
Birth of Christ
15%
French Revolution
15%
Colonialism
15%
Most Important Events in World History
according to East Asian Samples
Rank
Japan
(N=75)
Pct
Taiwan
(N=646)
Hong Kong
(N=119)
Pct
1
WWII
52%
WW II
69%
WWII
81%
2
WW I
29%
WW I
60%
WW I
52%
3
French Revolution
23%
Man on the Moon
25%
Tien An Men
45%
4
Industrial Rev
17%
Industrial Rev
23%
Sino-Japanese War
39%
5
Vietnam War
17%
American Indep
22%
USSR Breakup
23%
6
Cold War
12%
Discov. of Americas
20%
Cultural Revolution
19%
7
Crusades
11%
USSR Breakup
15%
German Reunification
16%
8
Atomic Bombing
9%
Crusades
15%
Gulf War
15%
9
Discov. of Americas
9%
Renaissance
14%
American Indep
14%
10
Korean War
American Indep
7%
7%
French Revolution
10%
French Revolution
14%
Rank
Singapore
(N=196)
Pct
Philippines
(N=272)
Pct
Malaysia
(N=145)
Pct
1
WWII
94%
WWII
68%
WWII
60%
2
WW I
84%
WW I
54%
WW I
60%
3
Gulf War
32%
Gulf War
23%
Industrial Rev
28%
4
Cold War
24%
French Rev
16%
Rise of Islam
23%
5
Great Depression
22%
Industrial Rev
15%
Atomic Bombing
17%
6
Industrial Rev
19%
Nazism
15%
Chinese history
14%
7
Vietnam War
11%
Renaissance
15%
Islam v.Christian Wars
13%
8
USSR Breakup
10%
People Power (EDSA)
14%
Opium War
12%
9
Rise of Communism
10%
Atomic Bombing
13%
Renaissance
12%
10
French Revolution
9%
Man on the Moon
11%
Japanese colonialism
11%
German Reunification
9%
Detailed Coding of Events (1)
• Among Western samples, 39% of events were
from Europe, 17% from N.America, 3%
Australia/NZ and 25% were not regional. 7%
were from East Asia, 6% from the Middle East
• Among Asian samples, 32% of events were from
Europe, 11% from N. America, and 26% not
regional. 21% were from East Asia, 3% SE
Asia/Pacific, 6% Middle East
Detailed Coding of Events (2)
• Across cultures, 41% of events concerned War
(30-51% variability), 26% Other Politics. Other
categories were Eras 8%, Science/Technology 7%,
Exploration/Colonization 7%, Economics 5%.
• Across cultures, the 20th century accounted for
63% of events, with very little variability (5679%)
Most Important Figures in World History in
last 1000 years according to Western Samples
Rank
USA
(N=85)
1
Hitler
2
Gandhi
3
4
Great Britian
(N=40)
Pct
France
(N=100)
Pct
79%
Hitler
100%
Hitler
86%
36%
M.L. King
33%
Napolean
30%
M.L. King
32%
Churchill
30%
De Gaulle
24%
Napoleon
22%
Thatcher
23%
Einstein
21%
5
Columbus
16%
Einstein
23%
Gandhi
19%
6
Marx
15%
Princess Diana
20%
Columbus
18%
7
Lincoln
14%
Mandela
20%
Freud
18%
8
Washington
14%
Mother Theresa
18%
Mandela
15%
9
Einstein
13%
Saddam Hussain
18%
Marx
14%
10
Pct
Kennedy
12%
Kennedy
13%
Kennedy
14%
10=
Stalin
12%
Rank
Australia
(N=101)
Pct
New Zealand
(N=111)
Pct
Germany
(N=69)
Pct
1
Hitler
85%
Hitler
88%
Hitler
91%
2
Mandela
23%
Einstein
36%
Napolean
48%
3
Einstein
22%
Gandhi
22%
Martin Luther
33%
4
M. L. King
21%
Napolean
14%
Gandhi
26%
5
Gandhi
19%
Churchill
13%
Einstein
22%
6
Kennedy
16%
M.L. King
12%
Stalin
22%
7
Capt Cook
15%
Mandela
11%
Gorbachev
19%
8
Marx
14%
Mother Teresa
11%
Bismarck
17%
9
Freud
12%
Newton
10%
Lincoln
16%
10
Churchill
11%
Columbus
Shakespear
Thatcher
9%
9%
9%
Kennedy
16%
Most Important Figures in World History
according to Asian Samples
Rank
Japan
(N=78)
Pct
Taiwan
(N=663)
1
Hitler
54%
Hitler
2
Napolean
26%
3
Edison
4
Hong Kong
(N=122)
Pct
41%
Mao
63%
Lincoln
26%
Sun Yat-sen
58%
19%
Einstein
22%
Hitler
49%
Mao
15%
Napoleon
22%
Einstein
38%
5
Lincoln
15%
F.D.Roosevelt
19%
Deng Xiaoping
29%
6
N. Oda
14%
Sun Yat-sen
19%
Newton
17%
7
Kennedy
14%
Edison
19%
Napoleon
11%
8
H. Toyotomi
13%
Mao
17%
Qin Emperor
9%
9
Einstein
10%
Washington
16%
Bill Clinton
9%
10
Columbus
Rank
Singapore
(N=196)
1
Hitler
2
10%
Pct
Pct
Jesus Christ
14%
Edison
9%
Malaysia
(N=131)
Pct
Philippines
(N=265)
Pct
77%
Hitler
44%
Hitler
57%
Gandhi
42%
Gandhi
27%
Gandhi
38%
3
Mao
32%
Mao
26%
Jose Rizal
22%
4
Churchill
20%
Mohammed
19%
Einstein
22%
5
Saddam Hussain
17%
Marx
16%
Mao
17%
6
Lee Kuan Yew
16%
Lincoln
15%
Mother Teresa
16%
7
Mother Teresa
15%
Stamford Raffles
13%
Andres Bonifacio
14%
8
Einstein
15%
T. Abdul-Rahman
Lincoln
13%
9
Napolean
11%
Sun Yat-sen
Ferdinand Marcos
12%
10
Stalin
11%
Mahathir
12%
11%
11%
Marx
12%
Detailed Coding of Figures (1)
• Figures were coded for up to 2 realms of
achievement (why they were famous)
• Across cultures, 67% of Figures were famous for
Politics, and 41% for War. Almost all wartime
leaders were also political leaders.
• 12% were famous for Scientific Achievements,
11% Arts/Lit/Phil, 10% Humanitarian, 11%
Spiritual, 3% Exploration, 1% Physical
Detailed Coding of Figures (2)
• Among Western samples, 67% were from
Europe (46-77%), 18% N America, 2% East
Asia, 0.3% SE Asia, 6% India, 3% Middle
East.
• Among Asian samples, 38% were from
Europe, 15% from N America, 28% East
Asia, 8% SE Asia, 6% India, 4% Middle
East
Detailed Coding of Figures (3)
• 72% of Figures named were from the 20th
century (48-83%).
• 16% were from the 19th century (8-31%)
• Across cultures, over 90% of figures named
were from the last 200 years
Summary – Representations of World History:
• (1) Focused on the recent past, with the 20th century,
with averages of 63% of events and 72% of persons
• (2) Centered around politics and war, which accounted
for sample averages of 67% of events and persons.
• (3) Dominated by the events of the World Wars, and
• (4) the individual Hitler, who was perceived as
negative.
• (5) Representations were more Eurocentric than
ethnocentric, with events and figures from Western
nations exceeding nominations from Asia even among
Asians.
• (6) The importance of economics and technological
advances (including science) was under-represented.
Discussion
• Representations are strongly globalized, with
Asian samples seeing world history as emanating
from the West. No dichotomy of “cultural
differences”, just more or less Eurocentrism.
• Asian peoples do not acknowledge the importance
of one another’s contributions to world history
• These hegemonic representations can be used by
Western powers to justify their political and
military actions. Not only military & economic
resources, but representational power is part of the
pre-eminence of the West.
International Politics Conclusion
• The current attempt by the United States to
reposition itself following Sept 11 as “Policeman
of the World” rather than as World War II’s
“Defender of the Free World” draws upon less
consensual social representations and may not be
perceived as legitimate by other nations.
• Given the overwhelming preponderance of war as
the subject of history, we should anticipate that
security issues will continue to dominate
international political relations far more than other
important concerns like scientific, economic, or
humanitarian issues
Global hegemony, regional and
internal polemics?
• In international politics, most of the Asian and
Western countries represented in the previous
study tend to align with the USA to greater or
lesser extent.
• However in internal politics within a nation, the
general finding is that while there is agreement
about what constitute (or are) the major events in
the national history, there is disagreement about
their meaning and relevance for current politics.
Social Identity
• According to Tajfel & Turner (1979), social
identity is that aspect of a person’s identity
that pertains to their membership in groups.
• It’s basic insight is that identity is not an
essentialized quality of the individual, but is
socially constructed out of an interaction
between the person and the situation. In
different situations, different aspects of a
person’s social identity become salient.
Identity Salience
(Context determines Identity)
• For example, in a conference on feminism, gender
may become salient, and behavior will conform to
norms for gender appropriate behavior. At
meetings of the United Nations security council,
nationality will tend to guide behavior more than
gender (though there is room for individual
differences).
• According to social identity theory, behavior is
qualitatively different across situations,
conforming to different norms for behavior
depending on identity salience. Identity salience
depends on social comparison between groups.
Identity creates context
• The literature focuses on how context (or
situation) activates or makes salient social
identity. However, Reicher & Hopkins
(1996) argue that reciprocally, social
identity can create reality (or context) by
defining the situation in terms of who is in
the in-group and who is in the out-group,
and what the in-group should be doing in
this situation.
History as a Symbolic Resource for Identity
• Reicher & Hopkins’ insight is that identity
is mobilized by political entrepreuners to
define group boundaries in such a way as to
make their own agenda that of the group.
• Liu & Hilton (in press) argue that history is
an important symbolic resource that can be
used to legitimize group boundaries and
define an agenda for groups. History is
particularly important for peoples (e.g.,
ethnicities, nationalities).
Historical representations provide a
narrative for national identity
• There is a broad consensus developing across the
social sciences that history is important for
constructing and maintaining the “imagined
community” of nationhood (Anderson, 1983;
Hobsbawm, 1996; Wertsch, 2002).
• History “confers immortality” to events and
people, it weaves them into stories with temporal
form referred to as narratives of origin. Empirical
research has shown broad consensus across ethnic
and regional groups as to what events and figures
constitute a nation’s history (Liu et al., 1999; 2002;
Huang et al., 2004).
Historical representations as a narrative
for identity
• In national histories, the temporal sequence of
nominations follows a U shape, with recent and
foundational events nominated by lay people more
frequently than intermediate events in time.
• History is appealing as a symbolic resource for
nation building because it offers concrete events
and people with widely shared emotional
resonance whose relevance to the current situation
is open to interpretation. A great advantage of
history for politicians is that most of the
participants in it are dead, and can speak only
through the tongues of present day interpreters.
History as a narrative for identity
• History furnishes both concreteness (widely
recognized people and events) and temporality,
both of which are powerful tools in constructing
narratives about identity, especially in terms of
their implications for action.
• History provides the outlines of an open-ended
drama, with prescriptive roles connecting the
individual to a larger collective that has evolved
through time and hence confers not only symbolic
immortality, but persuasive power to those who
can ascribe for themselves a place in the narrative.
Table 3. 10 Most important events in Taiwan’s history
by demographic group (Huang et al., 2004)
Mingnan
(N=403)
Pct
Hakka
(N=122)
Pct
1
Feb 28
incident
72
%
Feb 28
incident
67
%
2
Free
presidential
elections
Liberation
from Japanese
41
%
Meilidao
incident
28
%
4
Japanese
Occupation
5
Meilidao
incident
3
Outside
Province
(N=219)
Feb 28 incident
Pct
31
%
Liberation from
Japanese
36
%
31
%
Zhen Chengung
32
%
27
%
Free
presidential
elections
Zhen Chengung
31
%
28
%
25
%
Liberation
from Japanese
31
%
Free
presidential
elections
Japanese
Occupation
71
%
25
%
6
Sep 21
earthquake
25
%
Japanese
Occupation
29
%
Meilidao
incident
23
%
7
Zhen Chengung
24
%
Peaceful
transition of
government
24
%
10
Construction
projects
22
%
8
Peaceful
transition of
government
20
%
Sep 21
earthquake
22
%
End of martial
law
22
%
9
End of
martial law
18
%
Taiwan ceded
to Japan
21
%
Land reform
20
%
10
10
Construction
projects
18
%
Jiao Ba nian
incident
20
%
Taiwan ceded
to Japan
19
%
10
Construction
projects
20
%
10
=
• All three groups see the February 28th
incident, where the KMT violently disposed
of local dissidence in Taiwan following
liberation from Japan, as the most important
event. All groups see it negatively.
• The history of Taiwan is the story of the
struggle for autonomy and democracy (first
liberation from Japan, then freedom from
authoritarian rule by the KMT). The lesson
that can be drawn from this is a need for self
determination.
Hierarchical Regression Predicting
Support for Taiwanese Independence

ΔR2
R2
adjusted
-.079
.036
.023*
.017
.141***
-.009
-.059
.029*
.037
Taiwanese identity
Chinese identity
.239****
-.218****
.246****
.282
Historical fate
Historical autonomy
-.156***
.218****
.049****
.328
Taiwanese Independence
Step one
Step two
Step three
Step four
Constant
Realistic conflict (internal)
Realistic conflict
(international)
Social Dominance Orientation
Anti-authoritarianism
Authoritarianism
Evaluation of important leaders in Taiwan’s history
by demographic groups.
Mingnan
Hakka
Outside
province
F-test
3.69 <
4.00 <
4.80
F(2,439)=17.62,
p<.0001,
eta2=.07
Chiang Ching-kuo 5.54 =
(1978~1988)
5.80 =
6.11
F(2,532)=10.53,
p<.0001,
eta2=.04
Lee Teng-hui
(1988~2000)
4.01 >
4.10 >
2.54
F(2,459)=37.15,
p<.0001,
eta2=.14
Chen Shui-bian
(2000~)
4.61 >
4.20 >
3.12
F(2,459)=37.15,
p<.0001,
eta2=.14
Chiang Kai-shek
(1945~1975)
Evaluations of leaders
• Unlike the events, the leaders are evaluated
very differently by the demographic groups.
• Native province people dislike Chiang Kaishek, and outside province people dislike
Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian.
• Only Chiang Ching-kuo is admired by all.
He serves as a potent symbol of unity for
Taiwan
History provides raw materials for the social
construction of national identity
• There tend to be a limited number of events and
people that are consensually regarded as important
in a country. They are symbolic resources for
constructing nationhood in that country.
• No research has been done to examine how and
whether narrative structures (e.g., temporality,
plot, character, theme) add to the “entitavitity” or
coherence of imagined communities such as
national identities. Does the process of
storytelling build nationhood?
Social Representations provide culture specific
frames for the conduct of intergroup relations
• Just as biculturalism provides the framework for
understanding history and providing a narrative
about national identity for NZ, the drive for
autonomy provides the representational
framework for Taiwan.
• Many people in Taiwan feel that the drive for
Taiwanese independence is irrational, and flies
against its economic well-being and security
(which depend on a good relationship with China)
Social Representations provide culture specific
frames for the conduct of intergroup relations
• Similarly, there is tremendous debate in NZ
as to the degree to which people think that
the Treaty and bicultural issues should be at
the centre of national identity and resource
allocations. But these particular political
positions (biculturalism in NZ,
independence in Taiwan) are easily
warranted or legitimized by national
representations of history