Twisted images; how nations see each other
Twisted images; how nations see each other
Nothing could be more evident than the fact explicit in the columns of every popular newspaper that if the peoples of the world are to learn to live together in peace they need to know one another better. As matters stand, each of us has oversimplified, stereotyped concepts of other peoples. These concepts are usually erroneous, out of date and, all too frequently, negative in character. This is not the kind of material with which to build mutual understanding and tolerance If people are to get along together in peaceful co-operation, our stale, distorted images of others need to be replaced by more accurate views. Progress from national stereotypes to international understanding is one of the fundamental conditions of modern life.
Children in particular need to be the focus of attention; their education and personal development should be free of prejudiced mis-information about their fellows in other parts of the world. A hundred years ago it was relatively unimportant (though never negligible) that dietary quaintnesses the French living chiefly on frogs, the Chinese on birds' nests, the British on beef, the Germans on beer and similar mistaken irrelevancies formed a large part of a child's knowledge of other countries. At that time the was wide, and relatively safe. It has now become a small, and more dangerous neighbourhood. If the children of the future are to become citizens in the best sense, they have to know other peoples not as creatures of a different species but as they really are.
The question has often been raised as to whether national stereotypes play any important part in international relations. For example, the American stereotype of the Germans before World War I, and even between the two world wars, was a relatively favourable one and yet this fact did not prevent the outbreak of hostilities between Germany and the United States. On the other hand, the American stereotype of the Turks was for many years rather unfavourable and unflattering, yet the relations between these two countries since World War I have remained free of hostility. Granting all this, we still have no right to draw the inference that stereotypes are unimportant.
At the most, we can say that they do not by themselves alone determine whether or not war will occur. It is not only possible, but even highly probable, that unfavourable stereotypes concerning a particular nation constitute a fertile soil in which hostility may be more easily developed, although the specific outbreaks may be precipitated by other factors.
It might be argued with considerable plausibility that the opinions held by Hitler concerning the fighting qualities and the powers of resistance of the Russians and the British were in part responsible for his decision to run the risk of fighting on two fronts.
A good case might be made for the view that if Hitler had recognized the real qualities of his enemies, instead of being misled by false and inadequate stereotypes, he might have made very different decisions, and the whole course of history might have been affected thereby. This analysis is admittedly speculative but it is sufficiently plausible to be used as an argument in favour of the notion that the existence of such stereotypes may play an important part in determining acts which lead to, or away from war.
Demagogues and dictators have shown their awareness of this fact. As a consequence they have manipulated existing stereotypes in order to whip up war fever, or they have used oratory and the mass media to develop stereotypes which would facilitate warlike preparations against an alleged enemy.
Unesco recognizes the fundamental importance of stereotypes in international relations. Since 1949 it has undertaken a series of investigations and studies as part of a direct attack on the problems of both national and racial stereotypes. It is hoped that this issue of the unesco courier will contribute in the same direction.