Globalization: A Threat or an Opportunity?

   The general definition of globalization is a global process which makes products, prices, rates of interests and profits, and wages similar everywhere. It also accelerates the flow of money, goods, people and cultures all over the world. It is basically standardizing everyday life all over the world. A sociologist by the name of Anthony Giddens defined globalization as “a decoupling of space and time, emphasising that with instantaneous communications, knowledge and culture can be shared around the world simultaneously” (Globalization Guide). Globalization most importantly breaks down trade barriers and integrates world markets. Another definition of globalization says that, “globalisation can be seen as an evolution which is systematically restructuring interactive phases among nations by breaking down barriers in the areas of culture, commerce, communication and several other fields of endeavour” (Akindele, Gidado & Olaopo, 2002).The concept of globalization needs to be understood in order to understand the rapid social change that is taking place currently and to understand the transition of society into the third millennium. Can old Marxist of functionalist theories be adapted to try and explain globalization or do we need fresh ideas?

“Globalization as a concept refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole . . . both concrete global interdependence and consciousness of the global whole” (Robertson, 1992 cited in Waters, 2001).

Robertson interprets global compression in terms of interdepency between nations by means of trade, military coalition, and domination, which he claims has been around since the sixteenth century and even before that (cited in Waters, 2001). Waters (2001) agrees with the opinion of Robertson and his concept of global consciousness and suggests that globalization is a process of localization rather than the grand concept of the world merging together as one. This simply means that national communities will use the reference of other nations in order to come to choose the values they want to emphasize and make decisions. Waters predicts that a fully globalized world will have one single culture and society which will probably not be harmoniously integrated, rather it will be disorganized, and contain many layers of differentiation. There will be no central organizing force and no tight set of cultural norms and value. It will be a highly tolerant society that allows for diversity and individual choice. Waters adds that we will not be able to predict social practices or likes and dislikes on the basis of geographical location because territorialism will disappear and we will live in a world without borders. Therefore we can no longer assume that people that live in the same area will understand each other better than people who live far apart. This idea emphasizes on the notions of time and space. According to Robertson, globalization involves the social and cultural connections between humanity in general, the international society, the national society and the individual (cited in Waters, 2001).

Globalization is a process that has taken centuries to come to the point of where it is now. During the Mongol Empire, the first hints of globalization in the form of integration of different cultures could be seen as people set out on journeys to acquire goods. Later on in the 16^th and 17^th centuries, the expansion of the European trade found itself reaching out to all corners of the world; continuing global integration. “The First Era of Globalization” was said to be in the 19^th century when international trade and investment between the European imperial powers and their colonies were rapidly growing, but it abruptly came to a halt with the beginning of the First World War and till the end of the Great Depression. Globalization during the nineteenth century was a process of war, military coalition, diplomacy and colonialism. Now it includes trade and cultural relations as well. After the Second World War, the expansion of capitalism took off like where it left off and the development of more multinational companies and international businesses was fertilized with the advancement in technology particularly in the areas of travel and communication and reduced costs. The causes of globalization so to speak or rather the spark that caused the fire is the advancement in technology in the areas of transportation and communication. The emergence of the internet was definitely a revolution that set globalization on fire. It speeded up connectivity and communication, allowed for a huge knowledge pool of infinite resources and information and paved the way for a whole new virtual global market. Another important point in history relevant to globalization was also when capitalism had won the victory over socialism with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of The Soviet Union on November 9^th, 1989. It was the end of the Cold War and capitalism had won. Communism made people equally poor and now capitalism was to make people unequally rich, but was also to be the driving force behind globalization. In fact the ripple effect of the fall of the Berlin wall was felt all the way to India. Trade controls were abolished and economic growth was up to a seven percent (Friedman, 2006). The Berlin wall, says Friedman had been blocking our sight as seeing the world as a single market and single community. The world became a better place after the fall of the Berlin wall “because each outbreak of freedom stimulated another outbreak” (Friedman, 2006). For example, even women were starting to get their freedom in this era. The emergence of capitalism is a major aspect or dimension of globalization because of its effectiveness in production and the power that it offers to those in control of it. Capitalism is basically driven by two main things, being mass production and mass consumption. Capitalism causes modernization. It liberates us from traditional constraints. This aspect of capitalism and globalism has been the topic of many debates arguing that traditional and cultural values are being lost to modernization. However I do not think it is the worst thing in the world to lose some traditional values. Traditional values such as the caste system in India have been a large barrier for the people of India to develop and grow. So maybe there is more to gain than to lose. Furthermore, globalization seems to be increasing diversity rather than decreasing it. Take for example the most popular food in the world today - pizza. People all around the globe eat it, the base of the pizza is the same but the toppings are diverse and different. In Japan, you might have sushi pizza and in India you might have curry pizza. Nobody is forcing us to be the carbon copies of Americans. Globalization is about “thinking global and acting local” as Theodore Levitt said (Waters, 2001).

An important factor determining globalization is that capitalism allowed for people to tap into each others knowledge pools. It also paved the way for adoption of common standards. For example, how banking should be done or how computers should be made.  

 However although globalization is supposed to standardize everything, it causes many inequalities. According to standard theory, the distribution of income levels between countries should benefit everyone, but there has been much debate that free trade is making the rich countries richer while making the poor countries poorer. According to Williamson, there is no support or proof through economic analysis that free trade is causing inequalities between countries (1998). On the other hand, standard theory is less clear on the effects of domestic income distribution. Standard theory says that trade will hurt unskilled labour in rich countries because poor countries will export labour intensive goods to rich countries; increasing the demand for unskilled labour in poor countries and decreasing the demand for unskilled labour in rich countries and therefore making the rich in rich countries richer and the poor in rich countries poorer.

Globalization may be identified by several characteristics. The main one being greater international cultural exchange through increased travel and tourism, better access to cultural diversity through for example Hollywood and Bollywood movies and food, greater immigration, and world wide fads such as ‘YouTube’ and ‘MySpace’. The second most obvious characteristic that can be noticed is the development of global telecommunications infrastructure such as the internet, communication satellites and wireless telephones. There has also been an increase in world trade agreements and many advocates for an international criminal court and justice movements. The standard of living,literacy and health has improved in Third World Countries thanks to globalization. Some aspects of globalization are intentional such as to such as international trade and increasing world market exchange. Globalization’s main intentions are economical. The inequalities that are caused and other such things are a consequence of globalization. Social problems such as terrorism are also an effect of globalization. Islamic fundamentalists see globalization as the Western world trying to take over and extinguish their traditional beliefs and values so they have become increasingly protective and defensive of their religion leading to fanatical and extreme actions such as terrorism. It is also often argued that terrorism as well may have gone through globalization as there seems to be no direct relevance of attacks in foreign countries to the country of the attackers.

In general globalization has had a positive impact on developing countries because economic growth has been allowed to grow at a faster pace through the opportunities for applying world-class technologies in their countries. Knowledge and technology that are readily available throughout the world is boosting economies in developing countries. They are also able to make full use of their abundant unskilled labour. There are also of course dangers involved when developing countries or third world countries expose themselves all of a sudden to international markets; they are vulnerable to external shock. Many times they are not yet ready to enter into the flow of things but are being pushed into it by other pressures and find themselves sinking. For example, the East Asian Crisis in 1997. Some would argue that developed countries are only creating more debt in third world countries. However, Williamson argues that while globalization increases external shock, it decreases internal shock (1998). For example, when Bangladesh was overwhelmed by the terrible floods, the financial aid of the international community in helping to cover the costs of the floods and easily available import of extra rice saved many lives. In general, globalization affects the world in five different ways according to Williamson (1998). Firstly, it affects the world industry. The development of multinational companies gives us access to a broader range of products and goods. For example, I face no difficulties at all buying South East Asian food products in Germany because of this. Financially, globalization has ignited the emergence of international financial markets, making international bank loans possible and flourishing businesses around the globe. The spread of political interests is also another affect of globalization. Lastly, we could say a new culture has emerged from globalization, a world culture that is open to diverse cultures and new ideas, ready to adapt to new technologies and practices, and the willingness to try foreign goods (Williamson, 1998). Although there has been some criticism that it is not a new culture that has emerged but rather ‘Americanization’ is conquering the so called new world culture. I certainly agree to this up to a certain extent as it is only normal for the culture most dominant and in power to be adopted as one’s own. However, when a new culture is adopted, it does extinguish the old beliefs and values automatically; rather it tries to integrate them into the existing culture. Theoretically, globalization should improve cultural integration as now international markets are forced to learn about the values and beliefs of other cultures in order to work efficiently and in harmony together. Initially, concepts such as management and leadership were assumed to have universal expectations (Hofstede, 1983). For example, a good leader is somebody who takes into account the opinions of his followers before making a decision. Now we have come to realize that this may not always be seen as something positive in all cultures. Therefore, it has become increasingly important to be culturally sensitive to the needs and expectations of diverse cultures in order to be an efficient leader or manager in an international company.

Globalization is shrinking the world because of the concept of time and space. As space is measured in time, and the time it takes to travel from point A to point B is getting shorter, so space appears to shrink. According to Waters, the globalization process effects the economy, polity and culture. Economies lean towards free market and less trade barriers; polities lean towards the deconcentration of power through liberalization and democratization; and culture leans towards an abstract culture that will allow for diversity and highly tolerant. Marx has written about the way in which capitalist will try to decrease national boundaries by expanding transportation and communication into all corners of the world in order to expand markets all over the world and increase labour power. Industrialization also plays a part in the process of globalization. Kerr, Dunlop, Harbison and Myers suggest that industrialization causes societies to become more similar (cited in Waters, 2001). The argument is that industrial societies are more similar to each other compared to non-industrial societies with each other. The rationale behind it is that all industrial societies are progressively looking for effective technology to increase their production of goods and their social systems will also progressively adapt to that technology. Industrial societies will also develop similar values such as commitment to work and materialism. Bell, on the other hand argues that post-industrialism will create more convergence than industrialism (cited in Waters, 2001). Bell proposes that the advancement of technology to for production of services and not goods will create that convergence (cited in Waters, 2001). Social science in the twentieth century has discovered that colonialism and imperialism produce an international division of labour. It can be observed that developed countries are focused primarily on skilled labour, whereas developing countries are focused primarily on unskilled labour. This division of labour produces a relationship of domination and interdependency.

According to Marx, the bourgeoisie is creating the world in its own image. The interdependence of states and the emergence of the bourgeoisie as world capitalists will unite the proletariats and they will rise to power overtaking the bourgeoisie institutions. It is not difficult to imagine this when looking at China and India right now. There is a high possibility that they may be the future superpowers of the world. India had its boost because of Y2K. It took India to a whole new level of outsourcing. Outsourcing here means taking a function that used to be done in local companies and having another company elsewhere in some other part of the world to do it. For example, like the call centres in Bangalore where thousands of Indians fake American accents and make and answer calls from the United States. China on the other hand, had its boost when it joined the World Trade Organization which took it to another level of offshoring. Offshoring is when a company takes a factory that was operating for example in the United States and moves it  to China. There, it produces the same product, only for cheaper labour, lower taxes, subsidized energy, and lower health-care costs. The sudden boost of India and China has had the same effect as on a person who realizes just how fast he can run when a dog is chasing him. In other words, the challenge that India and China has set for the United States is making the rat race even more face paced than ever and the world has never seen a time where new information and new discoveries bloom at such a rapid speed. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is definitely an information overload!

 The globalized world according to Marx will be harmonious and undivided, the poor will be emanicipated and exploitation will come to an end. Most theroies of globalization are uni-dimensional; that is a single part of human life is used to explain social phenomena for example for Marx it was structures of material production; for Parsons it was culture; and for Mead or Schütz it was subjective meaning (Waters, 2001). Marx’s theory that political and and theoretical boundaries will only disappear after the proletrariat achieve their supremacy is supported ny many twentieth century theories such as Marxisant dependancy theory, functionalist modernization theory, convergence theory and world system theory. However, Marx’s theory and other uni-dimensional theories emphasize on the economical aspect of globalization but tends to leave out other important aspects such as politics and culture. Therefore we should also look to multi-dimensional theories for further answers. Multi-dimensional theories of globalization emphasize on subjectivity and culture as the main factors in the process of globalization.

Globalization can be measured through the exports and imports as a proportion of national income, migration rates, investments as a proportion of national income, and technological advances. Many people argue that globalization causes poverty, but if we observe correctly, the countries that are open to global capitalism are developing rapidly and becoming richer. While the countries that are closing their doors to global capitalism are not growing economically and remain poor. Anti-globalization movements argue for the rights of people in developing countries saying that western countries are exploiting cheap labour in these countries and encourage us to boycott buying the products. While these sweat shops in developing countries may look inhumane and unfair to us, in the long run, it will actually work to the good of the people. For example, in the 60’s, Taiwan was a sweat shop for producing cheap toys, people were exploited, they worked hard and were paid poorly, but look at Taiwan now. If anti-globalization movements had protested for the rights of these people and enough people had boycotted to stop buying cheap Taiwanese toys, hundreds of Taiwanese would have lost their jobs and Taiwan would not be where it is today. Although, anti-globalization movements may have good intentions, they may actually cause more harm than good because they do not see the big picture and the long term effects.

On the other side of the coin, the European Union spends more than half of its expenditure in domestic agricultural subsidies artificially lowering the costs of production and increasing production. This results in decreasing world market prices and reducing the amount of income that people in other countries get for their goods, hence not giving Third World countries a chance to compete in agricultural export which actually could be their main source of income. These subsidies also lead to overproduction of agricultural goods and even worse further lead to overuse of land, pesticides and fertilizers. The tariffs set for agricultural products are also high for Third World Countries. The free trade protectionists choose to set restrictions trade on just the areas which could profit Third World Countries. Third World Countries on the other hand, are not opening their doors to globalization and the Western world is also closing their doors on them. Basically it is between choosing a win-win situation or a win-lose situation. Third World Countries can choose to open their doors to globalization and improve their living standards and the Western World gets what it wants or Third World Countries refuse to open their doors to globalization and remain in their poverty, while the Western World continues to get richer. If The Third World does not surrender to globalization, they will continue to suffer. The current suffering should be weighed out with the potential negative consequences of globalization for us to be better able to see a clearer picture. Free trade in the perfect world is in my opinion is a tool for positive economic change and development especially for poor countries; the problem is that this is not the perfect world and free trade is not fair trade here. It is supposed to mean fair exchanges but political interests have brought change to its meaning. It now means government intervention to direct, control and restrict trade. The government decides what their citizens should buy and what prices should be paid for them.

Akindele, Gidado and Olaopo argue that globalization only enhances international trade in countries that have the same level of economic development. Toyo (2000) calls globalization an “imperial policy” and the “final conquest of capital over the rest of the world” (cited in Akindele, Gidado & Olaopo, 2002). In this era of globalization, pressures are high and options are few. For example, currently China is under a lot of pressure to integrate into the capitalist economy and let go of their current political rule. Failure to integrate into the system means losing out. But are we losing our independence and freedom as a consequence? Did we ever have it in the first place?

             Most environmentalists such as Green Peace and other such organizations are anti-globalization because of the effects they claim globalization has on the environment. They believe that more and more industrial companies are migrating to developing countries because they do not have to pay for the pollution costs in these countries and the rules that are concerned with such things as pollution is much more lenient than in their home countries. An important question to ask is who are the players? The players of the game called globalization are the dominant social forces in the world today. Why are they playing this game? Common sense. What is the main goal of anyone who is playing a game? To win of course. There are two ways of looking at this game. It is either that it is a game where everyone can win or it is a game where there are winners and also losers. The problem with our species is that when we finally do strike the lottery and everyone can have afford to have a fair share of the prize and live happily ever after, we decide that the fair share is not enough because we assume that if there are losers, it means that the winner’s prize is bigger. Ohiorhenuan (1998), Mowlana (1998), and Oyejide (1998) Grieco and Holmes (1999) respectively are of the opinion that “globalization is a positive or powerful force for the improved material well-being of humankind, that would aid developing countries to create better economic environments; improve their access to technology; and enhance global harmony”, however the political, economic, social and cultural effects on the weaker countries cannot be dismissed (cited in Akindele, Gidado & Olaopo, 2002). The positive effect globalization has had on the world should not be ignored just because of the negative consequences. In fact, the world has never seen such vast improvements on the standards of living before. The eradication of diseases, clean water, education, and reduced infant mortality rate are critical social changes that have taken place in the name of globalization. Maybe globalization could be our only answer to the world’s problems, our last chance and only hope to make the world a better place, but will we use it or will we rather blame it on human nature? There is this story about a scorpion and a frog who both wanted to cross the river. The scorpion said to the frog that if he could carry him across the river, he would not sting the frog. The frog agreed. Halfway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog and as they are sinking, the frog asks the scorpion why he had done that, the scorpion simply replies that it is his nature and they both drown together. We can choose to cooperate and achieve our goals together or we can let our greed drown us all.

Earlier, I mentioned that the fall of the Berlin wall was one of the sparks that set globalization on fire. It is interesting to note that before the fall of the Berlin wall, Osama bin Laden and Ronald Reagan had a common enemy- the Soviet Union. However after America became the superpower, it became Osama bin Laden’s enemy. It is a funny coincidence as Friedman says that on 11/9 the wall fell and 9/11, invisible walls were built up again (Friedman, 2001). Let us break down these walls.

References

            Ahmad, A. (2001). Globalization and the Developing Countries, with Special Reference to Cuba. Retrieved February 10, 2007 from  http://globalization.icaap.org/archives.php

Akindele, S.T., Gidado, T.O., & Olaopo, O.R. (2002). Globalization, Its Implications and Consequences for Africa. Retrieved February 10, 2007 from http://globalization.icaap.org/archives.php

Dunklin, A.L. (2005). Globalization: A Portrait of Exploitation, Inequality and Limits. Retrieved February 10, 2007 from http://globalization.icaap.org/archives.php

Friedman, T.L. (2006). The World is Flat. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.  

Globalization Guide. Retrieved February 13, 2007 from http://www.globalisationguide.org/

Globalization. Retrieved February 12, 2007 from http://.www.wikipedia.com

Imade, L.O. (2003). Two Faces of Globalization: Impoverishment or Prosperity? Retrieved February 13, 2007 from http://globalization.icaap.org/archives.php

Waters,M. (2001). Globalization. Routledge.

Williamson, J. (1998). Globalization: The Concept, Causes, and Consequences. Retrieved February 13, 2007 from http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=330

The Ghosts of Giftedness

Who are the ghosts of giftedness? Why are they invisible? What are the problems caused by the under-representation of certain groups in our society? Why are they disadvantaged? Could their disadvantages work to benefit them? What are the factors that relate to their success in spite of their many disadvantages? What is the cause of their under-representation in the field of giftedness? These are among the questions that will be addressed in the following essay.

Martin Luther King Jr., Oprah Winfrey and Jimi Hendrix - they were great leaders, inspirational people and artists. They are the people that bring growth and development to our society and make life more enjoyable. Where would we be today without these people? As Emerson says, “…The search after great men is the dream of youth and the most serious occupation of manhood.” However, these people do not just appear out of thin air. Their talent has to be identified, developed and nurtured. Unfortunately, the shared traits of the people mentioned above leaves them at a high-risk of not being identified. They all come from culturally diverse and low socioeconomic backgrounds. They are the invisible gifted as called by Frasier and Passow (2000, p.248).  Culturally different and economically disadvantaged children are rarely identified or described as being gifted and are grossly underrepresented in programs for the gifted. (Frasier & Passow, 2000, p.248). According to Borland and Wright, “in the United States, under-representation has been primarily associated with economic disadvantage and racial and ethnic minority status”(2000, p. 587).  The under-representation of minority students in gifted programs is estimated to vary between 30 and 70 percent (Richert cited in Frasier& Passow, 2000, p. 251). If we do not strive to identify and develop the potentials of invisible gifted children, our society could be deprived of potential leaders and creators. Even worse is the probability that our society may even actually be degraded due to the fact that now every one in three Americans are non-Caucasian. In fact the percentage of minorities is increasing progressively all over the world due to globalization and increased migration and if we fail to take them into consideration, we are only going to go backwards instead of forwards.  

The under-representation of economically disadvantaged and minority students also has a detrimental effect on social class. It actually widens the gap of the ‘have’s’ and ‘have not’s’ in our society (Borland & Wright, 2000, p. 588). Research in the United States concerning these under-represented groups show that the economically disadvantaged usually come from ethnic minorities such as African-Americans, Native Americans, and Mexicans.  Therefore leaving this group out of the gifted programs also leads to inequity in terms of race which may cause further social problems as you can imagine. By developing only one group, we are also creating power differences. As the upper class whites become more powerful, the lower class ethnic minorities become more oppressed. Since what society observes is an obvious distinction in intelligence between these two groups, it doesn’t take much persuasion from people like Murray to “prove” that ethnic minorities and economically disadvantaged are detrimental to our society as they did in “The Bell Curve.” Our present education system may actually cultivate dangerous ideas like these. These were the kind of ideas that led to the Holocaust through Hitler’s idea of the Aryan race.

Social and cultural factors such as poverty, racism and class bias are malevolent and menacing forces that can cause hurt to people, especially children. Borland states that the chances of entering kindergarten at a disadvantage educationally is highly likely for a child who is born into poverty and experiences the consequences of racism for the first five years of his or her life (Borland & Wright, 2000, p.588). According to Frasier and Passow, the invisible gifted are a highly disadvantaged group because of their cultural and language differences. In addition to that, “their lack of exposure to mainstream U.S. culture” is also a drawback (2000, p. 248). The work of Ogbu and Fordham stated by Borland and Wright makes a distinction between ‘voluntary’ and ‘involuntary’ minorities. ‘Voluntary’ minorities are described as those that migrated voluntarily in search of a better life. ‘Involuntary’ minorities on the other hand are minorities are such as the African-Americans who were brought to the United States by force and were ill-treated. It was observed that ‘voluntary’ minorities did better in school than ‘involuntary’ minorities. The reason for this as suggested by Ogbu is that ‘voluntary’ minorities see language and cultural differences as barriers to assimilation that must be conquered, whereas, ‘involuntary’ minorities use language and cultural differences to protect their identity as a coping mechanism for the oppression faced by them (2000, p. 588) “Learning to follow the standard academic practices of the school is often equated with… “acting white” while simultaneously giving up acting like a minority person” ( Fordham & Ogbu’s study as cited in Borland, Wright, 2000, p.589). Therefore, for ‘involuntary’ minorities, the choice of taking the effort to achieve something in school and be alienated from peers or to maintain loyalty to one’s friends and culture can be a very painful one.

With all the oppression, disadvantages and painful choices faced by the under-represented group because of their cultural diversity and low socioeconomic backgrounds, we may assume that these barriers would prevent them from becoming high achievers. However, in spite of these great barriers, some disadvantaged but resilient individuals have actually made it to the top. Perhaps as suggested by Simonton, “trials and tribulations in the early years have a beneficial impact on talent development” (2000, p.116). Life hardships, traumatic events and challenges in the early years may help to develop skills that are essential to the development of giftedness. Traumatic events may cause children not to be able to socialize normally and hence be less likely not to conform to societal norms and expectations. Anti-conformity also happens to be one of the traits of creators. They may also feel a greater need to attain a high level of distinction (e.g. fame and fortune) in order to escape the emotional scars of childhood. Due to the hardships faced, they may also become tougher emotionally and be able better to cope with disappointments and frustrations that are sure to appear on their road to success. In comparison, talents that grow up in an environment with few hardships may not be as well equipped to face the challenges that await them later in life (Simonton). Generally motivation and in particular intrinsic motivation are central determinants of creativity, high abilities and high achievement (Lens & Rand, 2000, p.198). Dramatic or tragic life events may create strong personal convictions that could possibly serve as a sturdy motivator. From everyday observations one may notice that many achievers seem to have strong personal convictions as a result of their life experiences in spite of the harsh environment surrounding them. “A Werner Von Braun could develop his considerable talents even in a police state under Hitler because his own Nazi convictions may have given him access to opportunities for cultivating and dedicating desperately needed talents in rocketry to help the German war effort” (Tannenbaum, 2000, p. 27).

The environment as we know plays a big role in the development of a child. An environment with access to resources needed for talent development, support and encouragement from educated parents, teachers and peers and proper guidance all help to nurture the potential and talent of a child. However, children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds lack the nurturing qualities of this kind of environment and are therefore left behind. On the other hand, their environment may have certain beneficial qualities that may compensate for the lack of nurturing qualities that are found in upper and middle class environments. For example the hardships and challenges faced by these children in their environment may be beneficial in developing and enhancing problem solving skills which are important in the development of giftedness. The problem solving skills developed by these children differ from those of upper class children as obviously the problems faced by the two are very different. For a child growing up in Harlem, choosing which streets should be taken to walk home may be a matter of life and death. Whereas, this is hardly the case with upper and middle class children. The impact that the failure may have would in my opinion greatly sharpen and enhance problem solving skills.

The critical factor that relates to the success of disadvantaged youth according to Frasier and Passow is their informal support networks (2000, p. 251). Even though they may usually lack support from family members and friends, even one teacher who shows sensitivity and support can have a great impact on these youth. Role models do not also necessarily have to be alive or at a close distance to be effective. Indirect modelling, suggests Simonton “can frequently be every bit as potent as personalized instruction” (2000, p. 118). Einstein had the pictures of three deceased predecessors hanging on his wall – those of Newton, Maxwell and Faraday, and these three luminaries probably had a greater impact on Einstein than any of his teachers did (Simonton, 2000, p. 118). Internal locus of control, a positive sense of self, and feelings of empowerment were also found to be characteristics of resilient, disadvantaged high achievers (Frasier & Wright, 2000, p. 252).

The Problem of Identification.

The root of the identification problem in minority and culturally different children lies in the definition of giftedness as the identification methods used depend on how giftedness is defined. The way in which we define giftedness is a reflection of the ideas of excellence in the society that we live in. (Borland & Wright, 2000, p. 589). For example, Vincent Van Gogh was not considered to be a gifted artist at his time, however, now he is. In multicultural societies, the ideas of excellence are usually shaped by the dominant culture. In America, the dominant culture would refer to White middle and upper-class. The point is that the conception of giftedness is likely to reflect the values of the dominant culture and be blind to those of other cultures. Some believe that social institutions such as the educational system work to maintain and increase the power of those already in power and suppress the inferiors. Whether this may or may not be the true intention, these are in fact the consequences of the system. Therefore, we first need to redefine the concept of giftedness to be more sensitive to the values of the minorities. Borland and Wright argue that a revolution is needed in the field of gifted education. They challenge us to “accomplish the goals that gave rise to the field of gifted education without identifying children as gifted or even having recourse to the construct of giftedness at all” (2000, p. 591). In an ideal educational world, gifted or special education would not be necessary because curricula would be adequate enough to be receptive to the needs of individual differences.

According to Frasier and Passow, minority and culturally different gifted children are difficult to identify because of cultural bias in test instruments and other identification methods (2000, p. 253). Currently, there is an ongoing debate pertaining cultural bias in mental testing. From one perspective, intelligence tests are said to be “nothing more than an Anglo yardstick designed to make whites look ingenious, and blacks and other minorities stupid” (Hoffman cited in Frasier, Passow, 2000, p. 254). On the other hand, Arthur Jensen argues that intelligence tests show no evidence of cultural bias and can be used to predict high ability in both minority and majority races (Jensen cited in Frasier, Passow, 2000, p. 254). Achievement tests also face the same dilemma as intelligence tests. However, open-ended tests of creative thinking have no racial and socioeconomic bias and can be very helpful in identifying minority and culturally different children for participation in gifted programs (Frasier & Wright, 2000, p. 256). Alternatively, matrix identification models and other different models such as Dynamic Testing have been designed specifically to identify minority and disadvantaged gifted children have been reported to be effective.

Teacher nominations have its advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, there is still the stereotype that gifted children are not found in minority groups because of the tendency to characterize children from minority groups as those that perform the least well in school.  However, if teachers are aware of the characteristics of minority gifted children, then they may be an effective identifier of minority gifted children. According to Frasier and Passow, parents must be educated about the characteristics of giftedness and the advantages of gifted programming for their children before they can be effective nominators. Peer nominations are also suggested by Frasier and Passow as an effective way of identifying gifted minority children. They believe that peers are able to identify the “leader” in a clique and also other unusual intellectual or creative ability (2000, p. 257-259). Borland and Wright also strongly recommend identification that relies on human judgement instead of mechanical approaches (2000, p. 591).

Conclusion   

            In my opinion education is a powerful tool that can and should be used as an instrument of positive social change. However, the education system currently which leaves the minority and culturally different children to sink or swim is doing the exact opposite and causing much damage to our society. “Research has not contradicted the belief that talent potential is actually equally distributed across lines of race, class and socioeconomic status” (Mönks, Heller & Passow, 2000, p.854). So why should we leave out potentially gifted individuals? The goals of gifted programs should not only be to achieve excellence but also equity. However, according to Tannenbaum, the goals of egalitarianism and excellence contradict each other because egalitarianism seems to weaken its commitment to excellence (2000, p.32). Perhaps it is impossible to have both goals realized in the real world, but as Borland and Wright suggest, maybe we should think the unthinkable (2000, p. 592-593).

References

Borland J.H. & Wright L. (2000). Identifying and Educating Poor and Under-Represented  Gifted Students. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2^nd ed.,pp.587-593). Oxford, England : Pergamon.

Feldhusen J.F. & Jarwan F.A. (2000). Identification of Gifted and Talented Youth for Educational Programs. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2^nd ed.). Oxford, England : Pergamon.

Frasier M.M. & Passow H.A. (2000). Cultural Diversity and Children From Low Socioeconomic Backgrounds. The Invisible Gifted. In R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson. (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2^nd ed.,pp. 248-260). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lens W. & Rand P. (2000). Motivation and Cognition: Their Role in the Development of Giftedness. International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2^nd ed., pp.193). Oxford, England : Pergamon.

Mönks F.J., Heller K.A. & Passow H.A. (2000). The Study of Giftedness : Reflections on Where We Are and Where We Are Going. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2^nd ed.,pp.854-855). Oxford, England : Pergamon.

Simonton D.K. (2000). Genius and Giftedness: Same or Different? In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2^nd ed.,pp.116-117). Oxford, England : Pergamon.

Tannenbaum A.J. (2000). A History of Giftedness in School and Society. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2^nd ed.,pp. 31-32,37). Oxford, England : Pergamon.

The Politics and Practice of Education in Malaysia

 A Brief History of the Malaysian Educational System

Malaysia is a multi-ethnic society that is composed of three main ethnic groups – Malays, Chinese and Indians. It proclaims to be a democratic nation with the definition of democracy as the right of every mature citizen to vote.

Before Malaysia gained its independence from the British in 1957, the educational system in Malaysia lacked uniformity in curriculum. The country's three main ethnic groups - Malays, Chinese and Indians ran their own schools, with the latter two often importing a syllabus used in the countries of their origin and in their respective languages (Mandarin and Tamil). The Barnes Report recommended by the British a decade before the end of British rule suggested a national school system which would provide primary education for 6 years in Malay and English, hoping that over a period of time, the attraction to have separate schools in Chinese and Tamil would wane and disappear. The reaction of the Chinese community to the Barnes Report was not totally positive. While the community agreed with the basic recommendation that Malay be treated as the principal language, it felt that there should be some provision to recognize Chinese and Tamil as important components of a new definition of Malaysia’s national identity.

     After Malaysia’s independence, the ruling party decided that Malay was to be the main medium of instruction in all national schools. However, national-type schools were allowed in the primary levels to teach in either Mandarin or Tamil. These schools however do not receive full funding from the government as the national schools do. The students are also required to complete one year of ‘remove class’ before entering into the national secondary schools. The implementation of Malay as the official national language and main language of instruction in schools was done with the belief that this would promote national unity and a Malaysian identity. This was seen as a very important goal for education to reach from the start and continues to be the main goal until today.

 Introduction

 This paper examines the politics and practice of education in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. All around the world education is used as a nation-building tool – for example to create loyal citizens. Similarly in Malaysia, education is used as a nation-building tool to create ethnic, patriotic and ethical citizens. Education is largely politicized in Malaysia to the extent that every Prime Minister, excluding the first Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra al-Haj, has at one time or another been the education minister.The fact that education at the primary level is compulsory by national law in Malaysia also goes to show that education is in fact politicized. Education in Malaysia is also highly centralized particularly at primary and secondary levels, with state and local governments having little or no say at all in the major aspects of education such as the curriculum.

    According to the Malaysian educational policy, the main aims of education are to create a 1) harmonious multi-ethnic society, 2) love for the country and 3) ethical citizens. 

 Educational Policy, Ethnicity and Nation-Building

     Since the major ethnic riots of May 1969, one of the main goals in nation-building has been the eradication of inter-ethnic economic disparities. These inter-ethnic economic disparities were created by the British for administrative convenience during the colonial period. During the colonial period, labourers from China and India were brought into Malaysia and were separated accordingly by their jobs. The Malays, the indigenous people of Malaysia were already mostly involved in agriculture even before British colonolization, therefore the Chinese were allocated to handle the businesses and the Indians were allocated to handle other resources such as the rubber tree estates which were a major export product at the time. When Malaysia achieved its independence in 1957, the Chinese were the most economically dominant whereas the Malays and Indians were highly economically disadvantaged. As Malays are the largest in number and highest in political power, they make up the majority of Malaysians (60%). The minorities in West Malaysia are the Chinese (30%) and Indians (10%). The ethnic riots of May 1969 were a result of the majority not being too happy about the fact that the minority Chinese population was enjoying most of the wealth. In response to this, affirmative action policy was formed in 1970 to ensure that the majority- Malays reached an equal status economically to the Chinese. Special privileges and opportunities were reserved for ethnic Malays following these preferential policies including educational opportunities.  Education was seen as a key medium in which the socio-economic backwardness of the Malays could be corrected. English language tuition was phased out of the national education system, making Malay the only language of tuition, and public examinations were likewise restricted to Malay. Private Chinese secondary schools were allowed to continue but their examinations were not recognized by the government, thus denying pupils in these school places in public higher education or jobs in the public sector. State-funded vernacular education (schools that use Mandarin or Tamil as their language of instruction) was allowed to continue at the primary level, but has apparently received significantly lower funding than the Malay language school; in 1984, Chinese primary schools constituted 27.3 per cent of all primary schools, but received only 3.4 per cent of the government allocation for primary schools (Pong, 1993). In higher education, state institutions were allotted quotas for the intake of Malays. Government funding for places at university, both in Malaysia and abroad, was almost entirely restricted to Malays; between 1980 and 1984, over 95 per cent of the successful applicants for overseas study grants were Malays (Takei, 1973). The quota system and preferential policies continue until today. Due to this, education is seen as a very sensitive and controversial topic in Malaysia. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are basic human rights that Malaysians unfortunately do not have the privilege to indulge in.

     Ethnic groups often are politically constructed to serve a purpose; they are created and used by policymakers to achieve national and perhaps personal goals. Once they are constructed, individuals within each group begin to internalize the label, to accept the ethnicity as given and to act according to cultural norms. For example, under the Apartheid law in South Africa, the category "coloured" was created to refer to races other than Europeans and Africans. Thus the "coloured" group includes many diverse cultural groups. However, after a generation, the "coloured" people began to believe there was such a thing as the "coloured" culture. Similarly, in today's Malaysia, ethnic consciousness and identity are strong, and race/ethnicity is everyday language. However, the Malaysian ethnicity categorization - Malays, Chinese, and Indians - that is so well internalized, in fact represents three broad ethnic categories that emerged in relatively recent history. They were created by the British for administrative convenience during the colonial period and have further evolved since Malaysia's independence in 1957. These groups are by no means culturally homogenous within themselves. To a large extent, ethnicity is socially constructed. Having said that, I do not deny that there are physical attributes and deep cultural differences between groups. Groups do differ by their language, ancestry, and customs, however finely the line is drawn. But it is equally important to note that public policy has much to do with how groups are formed. Indeed, the same people in the three ethnic groups in Malaysia (Malay, Chinese, and Indian) would be considered the same ethnic group ("coloured") under Apartheid law in South Africa. Under the Apartheid, the Malays, Chinese, and Indians who migrated to South Africa would feel closer to each other in terms of their cultural background than they did in Malaysia.

    

 Educational Practice, Ethnicity and Nation-Building

      This section deals with how the curriculum attempts to meet the main educational goal of creating harmonious ethnic citizens in order to build a nation that is strong in patriotism and ethical standards.

    Moral Studies and History are the two main subjects in my opinion which the objectives of nation-building are attempted to be met. Moral Studies is compulsory for all non-Muslim students in the primary and secondary levels. The Muslim students have Islamic studies instead. The Moral Education curricula in primary school are organized around five fields (Ministry of Education, 2000):

i. Values relating to self-development;

ii. Values relating to self and family;

iii. Values relating to self and society;

iv. Values relating to self and the environment; and

v. Values relating to self and country.

    In the first years of primary school, moral values are usually taught through stories that involve all 3 ethnic groups working together towards a better future. For example, the story of Ali (Malay name) and Ah Chong (Chinese name) who help Raju (Indian name) with his school homework. Values such as cultural and religious tolerance are emphasized.

    The field of self-development includes values such as being thankful to the national leaders and having pride in them and the country; and the moral obligation to later return the favour to the country by working hard. Students are often instructed to write thank you letters to national leaders as an activity for Moral Studies (Ministry of Education, 2000).

    By secondary school, the Moral Education curriculum contains and entire field dedicated to patriotism. This includes activities such as discussions on ways of showing gratitude to the government for its efforts to develop and maintain the nation and people. Students are also encouraged to discuss the ‘bad effects’ of political demonstrations. Criticizing the government is seen as highly disrespectful and shows lack of gratitude. It is also punishable by law.

      

     A country’s history, and how it is taught in schools, is clearly an important issue relating to citizenship. For example in Malaysia, students are taught that the British managed to extend their rule because they used the ‘divide and rule’ strategy; and the only way Malaysians could achieve independence was through unity and harmony of the three ethnic groups, and that in order to develop and grow as a nation, we must continue to work together in harmony.  The curriculum unabashedly states that the main focus of the History curriculum is directed towards instilling a patriotic spirit (Ministry of Education, 2002), which is then defined by the following characteristics:

i. Pride in being Malaysian

ii. The spirit of loyalty to the nation

iii. The spirit of ‘we-ness’ (kekitaan)

iv. Discipline

v. Industriousness and productivity

      The curriculum also attempts to address the issue of ethnicity in other subject domains such as in Malay and English language classes. Students are often instructed to write essays about their respective ethnic celebrations or festivals.

    Other than that, once a week, the Malaysian national anthem is sung in school and an oath is recited by all. The oath constitutes five elements:

i. Faith in God;

ii. Loyalty to King and Country;

iii. Respect for the Rule of Law;

iv. Upholding the Constitution; and

v. Morals and Good Behaviour.

 Conclusion

    The point of this paper was to examine the politics and practice of education in Malaysia in the context of ethnicity and nation-building. In doing so, one can now reach the conclusion that policy and practice of education in Malaysia is highly influenced by its multi-ethnic community and the nation’s attempt in balancing out inter-ethnic economic disparities by introducing preferential policies in the field of education in order to build up the Malay community. Values of patriotism are also highlighted in the educational system in order to avoid educational reform.

References

Ministry of Education. 2000a. Huraian Sukatan Pelajaran Pendidikan Moral KBSM. Kuala Lumpur: Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.

Ministry of Education. 2000b. Huraian Sukatan Pelajaran Pendidikan Moral KBSR. Kuala Lumpur: Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.

Ministry of Education. 2002. Huraian Sukatan Pelajaran Sejarah KBSM. Kuala Lumpur: Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.

Pong, S. (1993). Preferential policies and secondary school attainment in Peninsular

         Malaysia. Sociology of Education, 66(4), 245-61.

Takei, Y., Bock, J.C., & Saunders, B. (1973). Educational Sponsorship by Ethnicity: A Preliminary Analysis of the West Malaysian Experience. Athens, OH: Ohio University Center for International Studies, Southeast Asia Program Papers in International Studies, Southeast Asia series, No. 28.

Social Enterprise as a Mediator between Two Rivals – Capitalism and Charity.

Imagine capitalism and charity as two distinct personalities. Capitalism is a greedy fat cat dressed in a corporate suit, and Charity is a peace-loving love dove on an altruistic mission. Capitalism’s primary motivation is to gain the highest profits. On the other hand, Charity’s main drive is to change the world for the better. Now, do you reckon they are friends or rivals? 

 

Greedy fat cat

Peace dove

The former’s mission is profit, and the latter’s mission is helping others and preserving our planet. Until recently, capitalism and charity have been seen as rivals rather than friends. Corporate Social Responsibility or CSR has led to some change in perception. In the light of CSR, corporations are given a second chance in redeeming themselves, a second chance to show that they care not only about making the highest profits. However, their claims of caring for us and the environment are soon revealed to be nothing more than pretentious campaigns to improve their image in the eyes of the world.  

The evils of capitalism are not unknown to us. Capitalism is often portrayed as a ruthless entity which is notorious for exploiting people and destroying our planet in the name of profit. Charity, on the other hand, is no angel herself. Charity has often been criticised of doing more harm than good by creating strong dependencies on external money or installing technology where local communities have neither the expertise nor money to fix it when it inevitably breaks down. As it is becoming more obvious to us that neither capitalism nor charity can deliver the solutions to the world’s problems by itself, another path emerges that converges capitalism and charity – social enterprise. Social enterprise is the mediator that truly brings capitalism and charity together for the benefit of everyone. This movement includes for-profits whose main mission is social and positive change, and non-profits that use business models to pursue their mission. Rather than maximizing shareholder value, the primary aim of social enterprises is to generate profit to further their social and/or environmental goals.

Social Psychology

Essentially, social psychology’s emphasis is mainly on understanding the causes of social behaviour – on identifying factors that shape our feelings, thoughts and behaviour in social situations (Baron & Byrne, 2000). For example, some of the questions that will be answered in this topic are: Why do human beings act so aggresively and violently towards each other? Why are we attracted to certain people and not others? What motivates us to help others? These questions and more form the core of social psychology. As we discuss the various topics within social psychology, you will become aware of the deep, yet hidden influence socialisation that has on our social behaviour.

Social Influence: Conformity and Obedience

The society and culture in which we grew up in has a deep influence on our behaviour. Society and culture teaches us to believe certain things, feel certain ways and act accordingly. However, the majority of us are largely unaware of the strong influence society and culture play in our lives and in the way we behave, so much so that we find it difficult to recognise them. In this section, we will discuss two kinds of social influence: conformity and obedience.

Conformity

Imagine that you have volunteered to participate in a psychology experiment on perception. You find yourself in a room with six other participants. First, all of you are shown a card containing three lines labeled A, B and C, and are asked to choose the line that is the closest in length to line X (please refer to figure 10.1). You are then asked one by one to say your answers out loud. At first everyone agrees on the correct answer. However, on the third trial (third card), the first participant responds with an obviously incorrect answer. You know that line A is correct, but she says line B. When the second, third, fourth and fifth participants also say line B, you really start to wonder whether you are wrong and maybe they are right. What do you think you would do at this point in the experiment? Would you stick to your initial answer, line A, or would you go along with the group, conform, and say line B as well? 

Figure 10.1: Asch’s study of conformity.

Source: http://wikis.lib.ncsu.edu/images/b/bf/Asch2.png

In the original version of this experiment conducted by Solomon Asch (1951), six participants were actually actors or helpers of the experimenter who were asked to answer incorrectly on the third trial. The actual purpose of the experiment was to investigate the degree of conformity, or changing one’s behaviour as a result of real or imagined group pressure. More than one-third of Asch’s participants conformed and agreed with the group’s obviously wrong answer. Why would so many people conform? To the spectator, conformity is often difficult to understand, and even the person who conforms has a tough time explaining his/her behaviour. It is possible to understand conformity better by exploring three factors – normative social influence, informational social influence, and the role of reference groups.

(a)   Normative social influence:

Have you ever asked a friend what he/she is wearing to a party or watched what other people are doing at the party so that you too can follow? Such behaviour reflects your desire to conform and the power of normative social influence. Norms are society’s definition of how we should behave. Normative social influence refers to conformity to group pressure out of a need for approval and acceptance by the group.

(b)   Informational social influence:

Have you ever purchased anything simply because of a friend’s recommendation? In this case, you conformed not to gain their approval, but rather because you assume that they have more information than you. Informational social influence refers to conformity to group pressure out of a need for direction and information. Many governments realise the importance of information in social influence and generally maintain strict control over the information that is available to the masses.

(c)    Reference groups:

We have a tendency to conform to people we admire and like. This is why millions of dollars are paid to celebrities to endorse certain products because advertisers realise the power of reference groups (Davis & Palladino, 2000).

Obedience 

Obedience can be defined as a type of social influence in which an individual follows direct commands, usually from someone in a position of authority. Imagine you have volunteered to participate in a psychology experiment on the effects of punishment on learning. You are randomly assigned to either the role of teacher or learner. Your role is teacher. As a teacher, you are instructed by the experimenter to give electric shocks to the learner when the wrong answer is given. The electric shocks start with 15 volts and go up to 450 volts which is extremely painful, but causes no permanent damage to the recipient. Do you think you would follow the experimenter’s instructions and give electric shocks right up to 450 volts?

In the original version of this experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram (1963), 26 out of 40 people obeyed Milgram and gave shocks to the learners right up to 450 volts. Of course, the shocks were fake and the learners were all actors. However, this goes to show that because we have been socialised to obey authority figures, we are willing to go so far as to harm a complete stranger. This is the power of social influence.

What are the factors that influence obedience? Researchers have found that there are a few factors that lead people to absolute obedience:

(i)                 Holding the authority figures responsible instead of themselves

(ii)               Accepting that the behaviour they are engaged in is routine

(iii)             Avoiding being rude or offending authority figures

(iv)             The tendency to obey simple commands first and then feeling obliged to follow more difficult commands later – a process called entrapment or foot-in-the-door phenomenon. 

Social cognition: Attitudes & Attribution

Social cognition refers to the way in which we interpret, analyse, remember, and use information about the social world. More often than not, our interpretations of the social world are less than accurate, and our ability to think clearly about other people and reach accurate decisions or judgments about them are far from perfect. In this section, we will discuss attitudes and attribution.

   Attitudes

An attitude can be defined as a learned predisposition to respond cognitively, affectively, and behaviourally to a particular object. The object can be anything from a book to people, death and politics. We are not born with attitudes, rather they are learned. Essentially, we form our attitudes through direct experience (e.g. reading a book) and through indirect observation (e.g. listening to our parents talk about politics).

Attitudes have three major components – cognitive, affective and behavioural. The cognitive component consists of thoughts and beliefs, such as “Death is not the end of life”. The affective (emotional) component involves feelings, such as fear of what comes after death. The behavioural component consists of predispositions to act in a certain way towards the object (Baron & Byrne, 2000).

We have a strong need to feel that our attitudes are in sync with each other, and our attitudes and behaviour are consistent. When this harmony is disturbed, we feel troubled and are provoked to change either our attitude, beliefs or behaviour in order to restore the harmony. This concept is known as cognitive dissonance theory. Imagine you have a desire to go to France for a holiday, but you come to realise that you cannot afford it, so you tell yourself that French people are arrogant and it is not worth the money anyway to go to a country full of snobbish people. This example follows a pattern: you desire something, find it unattainable, then reduce your dissonance by changing your attitude towards it.  

Attribution 

As we try to understand the world around us, we often look for explanations for people’s behaviour. What are the reasons for the high level of obedience in Milgram’s experiment? When we offer an explanation for behaviour, we attribute it to something. There are a few criteria for attribution.

Essentially, we attribute behaviour either to internal or external causes. Did the person act that way because of personal characteristics, motives or intentions, or from some situational demands or environmental pressures? We can answer the internal-external question by applying three criteria: consistency, consensus, and distinctiveness.

(a)    Consistency: Does the person respond to the same stimulus in a similar manner on other instances?

(b)   Consensus: How do other people respond to the same stimulus?

(c)    Distinctiveness: How does the person respond to different stimuli? Is the person’s behaviour odd or distinctive?

When consistency, consensus and distinctiveness are all high, we tend to make external attributions. Whereas, when consensus and distinctiveness are low, while consistency is high, we tend to make internal attributions. However, how do we make such attributions when we lack time and information? Most of the time, we rely on mental shortcuts.

One common mental shortcut that is used is called the fundamental attribution error. Essentially, people are more likely to attribute behaviour internally rather than externally. This is simply because human personalities are more noticeable (salient) than situational factors. Saliency bias helps to explain why people often blame homeless people for their position. One of the major harms related with saliency bias is the tendency to ‘blame the victim’. Very often when people are victimised by poverty, robbery or rape, they are questioned about why they got themselves into such a situation. We ‘blame the victim’ for his/her misfortune as it helps us maintain our belief of a just world, where bad things only happen to bad people (Baron & Byrne, 2000). 

On the other hand, when we explain our own behaviour, we choose internal attributions for our successes and external attributions for our failures. This is known as self-serving bias.

Prejudice

Prejudice can be defined as a negative attitude emotional response towards a particular group and its individual members. Prejudice, like other attitudes, influences our processing of social information (Huffman, Vernoy & Vernoy, 1997). There are examples of prejudice all around us. Why do you sometimes spot advertisements for a room to rent only available to a certain race? This is obviously prejudice on the part of the advertiser, not giving another person the chance simply because they are a member of a different racial group.

(a) Prejudice as a special type of attitude

·         Attitudes often function as schemas. Schemas are cognitive frameworks for organising, interpreting and recalling information.

·         This attitude can induce negative feelings or emotions just by being in the presence of or simply thinking about members of the group they are prejudiced against.

(b) Why prejudice persists?

·         People who hold prejudiced views do so because it allows them to boost their own self-image. When they put down other people, it allows them to feel superior.

·         Holding prejudiced views saves us considerable cognitive (mental) effort. Once attitudes or schemas are formed, we do not have to bother about engaging in careful, systematic processing since we already “know” what members of a given group are like through our preconceived beliefs, prejudices and stereotypes.

You should not confuse prejudice with discrimination. Discrimination is defined as treating members of a particular group unfairly or differently because of their membership in that group. Hence, prejudice refers to a negative attitude directed towards a particular group, whereas, discrimination refers to the behaviour directed against the group. An example of discrimination would be choosing not to rent a room to somebody because they belong to a particular race.

Sources of prejudice and discrmination are as follows:

(i)                 Socialisation: prejudices are often passed down from parents to their children. The media may also potray some groups in a brighter light than others, which brings about prejudices. For example, the media may only potray fair skinned people in their advertisements, leading people to believe that dark skin is undesirable, thus leading to a prejudice against dark skinned people.

(ii)               Conforming behaviours: sometimes we are pressured into forming prejudices or being discriminative fearing that we may lose the support of important people in our life if we act otherwise. For example, we may be prejudiced and discrminative against Jews because we face pressure by members of our group, and fear possible social rejection if we are to act otherwise.

(iii)             Direct intergroup conflict (competition as a source of prejudice): researchers have found that prejudice and discrimination increase when groups are in direct competition with each other for economic benefits, or other valued commodities and opportunities. For example, in the history of Malaysia, our biggest racial disputes happened in May 13th 1969 due to a sharp division of wealth between the Chinese, who were perceived to control a large portion of the Malaysian economy, and the Malays, who were perceived to be more poor and rural.

(iv)             Social categorisation (us-versus-them effect): people have strong tendencies to divide the world into two categories – us and them; and perceive their group to be superior to other competing groups. Each group sees itself as different and better than its rivals, and prejudice and discrimnation arise out of this clash of social perceptions.

Interpersonal  Attraction

Take a minute to think about somebody you like a lot. Now think of somebody you really do not like. Can you explain how you feel? Interpersonal attraction refers to one person’s evaluation of someone else along a dimension that ranges from strong liking to strong dislike. In this section, we will explore a number of factors that explain interpersonal attraction – physical attractiveness, proximity, and similarity.

(a)   Physical attractiveness

One of the first things that attracts us to another person is physical attractiveness (size, shape, and facial features). Studies have shown that even as infants, we favour more attractive faces. Physically attractive people are also more likely to be popular and liked.

(b)   Proximity

      A key factor in attraction involves geographic, residential, and other forms of physical proximity (closeness). Studies have shown that the nearer you live or work with someone, the more likely it is that you will like that person simply because of repeated exposure. Just like familiar people become more physically attractive to us, repeated exposure increases overall liking.

(c)    Similarity

We have a tendency to like people that are similar to us (those who share common interests, values and beliefs). Similarity is an important factor in long-term attraction. However, we are also often attracted to people that are very different from us. This is because we have a tendency to seek out people whose qualities we admire, but personally lack.

  Aggression

Aggression refers to the intentional infliction of some form of harm on others. First, we will explore several theoretical perspectives on aggression. Next, we will discuss some important determinants of aggression.

Why do human beings act so aggressively and violently towards each other?

Instinct theories suggest that human aggression stems from innate tendencies to be violent towards each other. This view was supported by Sigmund Freud among others. Freud believed that aggression stems mainly from a powerful death wish possessed by everybody. According to him, this instinct is first aimed at self-destruction, but is soon redirected towards others. A similar view was proposed by Konrad Lorenz, a Nobel Prize winning scientist. Lorenz suggested that aggression stems mainly from an inherited fighting instinct that human beings share with many other species. The assumption is that this instinct developed during the course of evolution because it helped ensure that only the strongest individuals will pass on their genes to the next generation. If you have ever watched any documentaries on wildlife, you would know that in order for a male to mate with another female, he first has to fight with other males and show that he is the strongest. However, while competition for mates and territory is typical in the animal kingdom, the role of such factors in human aggression is seriously questionable. Human aggression stems from a very large number of different factors. Hence, the suggestion that human aggression stems primarily from innate tendencies seems inappropriate (Baron & Byrne, 2000). 

Drive theories suggest that human aggression stems from external conditions that arouse the motive to harm others. The frustration-aggression hypothesis is one of the more popular drive theories. According to this theory, frustration can arouse a strong motive to harm others. Most social psychologists reject this view and consider it to be false.

Modern theories of aggression do not focus on a single factor as the primary cause for aggression like earlier theories do. In contrast, modern theories draw on  the progress in many fields of psychology in order to gain further understanding of such behaviour. One example of a modern approach is the general affective aggression model (GAAM). According to this theory, aggression is triggered by various input variables – aspects of the current situation and/or tendencies individuals bring with them to a given situation (Morris & Maisto, 2001).

For example, imagine a person who is frustrated (perhaps he/she comes from a low socio-economic background and is struggling just to make ends meet), then he/she is insulted and provoked by other individuals, combined with his/her exposure to aggressive models (perhaps an abusive parent). There are all variables which fall into the first category. Variables which fall into the second category include individual differences such as personality traits which make it more likely for aggression to occur such as high irritability. The person’s beliefs and attitudes about violence (perhaps he/she believes it is normal and acceptable behaviour to be aggressive), values about violence (perhaps violence shows courage or masculinity and is a good thing). Finally, having specific skills related to aggression such as having experience in fights and knowing how to use weapons. According to the GAAM, these individual differences and situational variables can lead to aggression through their impact on three basic processes: arousal (may increase physiological arousal such as faster heart rate), affective states (may arouse hostile feelings and emotions) and cognitions (may arouse hostile thoughts or bring back violent memories).  Finally, depending on the person’s appraisals (interpretations) of the current situation and possible restraining factors such as law enforcement, aggression may or may not occur. 

Figure 10.2: General Affective Aggression Model

Source: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/78/4/images/psp_78_4_772_fig1a.gif

Try to think back to the last time you really got angry and acted out aggressively. What made you explode? Was it something somebody else did or said? Was it something to do with you – are you irritable, or do you feel unfairly treated? Perhaps it was something about the situation (e.g. being drunk)?  In fact, all of the above can lead to aggression.

Prosocial Behaviour

Have you ever wondered why people sometimes provide help to total strangers and sometimes stand back and do nothing? Social psychologists are interested in identifying the various factors which determine who is most likely to help under what circumstances. Essentially, the goal is to understand and predict prosocial behaviour. A prosocial act can be defined as an act that benefits another person, but has no direct benefits for the person helping (Weiten, 2001).

The major inspiration for investigating prosocial behaviour was the real-life murder of Kitty Genovese of New York in 1964. For more than 30 minutes, 38 people watched a murderer stalk and stab a woman, but did not call the police. Only 20 minutes after the whole incident was over and she was dead, the first call to the police was recorded. The caller was a man who did not want to ‘get involved’. Why is it that people did not help? Was it simply because they were heartless and unkind? The truth is by not helping, you can avoid a lot of potential problems for yourself. Also, bystander effect occurs when there a lot of possible people that could come to the rescue. Most of the time, however, nodody comes to the rescue because everybody assumes that somebody else will do it.

 When faced with an emergency, a bystander must go through five crucial steps involving decisions that either inhibit or enhance the likelihood of a prosocial response. He or she must (1) notice the emergency, (2) correctly interpret what is occurring, (3) assume responsibility for providing help, (4) have the necessary skills and knowledge to help,  and (5) decide to provide assistance (Baron & Byrne, 2000). 

Another important question that is asked in relevance to prosocial behaviour is – Is any prosocial act truly unselfish? Do we provide help purely on the basis of altruism (an unselfish concern for the welfare of others) or is our motivation to help based at least partly on egoism (concern about one’s own personal welfare)? There is no concrete answer to this question, but researchers have found that empathy is the key to helping behaviour. Empathy refers to our ability to feel what the other person is feeling. For example, when we see another person suffering, we also feel the pain, and try to help them. According to the empathy-altruism hypothesis, if we feel empathy towards others, we will help them regardless of what we can gain for ourselves out of it. When you do not feel empathy, then you start weighing out the benefits of helping against the cost of helping.

 References

Baron, R.A. & Byrne, D. (2000). Social psychology (9th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

Bab 4: Attitudes: Evaluating the Social World

Bab 6: Prejudice and Discrimination

Bab 7: Interpersonal Attraction

Bab 10: Prosocial Behavior: Helping Others

Bab 11: Aggression

Davis, S.F. & Palladino, J.J. (2000). Psychology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River,

 NJ: Prentice Hall.

 Bab 14: Social Psychology. 

Gazzaniga, M.S. & Heatherton, T.F. (2003). Psychological science: The mind, brain and behaviour. London: W.W Norton & Company.

 Bab 16: Social Behavior.

Gerrig, R.J. & Zimbardo, P.G. (2008). Psychology and life (18th ed.). Boston:   Pearson Education.

 Bab 15: Social Psychology.  

Huffman, K., Vernoy, M. & Vernoy, J. (1997). Psychology in Action (Fourth Ed.). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Bab 16: Social Psychology

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioural study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-8.

Morris, C.G. & Maisto, A.A. (2001). Understanding psychology (5th ed.).       Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Bab 14: Social Psychology. 

Piliavin, I.M. , Rodin, J. and Piliavin, J.A. (1969). Good Samaritanism: an underground phenomenon? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1 (4), 289-99.

Weiten, W. (2001). Psychology Themes & Variations (Fifth Ed.). Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Bab 16: Social Behavior.