International conference "My home, our home: what unites us in a multicultural community" 15th and 16th November in Tallinn, Estonia. Conference website: www.integrationconference.ee
Dr. Daria Bahtina: Perception and construction of social boundaries
1. Self and Other:
Perception and construction of social boundaries
Daria Bahtina
University of California, Los Angeles
bahtina@ucla.edu
2. • Self and Other – from concepts to particulars
• Methodology and data – Imitation Game
• Social boundaries that construct Us versus Them:
majority – minority
integration levels
Outline
imagined – acknowledged
3. Self and Other
The looking–glass self Cooley 1902
Othering – a tool to have and to impose identity Kapuściński 2008
Differences used to cement stereotypes Eco 2012
Social boundaries for group membership Durkheim 1915
4. Imitation Game
→
Group formation and maintenance
Interactional expertise
Collins & Evans 2002
Judge – ask Qs to assess belonging
Non–pretender – display
Pretender – imitate
5. Judge: How do you celebrate New Year’s Eve?
What do you eat and drink, watch on TV and get as a present?
Russian speaker from Estonia
1: The whole family gets together. 2: I eat ’olivie’, drink sparkling wine or
A lot of food and noise. Kids are vodka. Watch the Russian president’s
happy. There are humorous TV speech at 11pm. Presents are plentiful.
shows. People drink sparlking
wine and shoot fireworks. Judge’s verdict:
Typical of a Russian speaker.Judge’s verdict:
Description is too general.
A Russian would never say ’noise’ – it’s their natural state of being!
7. Ethnic Estonians + Russian–speaking Estonians
Multiplayer setup:
69 participants, 24 full games, 3 players per role
30+ hours of conversation + interviews + questionnaires
Data
8. Majority versus Minority
Estonian judges guess 82%, Russian speakers – 50% (p < .01)
Ability to maintain own boundaries OR to cross other boundaries?
Estonian judges' success drops from 82% to 51% (p < .01)
with well–integrated Russian–speakers.
H: minorities score high, majorities score low on the game
9. Integrated minority features
Socialization in both groups –> epistemic resources, shared opinions
Knowing the other – understanding oneself
Resist the idea of nation/ethnos
Strong association with the state
Self–identification closer to ethnic Estonians
A challenge to fit into one rigid category
10. Integration level
Low integration guess 92% correct, high integration 59% (p < .01)
Language is negatively correlated with success
The less we know, the easier it is to patrol borders
If we loosen the boundaries, there is more social cohesion
11. Judging strategies and borders
Difference between frequency and efficiency
Self–reported judgement type: content – form – content/form
Form–based judgements:
• low integration 82% correct, high integration 17% (p < .01)
• frequency peaks when reported L1 is lower (p < .01)
13. Form–oriented judgements
CLEAN AND SIMPLE, JUST LIKE WE USE OUR LANGUAGE
Pretenders gave themselves away by using incorrect language
Sentences were too clean and simple, as if from a children’s book
Their answers are more emotional and even aggressive
They are smart and on point, our group would not reply like that
14. Form–oriented judgements
Aspects of language emphasized by participants:
Language use is full of stereotypes
• spelling: typos ignored, but not grammar (word formation)
• syntax (infinitives, verb agreement, sentence structure)
• word choice (informal style, confusing cognates)
• stylistics and manner of speaking
15. Topics of questions — by ethnic Estonians // Russian speakers:
Culture–specific knowledge 12 // 11
Values and norms 12 // 10
Lifestyle and daily activities 6 // 15
Traditions 6 // 8
Mass media, pop culture 5 // 5
Political opinions 8 // 2
Childhood memories and experiences 6 // 2
Other 2 // 0
Content–oriented judgements
16. Take–home message
Social groups are not stable entities but a process Brubaker 2002
Research toward a more comprehensive account of social identity:
• distentangle stable features from adaptable
• identities beyond ethnic background
• social programs + participation practice