Skip to content
naulon
Not checkedNot checked for notices yet.

Ethno-cultural duality and, ethnic, stereotypes

Žikić Bojan P.

Glasnik Etnografskog Instituta SANU · 2005

doi:10.2298/gei0553067z (opens in a new tab)

We email you when a new notice or a question about this paper appears.

Abstract

A construction of an individual identity, in dual ethno-cultural environments, is often based on a premise that an ethnic identity is a primary human determinant. In such dual ethno-cultural communities, a basic ethnic stereotype could be called „relational“: it is founded on the concept of „Others/We-group“ distinction, where the Others appear as a main reason for the existence of the We-group members who use the distinction. This stereotype is based on the following premises: the first one says that a local socio-cultural reality contains two solid ethno-cultural groups, whereas the other suggests that in a local context, there exist just „They“ as a solid ethno-cultural group while among „Us“ the solidity is in fact, limited to ethnic affiliation. The consequence of the attitude is pervasive presentation of intra-ethnic differences, more than mere stereotyping of the Others. These stereotypes are based on the so-called „homeland“ classifications and appear to represent a small ethnography of ideas and images on what constitutes and makes a local ethnic community. The stereotypes of this particular kind are more often seen among members of Serbian ethnic group, at least based on a research in two local communities - Bečej and Seleuš. In the two communities, the prevailing attitudes on intra-ethnic differences and the stereotypes developed out of the differences are more numerous and elaborated, based on the „homeland“ classification. This cultural, cognitive process is a consequence of intertwining of two perspectives in understanding of the We-group. The first perspective narrates about the We-group ethnic background, and the second emphasizes the group domicile, that is, it defines the We-group in space. The first perspective is founded, more or less, on indispensable experience of an ethnic identity, while the other perspective is more based on empirical experience; the second perspective is also a creation of a symbolic construction, the same as an image on an ethnic identity per se.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.