Who defines humanity? Psychological and cultural obstacles to omniculturalism
Who defines humanity? Psychological and cultural obstacles to omniculturalism
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1354067x12446234
复制
发表时间：
2012-09-01
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
Bilewicz, Aleksandra
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bilewicz, Michal;Bilewicz, Aleksandra
在这篇文章中，我们将讨论使用泛文化主义作为改善多数群体和少数群体之间跨文化关系的工具的社会心理局限性。全文化的必要性表明，文化间的互动是根据人类的共性来构建的。这一战略可能面临严重的心理和文化障碍。由于内群体投射的自动机制，这种框架可能会产生负面影响：人们倾向于根据他们对自己群体的印象来改变他们的“人性”概念。这种预测已被证明对群体间关系，特别是地位不同的群体之间的关系（如少数群体与多数群体的关系）产生有害影响。心理学和人类学的证据表明，“人性”的外行概念往往被用作群体内偏袒和歧视的工具。一个扩展的omnicultural命令的基础上提出的人类（灵感来自Jahoda的言论文化的定义和维特根斯坦的家庭相似性的概念）和人类动物的相似性的不确定性。
In this article we discuss the social-psychological limitations of using omniculturalism as a tool to improve intercultural relations between majority and minority groups. The omnicultural imperative suggests that intercultural interactions be framed in terms of human commonalities. This strategy might face severe psychological and cultural obstacles. Due to automatic mechanisms of ingroup projection, such framing might have adverse effects: People tend to construe their concepts of "humanity" based on their impressions about their own group. Such projection has been shown to have detrimental effects on intergroup relations, especially between groups differing in status (such as minority-majority relations). Psychological and anthropological evidence is provided to argue that the lay concept of "humanity" is often used as a tool of ingroup favouritism and discrimination. An extension of the omnicultural imperative is proposed-based on the indefinable character of humanity (inspired by Jahoda's remarks on the definition of culture and Wittgenstein's concept of family resemblance) and humananimal similarities.