Contenu du sommaire : Les stéréotypes, encore et toujours

What category should “the stereotype” be placed in ? What status should it be assigned ? Originally referring to a reproduction process used in printing, the term “stereotype” is now understood as a ready-made opinion that is repeated mechanically. Social psychology, sociology and linguistics all have perceptibly different versions of what is involved in this term. Accompanied by a host of synonyms, with “cliché” at the forefront, the stereotype presents a series of variants, each of which is found under the banner of convention. Interpretations of stereotypes are themselves varied, ranging from a complete rejection of anything that might involve stereotypical thinking to the acknowledgment that they can involve a certain positivity.

It is generally accepted that the concept of stereotype was first introduced by Walter Lippmann in Public Opinion, which was published in 1922 in the United States. Although it is frequently cited, Lippmann's work is rarely read, and as a result his definition of the concept tends to be grossly oversimplified. Public Opinion needs to be translated (there has never been a French edition) and reread because its definition of stereotype as a manifestation of a worldview is much more complex than is usually thought. It remains highly relevant for understanding our contemporary world at a time of accelerated “rebabelization” and ongoing dewesternization.

Any assertion of the existence of a stereotype, understood as an a priori representation of things or beings and as a form of symbolic violence, implies – as its logical complement – that a true – non-stereotypical – representation of these things or beings exists ; it can also imply that a true representation does not exist at all. That a man or a woman should dress or behave in one manner rather than another refers to both a norm (which is imposed) and a stereotype : an a priori representation of identity. Within the paradigm where sex takes precedence over gender – a paradigm more widely shared than its opposite – it should be possible to describe gender correctly as “the stereotype of sex.” For sociologists, “sex” would then be defined as “the socialization, situation and perception of being a woman at a given time t” and “the socialization, situation and perception of being a man at a given time t.” In the process, researchers appeal to the explanations provided by concepts such as socialization and situation (position). However, although sociology happens to have been the first to deconstruct sex stereotypes – as well as the stereotypes of the urban youth, the adolescent, and so on – it has also, as a profession, been led to support the correct figuration, representation and practices that arise from its research. Sociology thus counters stereotypes with social objectivity. The question is whether sociology does or can do this in relation to sex on the basis of a constructivist perspective. Can it go a step further and do so once it has embraced subjectivist or identitarian positions ?

In relation to communication and consumption, the valorization of experience involves both conformism and performativity, and even performance. To create the conditions of both its operativeness and its optimization, the experiential framework supposes that experience itself is prefigured or anticipated. Form then becomes confused with conforming to a model, which runs the risk of conforming to stereotypes of production. In relation to this, tourist experience is quite indicative of the loci of discourse and the staging of events ; this includes forms of narrative that seek to go beyond the functionalist conception of travel and tourism. Yet under the influence of social networking, self-invention tends to displace stereotypes by stretching out the scene of experience before, during, and after its realization.

This article seeks to define stereotypes in terms of a paradigm in which an equal place is accorded to the concepts of collective imagination, ideology, representation, and attitude ; all of these terms come from social psychology and, especially, from the examination of social thought. It reveals the rigid socio-cognitive structure involved in stereotyping, the practical relevance of which stems from its reductive and univocal character and from the stability provided by content that reassures those who use it. Lastly, this article illustrates these specificities by exploring how stereotypes operate within the inter-discourse of mainstream media, and television in particular.

The museum as institution was originally conceived of as a panopticon of the objects of knowledge that had been amassed in order to construct an inventory of the world. How did it invent and glorify a science of classification, or taxonomy, that was so conducive to the emergence of stereotypes ? Further, how did the hegemonic excesses of scientific orthodoxy help produce and impose racist and nationalist stereotypes that justified nineteenth-century colonialism ?In contrast, by the end of the twentieth century, museums had been transformed into communication spaces ; they have tended to become places where a more relativist conception of science is staged, and where truth is constructed and can be called into question. This leads us to examine and draw out the nuances of the stereotypes that have, until now, been upheld as a body of dogmatic and universal truth. In other words, because of changes in their intellectual and societal functions, museums no longer seek to provide an institutional sacralization of systematic scientific knowledge. Modern museums have been transformed into postmodern museums, which espouse a more relative systemic ; they recognize the limits of even the most obvious methodologies and grasp the sciences in their interactions with society.

Stereotypes are alive and well. We have never been surrounded by as many stereotypes as we are today, and simultaneously, we have never identified, analyzed and deconstructed them as we do at present. This paradox is typical of our era, in which these matters have become major political issues. Stereotypes challenge social cohesiveness, intercultural concerns, the concept of “diversity,” and also our multicultural societies at a time of increasing populism and rejection of immigration. At this moment, when there are calls for the arts to be “decolonialized,” for museums to be reassessed and for something to be done about their collections, which were “looted during colonial conquests,” and when questions are being asked about how history is taught and what it means to “be French,” it seems important to question the world of museums and history. In short, we need to rethink our collective imagination. This involves more than acknowledging the existence of racial discrimination in both French society and museums. The postcolonial movement, which began a mere twenty or so years ago in France, has mainly shed light on how public authorities use their power to conceal the processes of racialization and to maintain a belief that a norm of “colorblindness” has actually been established. From this point of view, it has become blatantly obvious that, in the context of republican values, the question of race is a “public secret” ; the values that are supposed to have raised public awareness of this problem have instead helped to conceal it. While reflecting on the postcolonial current allows us to get out of this “racial” impasse “together,” the decolonial current is more radical, for it thinks that museums and the arts cannot be decolonialized from the inside. There is no doubt that this will be a challenge for the future : decolonializing museums, deconstructing the stereotypes dormant within them and (someday) opening a museum of colonial history in this country. (One of the paradoxes of France is that this nation, which once “possessed” the world's second largest colonial empire, has no place to think about this).

Mass culture is structured through extensive use of stereotypes, even if this sometimes involves contesting or criticizing them. Prevalent throughout all strata of society, stereotypes are among the most effective means of establishing a space of rapport with the public. Yet despite the power of their representations, stereotypes are often revealed to be fragile ; their nature changes in relation to the society they address or the media that convey them. This change is what we seek to throw light on through the case of Sazae-san, a yonkoma manga, which was immensely popular in post-war Japan and has remained surprisingly so since then. This manga has two especially interesting aspects. The first concerns its popularity : originally published in a local newspaper just after Japan's defeat in the Second World War, Sazae-san became an icon of the country's most influential newspaper during the ensuing period, which witnessed the economic miracle and the profound transformation of society. The second concerns its affinity with the media : distributed by local and then national newspapers, the manga was adapted for television in 1969 and continues to be broadcast today, after the death of its creator, Machiko Hasegawa. These two factors play a decisive role in the treatment of stereotypes found in one of the most famous Japanese mangas.

Children's literature lends itself to the diffusion of stereotypes, which have two facets : they are simultaneously reductive and formative. This editorial production, with its paradoxical mission both to teach and entertain, is weighed down by its constraints. It also suffers from the pervasiveness of linguistic, narrative and ideological stereotypes. Yet we do not underestimate the value of stereotypical phenomena, which also promote the development of skills that will shape future readers of literature.

The classic graphic novels of French Belgium, which are the primary focus of this article, seem to be deeply beholden to stereotyping. Their characters are less “characters” in the psychological sense than puppets or narrative vectors that, first and foremost, convey a moral. Therefore the stereotype of the “hero” in these graphic novels involves a stereotypical morality : the hero is a man (or, less frequently, a woman) who is good and has the highest ethical standards, unless there is a reversal and the main character is a villain who has negative values. Yet these tendencies have also been subverted and inflected : for example, Spirou does not hesitate to punch even the customs officials, while Gaston engages in merciless guerrilla warfare against Agent Longtarin. In this article, we would like to emphasize both the narrative functioning of stereotypes in graphic novels and their plasticity : they can undergo deformations that enable them to become more than stereotypes.

Silent films must speak to everyone, so they employ “clichés” and other “stereotypes” to enchant and delight their spectators. The advent of the “talkie” provoked a proliferation of cinematic “stereotypes,” which became less and less distinguishable from “archetypes” and served to define “genres” (film noir, the Western, the musical comedy). Then, as the themes presented in film became more diverse and cinema more globalized, stereotypes became more complex, sidestepping the caricature in which some, who sought to standardize the cinematic image, tried to imprison them. New “characters” began to command the screen : the youth, the homosexual, the North African, and so on. Others faded away : the roughneck, the femme fatale, the dirty cop, and so on. Some never knew stardom : the factory worker, the farmer, the unemployed. Cinema rarely addresses social concerns and prefers to present individual stories shaped by “types.”

Characterizing and/or categorizing a population subgroup on the basis of age or era – in other words, by “generation” – is hardly a novel approach. Different generations do not share the same experiences, and although shared values may be relatively unchanging, hierarchies of value do develop within populations, in relation to alterations in mentality, culture, and so on. However, generalizing generation-specific characterizations currently involves the production and propagation of stereotypes, which can also lead to self-fulfilling prophecy behavior : “because people of my generation are like that, I have to be like that too.”This normative approach is promoted by some economic actors, advisers, and even recruitment consultants. Generational stereotypes, which are thought of as proven facts, are foisted upon us under the pretext of their “scientific validity,” which is dubious ; this means that it is necessary to call upon “experts” from generations X, Y and Z, to try to bring these phenomena under control.

A by-product of the Industrial Revolution, kitsch plays on a conformist and consensual aesthetic that marshals sentimentality as the common denominator of every collective accord ; a hot spot of sharing and communication within mass culture, kitsch carries out the role played by clichés and stereotypes in thought and discourse. This article traces the genesis of kitsch and tries to define it, so that the resistance to it in our society, which is so fascinated by all that is digital, can finally be questioned : it is excellent !

My article seeks to indicate how literary texts, fictional narratives, and humorous (or not so humorous) stories were able to play a role in structuring the different stereotypes of Jews that emerged in the course of the twentieth century. This stereotype was gradually constructed at a historical time and in an economic, political, and cultural context. My approach is communicational in nature and involves a pragmatics of the speech act.In its uses – its figures and its inscription in discourse – the stereotype of the Jew draws much of its content from Judeophobia, whose singularity is its ability to persist throughout History. One of the first specific aspects of this stereotype is that the notion of “the Jew” – whether this term designates a religion or, more broadly, a community (or a people ?) – is problematic. It is not self-evident. Stating the stereotype (a speech act) assigns the other to a category : it refers to this other's pseudo-nature. Stereotypical thinking is a “false consciousness” that reifies, decontextualizes and essentializes. To the extent that anti-Semitism catalogues Jewish people and assigns a nature to them, it freezes them in their relation to others. What might have been considered as an opinion is part of a deadly ideology, the function of which is to subjugate actual, concrete individuals.

Stereotypes have a significant impact on the process of employment recruitment. They are one explanation for the elevated level of discrimination observed during this process. Private sector companies, public authorities and researchers have diverging views about how to resolve this difficulty. However, an examination of several surveys and meta-analyses in connection with our own research has enabled us to draw several conclusions. The effectiveness of raising recruiters' awareness of stereotypes in addressing discriminatory behavior is debatable. Affirmative action is hardly feasible in the French context and serves to reinforce stereotypes. In contrast, removing information that triggers implicit associations (by using anonymous job applications) is one solution ; another possibility is automated job application processing performed by algorithms, although not much research has been done concerning this approach.

This article takes another look at contemporary stereotypes concerning banlieues and peri-urban zones in France. Both of them are often treated as homogeneous entities cut off from the cultural, political, and social dynamics of other urban areas. At present, stereotypes of banlieues reduce them to lawless, “no-go zones” : ghettos that have always existed, as if they were natural essences that are, by definition, suprahuman. Peri-urban zones, for their part, are viewed only as territories marked by their uniformity, banality, vulgarity, and ecological carelessness ; their archaeological monotony is embodied by the figure of the “pavillon” or tract home. It is thus important for field research to rehabilitate these banlieues and peri-urban zones, and to depict them in all of their complexity.

The interview that determines whether a person will be granted refugee status lasts only a few hours. However, in most cases, asylum seekers may well have been awaiting that moment for years. During those years, it is advisable to prepare oneself by gathering as much information as possible in order to increase the chances that the interview will be successful. Those who have fled from war zones have to prove that they had really lived in them ; those who have been persecuted for their political opinions must show the history of their commitment. What do immigration agents want to know about those who have been driven from their countries because of their sexual orientation ? This is the question asked by young men and women from Gambia, who have fled homophobic violence and are seeking the protection of the UNHCR in Dakar. Since they have had to deal on a daily basis with discrimination by many Senegalese – who consider gays and lesbians to be “bad” Africans and Muslims – queer youth from Gambia wonder whether immigration agents will have the same stereotypes. To try to get a sense of these stereotypes, these asylum seekers use social networking to connect with others who have already succeeded in being granted “LGBT refugee” status.

This article presents a case study of George Soros : the financier, philanthropist, avowed enemy of both the left and the right (and sometimes both at once) who is also a target of both anti-Semitic slurs and criticism by the Israeli state. This exceptional individual has lived an exceptional life : from his birth in Hungary in the interwar period to his career as a Wall Street banker and speculator, along with his later philanthropic activities, notably with Central European University in Budapest. His life highlights issues involved in the enduring and emerging uses of stereotypes, as well as aspects of how political and public communication operate in contemporary society. The employment of such diverse and contradictory stereotypes in relation to one individual calls the very concept of stereotype into question.

Arising from the instantaneous immediacy of information and posing a challenge to political, social and media shakeups, memes created on the Internet require special attention. This article dives into imageboard forums, where memes are created and encoded. This is where the wars of political correctness are fought ; internet users play disappointedly on the ambiguous relation between the utility and toxicity of stereotypes. In a “game” that is as perilous as it is audacious, their inexhaustible reinterpretations mistreat the worlds of imagination.

In caricature, stereotypes are a form of iconographic representation of a human group – one that is well defined in space and time – or are the personification of an object that is inanimate but very real : a state, a political system, an ideology, or a natural or phantasmagorical phenomenon. In both cases, it is difficult to imagine how to draw such entities without starting off from some sociocultural or sociopolitical cliché, which would define them or would at least illustrate what they have in common. These conceptions arise from a collective imagination and emanate from human diversity.This article seeks, on the basis of case studies, to show that in caricature, stereotypes are mediations, without which communication would become increasingly convoluted in both its form and content ; it also seeks to remove the sense of opprobrium attached to these “avatars,” which are only there as representations. The message being conveyed is not restricted to the way that the character is configured ; it is also found in the situations in which the character is placed in the drawings. What creates meaning in caricature is the intentionality of its contextualization or staging ; this is where the boundaries between criticism and discrimination are located.

This research, based on twenty-one in-depth interviews with scientific journalists, explores how they investigate and contextualize scientific articles in the field of biomedical research. These journalists remain highly dependent on their sources, which, for two main reasons, are rarely called into question. First, the editorial constraints and short deadlines to which journalists are subject lead them to rely unquestioningly on the press releases provided by scientific institutions. Second, the peer review system of evaluating scientific publications is taken as a measure of their validity, which effectively curtails journalists' ability to think critically about scientific discoveries.

Not every language has a word for saying “thank you,” but the vast majority of societies have rules of politesse, which are codes that allow for peaceful cohabitation. In the absence of a specific formula, each person expresses his/her gratitude to the other with gestures, sign language, or gifts. An expression of thanks has good effects upon its recipient ; it can also be just as beneficial for the person who is showing gratitude. However, with the spread of communications technologies, especially smartphones, we see that statements of “thanks,” along with salutations, are being effaced. People are closing themselves off in “bubbles,” and the result is that the basic rules of good manners are being forgotten. A slight movement of the head is all that is needed to order a baguette ; people can remain glued to their smartphones while doing this. In a society in which people are experiencing ever greater stress and are having to concentrate more and more, expressions of gratitude are being reduced to nothing more than a murmur. This programmed loss of giving thanks corresponds to a selective urbanity that reveals new forms of segregation.