Brave and Chivalrous — Savage and Lazy

Te Ao Hou, March 1959, Page 42

Brave and Chivalrous — Savage and Lazy Another Dutch sociologist, Den Hollander, has studied the historical changes in the stereotype of the Hungarians in Europe. He points out that

for centuries after the migration of Hungarians to Central Europe, they had a bad reputation, and were regarded as culturally different, and therefore inferior to Europeans generally. During the 15th and 16th centuries, however, when they joined in the war against the Turks, they were pictured as a brave, devout, and chivalrous people. By the second half of the 18th century their popularity had again declined, and they were described as savage, lazy, egotistical, unreliable, and tyrannous. This picture changed again a little later, when the Hungarians became romanticized and idealized. Den Hollander believes that the image followed the pattern of political inter-relationships; it seems unlikely that there was sufficient transformation in the character of the people to justify the change in the national image. One significant study may be cited which demonstrates the manner in which stereotypes may develop without any basis in truth. The American sociologist, La Piere, studied the attitudes of residents of California towards first and second generation Armenian immigrants in Fresno County in that state. There was almost complete agreement that these Armenians had more than their share of faults, and the general attitude towards them was relatively unfriendly. La Piere proceeded to question non-Armenians as to the reasons for theirantipathies, and he was able to classify the answer into three stereotypes. In the first place, it was stated that Armenians were treacherous, lying, deceitful. In actual fact, when measured by the criterion of business integrity the Armenian merchants turned out to be equal and frequently superior to others. In the second place, they were alleged to be parasites, making excessive demands upon charitable organizaions, free clinics, etc. Actually, such demands by them were less than half of what would be expected in terms of their proportion of the population. Finally, it was said that they had an inferior code of morality, and they were always getting into trouble with the law. In fact, police records showed that they appeared in only 1.5% of Police Court cases, although they constituted approximately 6% of the population. La Piere concludes that all of these stereotypes have one factor in common, viz. that they are definitely false. This does not mean that stereotypes never contain any truth. It does mean that they can develop without any truth whatsoever. There is, however, the possibility that a little truth may enter into a stereotype through the back door, so to speak. A Frenchman, with considerable experience of international meetings once said that when he had occasion to address such a meeting he usually did so in a rather oratorical, flowery, “Latin” style. He said that otherwise his Anglo-Saxon colleagues would be disappointed! When he was with other Frenchmen he reverted to a quieter, more matter-of-fact,“un-Latin” manner, which really suited him personally much better. In this case, the stereotype itself determined his behaviour under certain circumstances, and undoubtedly reinforced the conviction of the Anglo-Saxons that they really knew what Frenchmen were like. More rarely, the stereotype may operate in reverse. A member of a group with the reputation for frugality, may go out of his way to spend freely, and tip lavishly; if the stereotype calls for lack of punctuality, he may make it a point to arrive at his destination well before the hour specified. Since, in that case, as was indicated before, he will probably be regarded as an exception, the stereotype will still prevail.