Intercultural exchange

==Actually, do HospEx Networks really facilitate ‘Intercultural Understanding’ successfully? Or: ‘Prejudice and Discrimination will always be with us.’ Hospitality Exchange Travel Networks as a respond to this?==


 * By adia
 * March, 2008

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)

After a short introduction to Hospitality Exchange Networks, prejudice and discrimination and their relationship to each other, this essay will examine two widely known psychological theories that can be relevant in the reduction of prejudice. At the end, the relevance to Hospitality Exchange networks will be evaluated.

Hospitality Exchange Travel Networks
In our technically advanced age more and more so called 'social networks' poped up in the internet as new forms of social interaction (e.g. the popular Facebook). In between the masses of new web services a special form of social networks make their way so called 'hospitality exchange networks'. They are special because they stimulate real and personal, not virtual, social interactions. Their missions are similar, “bringing travellers in touch with people in the place they visit, and by giving ‘locals’ a chance to meet people from other cultures we can increase intercultural understanding and strengthen the peace on our planet”, as stated on HospitalityClub (n.d.), on of the largest networks. One network, Servas, is still paper based, dates even further back as far 1948 where thousands of “host and travellers share the goals of building world peace, goodwill, understanding, and mutual tolerance [...] by share and shelter travellers from around the world” (n.d.) and "CouchSurfing seeks to internationally network people and places, create educational exchanges, raise collective consciousness, spread tolerance, and facilitate cultural understanding." (n.d.).

Nearly one million members use these networks to get in touch with locals and travellers, rapidly growing, and are therefore not just a marginal phenomenon (HospEx Ne>>t, n.d.). One can question what effect this cultural exchange has. Whether these networks increase intercultural understanding and strengthen the peace on our planet as they pledge. In order to understand this, one might find evidence in the processes of prejudice and discrimination, that has driven all of history’s wars and group violence (Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003).

Origins of Prejudices and Discrimination
Prejudices are something that many of us know close-up and first hand. Be it about little things we have not been familiar with or have not experienced, or about someone's race, religion, or sexual orientation. In psychology, prejudice is described as an emotional unjustified, usually negative attitude towards a group of people or a favouring of ones own group. The group of people might exist as a group as such or only in the mind of the person that has prejudices. Prejudice does involve not only prejudgement but also, mostly, misjudgement (Simpson & Yinger, 1986). According to Todd Nelson (2002) and other researchers they are strongly related to stereotypes and can not been seen apart of each other. Thinking about a group will automatic elicit a schema about the group with all the related aspects, limited because of our cognitive constraints and often based on single experiences. Ashmore and Del Boca (1981, as cited in Nelson, p. 28), defines stereotypes as “a set of beliefs about the personal attributes of a group of people”, that clarifies the close relationship to prejudice.

Discrimination itself is neutral and means to draw a distinction between things. However, as Simpson and Yinger (1986) argue on, things can be nicely distinguished and unfairly distinguished. Especially when it comes to social discrimination, discrimination is an object to subjectivity. There are some who say that they are distinguished in a fair way, but others might see and experience this differently. Antonovsky (1960, p. 81) defines discrimination as, “the effective injurious treatment of person on grounds as rationally irrelevant to the situation”, rooted in fear and prejudice. Prejudice and discrimination can exist distinct of each other as they can be the cause of each other. Most of the times they are mutually reinforcing as Simpson and Yinger point out. Certain classes, for example, might never come in contact with each other; economical differences, personal insecurities and fear facilitate prejudice. By controlling one factor, it might be possible to reduce the other. One theory that is widely accepted as useful in the understanding the origin of prejudice is the realistic conflict theory (Nelson, 2002). The realistic conflict theory, proposed by Campell (1965), as an origin of prejudice has its roots in the notion of relative deprivation. When people think that another group has an advantage, or their ingroup as a whole has a disadvantage, regarding an important goal, people will develop feelings of hostility and prejudices towards the other group. Campell suggested that a shared goal complicated by scarcity is based on competition for real resources. However, there is a growing literature on the automaticity of stereotypes and prejudice (Nelson). Nevertheless, the realistic conflict theory might be, to a great extend, valid as Sherif et al. (1961) in their famous study showed.

How can Prejudices and Discrimination be reduced?
In the Robber's Cave experiment, Sherif and his colleges (1961, see also Tajfel et al., 1971; Rabbie & Horwitz, 1969) conducted an experiment with two groups of boys at a summer camp in the Robber's Cave national park. In the first phase of the camp the randomly assigned groups formed fostered friendships and group unity in the group. During the second phase they successfully demonstrated that the boys developed even more hostility and prejudice towards the other group, when they had to compete in a series of sporting events for a scare resource (a 5$ price). After this phase both groups saw themselves as superior and referred to the other group as inferior and described them in negative attitudes. In the final phase of the camp, Sherif et al. tried to reduce the prejudice they produced between the groups during the competition, and even before when they first heard of each other.

Firstly they decided to try to reduce the prejudice with Allport's (1954) classic contact hypotheses and brought the groups together. According to the contact hypothesis, bringing groups in contact should result in prejudice reduction, as in many cases prejudice and stereotypes are based on ignorance and inadequate knowledge about the other group through lack of contact. Therefore, bringing the two groups of boys together should reduce prejudice and result in the formation of intergroup friendships (Allport). Sherif et al. brought them together at the dinner table and other occasions. Unfortunately, this did not reduce the prejudice between the groups. It even fostered the prejudices and stereotypes that the boys had about each other and resulted in even more fights between the two groups.

In order to successfully reduce the existing prejudices and stereotypes the boys had, Sherif et al. introduced a so called ‘superordinated goal’. They speculated that when the goals of two groups are compatible, the attitudes towards the other group should be more tolerant by blurring the lines between ingroup and outgroup membership. In order to archive this goal, the two groups had to cooperate and work together in a series of introduced incidents. The groups managed to accomplish the incidents, while Sherif et al. (1961) noticed a dramatic decline and even absence in hostility between the groups.

Throughout the years subsequent research, in the lab and field, has produced data that is supportive of the realistic conflict theory. It is supportive in regard to the origin of prejudice and stereotypes as well as for the reduction of them. However, this might not be as easy as the Robber's Cave experiment would lead to assume (Brown, 1995). Nevertheless, the available data indicates strong support for the efficacy of cooperative (learning) groups in reducing intergroup stereotyping and prejudice (Slavin & Cooper 1999) and therewith, arguable, one of the underling factors of discrimination (Sampson, 1999).

Conclusion
To sum up, this essay has introduced to the concepts of prejudice and stereotypes, their relation to discrimination and possible solutions. These solutions how they are stimulated by new forms of social interaction through the internet, Hospitality Exchange Networks. It is widely accepted that the intergroup stereotyping and prejudice can be reduced through cooperative group settings. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that the mere contact and exchange of groups, as suggested in the contact hypotheses and facilitated by the networks, is not sufficient and can even be counter productive and foster existing prejudice and stereotypes, and therefore discrimination. It is therefore very doubtful to assume that (merely) bringing travellers in touch with locals will increase intercultural understanding and strengthen the peace on our planet. However, the scope of this essay is very limited, further research has to be conducted.

Disucssion
I do welcome all remarks and notes on this topic!

Further Recommended Reading

 * Classics in the History of Psychology -- Sherif et al. (1954/1961). http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/
 * Elliott, J. (1970). The eye of the storm. [Videotape.] Mount Kisco, NY: Center for Humanities.
 * Understanding Prejudice. http://www.understandingprejudice.org
 * The Jigsaw Classroom: A Cooperative Learning Technique. http://www.jigsaw.org