Mediated Intercultural Communication in a Digital Age

Ahmet Atay, Margaret U. D'Silva, Ahmet Atay, Margaret U. D'Silva

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780367660833
• eBook ISBN: 9781351399890
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Computer Science
• Subtopic: Digital Media
• Index: Computer Science

This book focuses on mediated intercultural communication in the context of globalization. Analyzing social and traditional media using qualitative, interpretive, and critical and cultural perspectives, contributors engage with diverse topics - ranging from hybrid identities in different communities, to journalistic collaborations in the global media landscape. In addition, the authors also examine the placeless and borderless communities of diaspora members, their transnational identities, and the social media stories that shape and are shaped by them.

1 Color-Blind Ideology in Traditional and Online Media

Toward a Future Research Agenda

Mélodine Sommier, Jacco van Sterkenburg and Joep Hofhuis

Introduction

Changes in media landscapes have opened up possibilities for media users to access and engage with a variety of content going well beyond the scope of national imagined communities. For this reason, new media landscapes raise questions regarding the visibility given to difference and diversity in what is shared online as well as users’ practices and interactions. Previous research has widely examined discourses of difference and diversity in traditional media in relation to audience effects, representativeness, and (mis)representations (e.g., Jacobs, Hooghe, & De Vroome, 2017; Schlueter & Davidov, 2013). These studies have highlighted the role played by traditional media in shaping society’s response to diversity in general. On the other hand, far fewer studies have explored the way diversity is dealt with in online (social) media, and results point to different directions. Findings indeed suggest that online content and practices could be going either into a more diversified and multicultural direction (e.g., Barberá, 2015) or into a more discriminatory and segregated one (e.g., Cisneros & Nakayama, 2015). Addressing this research gap and ambivalent findings is a pressing issue given the increasing role played by online (social) media in the social construction of realities. Furthermore, being able to properly address intersections between diversity and traditional and online media is an essential step to understand how they reshape intercultural communication (Sommier, 2014). This chapter therefore sets out to provide an overview of the current state of research on these topics and sketches directions for future research. For this purpose, this chapter discusses the main trends and findings in existing literature on the topic of color blindness in both traditional and social media.

We first introduce the concept of color blindness from a social psychological perspective. This part lays a clear theoretical ground to understand differences between multiculturalism and color blindness and implications of these concepts across strands of research in intercultural communication. Following this brief discussion, we successively discuss the state of literature regarding operations of color blindness in traditional and online (social) media. The compilation of previous findings provides an overview of the main research areas, remaining research gaps, and discrepancies in results. In the light of previous research, we conclude by discussing some of the main challenges and directions for future research.

Examining Color Blindness from a Social Psychological Perspective

When examining how members of majority and minority groups in society react to diversity, scholars often use theories rooted in social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). At its core, this theory poses that individuals have the tendency to categorize their social environment into groups based on shared characteristics. People consequently identify with in-groups that share their own characteristics, while individuals who appear different are categorized as belonging to an out-group. This categorization helps individuals to predict and give meaning to their social environment; a positive evaluation of one’s in-group as compared to out-groups can provide a source of self-esteem. However, the downside is that social categorization leads to the emergence of stereotypes and group representations that tend to favor the in-group over the out-group. Culture, race, and ethnicity are considered among the most prominent categories along which individuals organize their social environment, and are some of the most salient and deeply rooted social identities (Fiske, 1998). Examining societies’ reactions to diversity in cultural identities, scholars have identified two contrasting ideologies: multiculturalism and color blindness (Stevens, Plaut, & Sanchez-Burks, 2008).

The multiculturalist ideology is characterized by an emphasis on the positive side of individual differences: It explicitly recognizes that diversity in terms of culture, ethnicity, race, or any other social category provides added value to society. Extending this to the social identity paradigm, multiculturalists allow or even encourage minority members to identify with their own cultural in-group. Research shows that multiculturalism leads to more positive and secure identities and to an openness to and acceptance of a wider range of opinions and behaviors within society at large (Verkuyten, 2005). The downside of multiculturalism, however, is that the side-by-side existence of many group identities complicates social interactions and may cause prejudice and conflict (Fiske, 1998). Furthermore, as we have recently seen in many Western societies, majority groups often view multiculturalism as a threat to the dominant culture, leading to frustration and increasing prejudice and anti-immigrant sentiments (e.g., Gorodzeisky & Semyonov, 2015).

In contrast, the color-blind ideology is based around the idea that it is more beneficial to actively ignore or downplay cultural/ethnic differences. From a color-blind viewpoint, it is important to reduce minority members’ identification with their in-groups, in favor of an overarching identity, such as an organization or society as a whole. One of the areas where the color-blind ideology is most visible is in statements about diversity in the workplace, for example, in organizations whose recruitment policies state that they “exclusively focus on a candidate’s qualifications” and ignore their cultural background (Jansen, Vos, Otten, Podsiadlowski, & van der Zee, 2016). A similar discourse is upheld by politicians who promote a color-blind approach to immigrants’ acculturation into society, by emphasizing overarching common values and identities (Jugé & Perez, 2006). As will become clear from this chapter, mainstream media play a significant role in the popularization of this ideology (e.g., Jacobs et al., 2017).

Color blindness appears to be intertwined with traditional Western values such as meritocracy, individualism, and a high need for belonging. Advocates of color-blind ideology often claim neutrality or objectivity toward cultural/ethnic differences. However, others have argued that color-blind ideology constitutes a denial of the complexity of a diverse social environment (Markus, Steele, & Steele, 2000). In fact, color blindness has been shown to be positively related to racial bias (Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004).

There is quite some evidence that minority members generally are not supportive of the color-blind ideology (Jansen et al., 2016). Stevens et al. (2008) provide some reasons for these findings. First, although the color-blind perspective is based around the ideal of treating all people the same, minority members appear to view it as neither color-blind nor color-neutral, but instead as exclusionary (Markus et al., 2000). The color-blind perspective implicitly downplays the importance of cultural identification and openness to diversity, which is interpreted as a denial of minority members’ own cultural heritage and an attempt to erase diversity (Hofhuis, Van der Zee, & Otten, 2016). The threat to their in-group identity, as well as a lack of room for cultural maintenance, has been associated with lower well-being among minorities (Dover, Major, & Kaiser, 2016). Furthermore, when minority members perceive a devaluation of cultural/ethnic differences, frustration, dissatisfaction, and conflict are more likely to occur (Hofhuis, Van der Zee, & Otten, 2012; Plaut, Thomas, & Goren, 2009).

Second, the color-blind ideology places importance on individual competences and ability to navigate the complexities of the majority society. However, these criteria of merit are often a reflection of the norms and values of the majority group, and are thus inherently biased against the minority group (Goldberg, 2005). As a result, color-blind ideology, although grounded in rhetoric of equality, plays mostly into the hands of the majority group, by protecting the existing status quo of group hierarchies. Rooted in a denial of cultural differences, color blindness therefore conditions the acceptance of out-group members to the dismissal of their ethnic/cultural backgrounds. The color-blind perspective is thus associated with expanding exclusion of minorities, and a demand for assimilation of majority norms and values.

Racial/Ethnic Stereotypes and the Operation of Color Blindness in Mainstream Media

In the past decades, much research has focused on how mass media act as a powerful frame of reference for media consumers to think and communicate about cultural difference. Some of that research has focused on the ideological and discursive work the media do in framing racial and ethnic relations. The common assertion in those studies—mostly conducted in the U.K. and the U.S.A.—is that media coverage mainly reinforces hegemonic discourses surrounding race and ethnicity, and strengthens racism through unconscious bias and simplified representations (e.g., Drew, 2011; Nishikawa, Towner, Clawson, & Waltenburg, 2009). Campbell, Leduff, and Brown (2012) showed, for instance, that the U.S. news media routinely represent Black people in a dichotomous way, either as completely assimilated or as violent criminals. Behind the first type of representation, which Campbell et al. (2012) coined the assimilation myth, lies the idea that Black people are fully assimilated and racial discrimination no longer exists. In contrast to this assimilation myth, the U.S. news media have also framed Blacks as criminals, thereby perpetuating a centuries-old widespread discourse that associates blackness with danger and amorality. Campbell et al. (2012) showed how the combination of these two contrasting discourses not only provides people with a simplified narrative around a complex reality but also leaves no space for addressing wider racial inequalities in society at large that may constitute a wider background for deviant behaviors like criminality. As a result, Black criminality in the media is represented as solely a result of non-racial dynamics (Bonilla-Silva, 2003, as cited in Alemán, 2014). This fundamental ignorance or blindness to existing racial dynamics and inequalities can be seen as one of the main characteristics of color-blind racism. Color-blind racism is a commonly used racial discourse in today’s society and operates through a claim that racial discrimination does not play any significant role in society anymore and is something of the past, while reality- and race-based research actually shows otherwise (Bonilla-Silva, 2015; Bonilla-Silva & Forman, 2000). Color-blind racism thereby allows people—including media professionals—to deny structural and institutionalized forms of racism while at the same time using every day, racial/ethnic stereotypes without being aware of that.

Studies focusing on diverse media genres or other racial and ethnic categories than Black and White have confirmed the subtle ways mainstream media reproduce racial and cultural stereotypes to give meaning to racial/ethnic minority groups on an everyday basis, often in an unconscious manner (e.g., for U.S. advertising, see Kim & Chung, 2005; for news media, see Berry, Garcia-Blanco, & Moore, 2016; for international sport media, see Van Sterkenburg, 2017). The White majority remains relatively unspoken and goes unmarked. In so doing, the media present narratives that racialize non-White minorities while deracializing the White majority group (Haymes, 1995, as cited in Alemán, 2014).

Notwithstanding the evidence of racial/ethnic bias and stereotypes in the media, research shows that (Western) media professionals themselves often believe race or the use of racial/ethnic stereotypes is not an issue in their own media practices. Campbell et al. (2012) concluded, for instance, that U.S. “local television journalists are unaware of how their own racial attitudes affect the coverage” (p. 14). Bruce (2004) and Knoppers and Elling (2004) found in their sports media studies that individual journalists argue they are free from the use of racial/ethnic or gender bias in their own coverage—though U.S. commentators did show some awareness of the existence of racial stereotypes in sports journalism generally (Bruce, 2004). Some researchers have used the term sincere fictions in this respect which refers to the personal mythologies that media professionals uphold for themselves as being objective, race-neutral (color-blind) professionals who are free from any racial/ethnic bias (Feagin & Vera, 1995; Spencer, 2004). Knoppers and Elling (2004) and Nishikawa et al. (2009) in their studies for the Dutch and U.S. contexts found that norms such as objectivity and neutrality constitute key professional norms for many media professionals. These values are seen as fundamental to the job. They are acquired through formal training and education as well as the institutionally prioritized codes within the media industry (Knoppers & Elling, 2004; Silk, Slack, & Amis, 2000). At the same time, however, as we have argued before, previous research indicates that media coverage is not race-neutral or objective, but it incorporates racial/ethnic biases and reinforces hegemonic discourses surrounding race and ethnicity. This is not only evident in the use of stereotypes but also in the underrepresentation of minority ethnic news sources and the marginalization of minority ethnic voices and interests in media (Campbell et al., 2012; Ortega & Feagin, 2017). Nishikawa et al. (2009) concluded, for instance, that U.S. journalists usually relied on a limited set of official sources like formal political leaders and government officials who are mainly White males. Such bias in terms of media stereotypes and the power to speak results in the marginalization and misrepresentation of minority voices and experiences in the media, and an ignorance of their perspectives. Not surprisingly, some research has shown that minority ethnic media users tend to reject racial/ethnic stereotypes, while their White majority ethnic counterparts may be aware of the stereotypes but tend to accept them as reflecting reality at the same time (e.g., Costera Meijer & de Bruin, 2003; McCarthy, Jones, & Potrac, 2003).

The presumed objectivity and color blindness media professionals subscribe to mask how media coverage is often situated within a majority ethnic, White perspective (Van Sterkenburg & Knoppers, 2012). Drew (2011) and Ortega and Feagin (2017) wrote that most full-time journalists, decision makers, and media owners in the mainstream media industry are White males. Research shows that White media professionals tend to draw on hegemonic societal discourses surrounding race and ethnicity that are easily available to them, but that they have difficulty seeing their own whiteness and White-situated discourses (Bruce, 2004; Ortega & Feagin, 2017). As a consequence, White media professionals incorporate racial and ethnic stereotypes which privilege White people belonging to the racial and ethnic majority while at the same time denying or downplaying the use of these same stereotypes in order to maintain a positive color-blind self-image. Within this color-blind logic, as we have argued earlier, structural racism is seen as something of the past, and incidents of racism within or outside of the media are often seen as mere individual acts of specific prejudiced individuals/commentators. A focus on individuality instead of racial ideology shifts attention away from institutionally embedded normative whiteness which still permeates mainstream contemporary media. It justifies the lack of substantive measures on the institutional level to increase racial and ethnic diversity and inclusiveness within media production.

Race, Racism, and Color Blindness Online

In contrast to traditional media, expressions of race and (color-blind) racism online have not been extensively researched (Daniels, 2012; Titley, 2014), though they are starting to get more attention. Different approaches have been used; some scholars build on existing theories to examine online racism (e.g., Durrheim, Greener, & Whitehead, 2015), while others have developed frameworks that take into account the technological features of online environments (e.g., Sharma, 2013). There also seems to be a push toward inclusive approaches that would be used to investigate online and off-line expressions of racism as integrated and co-constructive (e.g., Titley, 2014). Overall, these studies highlight race and racism as multifaceted concepts that are articulated through different notions and constantly reinvented. More importantly, the emphasis placed on the role of online environments in reshaping racism means that scholars are dismissing long-standing assumptions in research about the Internet being race-free.

For a long time, researchers strongly believed that online and social media would increase ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Notes on Contributors
• New Directions in Mediated Intercultural Communication
• 1 Color-Blind Ideology in Traditional and Online Media: Toward a Future Research Agenda
• 2 Multilayered Interactions: Culture, Communication, and New Media
• 3 Intercultural Collaboration—A Focus for Journalism in the Digital Era
• 4 I Think I Know Who You Are: How Cultural Performance and Identity Negotiations Take Place during Online Discussions over a Book
• 5 Global Intercultural Communication and Mediated Translation
• 6 Examination of Transnational Geolocation-Based Online Dating and Hookup Applications
• 7 An Online Travelers’ Forum: Where Cultures Meet (Israel on TripAdvisor)
• 8 Negotiating Tradition in a Postmodern Society: Tibetan Buddhism Online
• 9 Diversity and Media in the Netherlands and Norway
• 10 Know Your Meme, Mine is Caps!: Caps Phenomenon in Turkey
• 11 Imagining Homeland: New Media Use among Korean International Graduate Students in the U.S.A.
• 12 Protest Motivations of the Standing Rock Movement: A Facebook Page Analysis
• Index