1. Social Representations Dr. James H. Liu Centre for Applied Cross Cultural Research School of Psychology Victoria University of Wellington

2. With globalization, is there a shared representation of history, or do different regions and nations construct the history of the world in a different way? Social (shared) representations (Moscovici, 1988) facilitate effective communication and coordination– a knowledge based approach to culture, based on more explicit arguments and discourses than implicit theories Differences in representation can become the basis for lack of coordination, miscommunication and mistrust (Chiu & Krauss, 1999; Liu et al., 1999).

3. Following Malinowski (1926), history provides “foundational myths” that can be used to construct a basis for legitimising social order in society Are there representations of history so widely shared across cultures that they might be used to construct a “foundational myth” for world order? Alternatively, there may be differences in the representation of history that could be implicated in a “clash of cultures” as posited by Huntington (1996). What alternative world disorder would these support?

4. Social Representations Theory Social representations theory (Moscovici, 1984, 1988) is concerned with the processes and structures that enable knowledge and beliefs in society to be shared. The means by which different institutions propagate biased representations is of central concern to the theory. However, it has not been used extensively in a cross-cultural context, where global society is the topic and governments are the primary actors.

5. Defining Social Representations Social representations are systems of shared knowledge that facilitate communication about social objects. They include but are broader than stereotypes. For example, a social representation of poverty might include stereotypes of poor people AND theories about why they are poor AND communication used to describe poor people in both everyday conversation and mass media AND the distribution of these representations across society

6. The Power of Representations Hegemonic (consensual) representations are a source of social power because they are social constructions that people accept as “reality”. They could be used to construct “foundational myths” for world order. Polemical representations, by contrast, are those that divide different populations of people and mark divisions between them.

7. Cross-Cultural Differences A “differences perspective” has become a central tenet of cross-cultural psychology, which has shown that many psychological processes operate differently, depending on the cultural worldviews subscribed to by a particular group Substantial universality in the representation of world history across cultures would come as a surprise to most cross-cultural psychologists.

8. Globalization With global flows of people, money, technology, and mass communication, should we not expect a sharing of knowledge representations as well? The topic of “world history” is possible only by globalization; before, we only had histories of peoples. Western civilization has dominated the process of globalization, and now controls most of the world’s capital, technology, and mass media.

9. History Provides Resources and Constraints for International Actors Eurocentric representations focused on the recent past would provide a privileged position for the victorious Western powers in World War II to take action in the international arena in a way that is perceived as legitimate, relative to other nations. Phrases such as “defender of the free world” come more easily to the United States than other nations given the process and outcome of World War II.

10. METHOD Student Samples from 6 Western nations: Australia, N=102; France, N=102; Germany, N=81; Great Britain, N=39; New Zealand, N=112; USA, N=86 6 Asian Samples: Hong Kong, N=123; Japan, N=91; Malaysia, N=180 ; Philippines, N=302; Singapore, N=201, Taiwan, N= 663 (half students, half adults)

11. Open Ended Questions used Write down the names of the 5 people born in the last 1,000 years whom you consider to have had the most impact, good or bad, on World History. Imagine that you were giving a seminar on world history. What 7 events would you teach as the most important in World History?

12. Most Important Events in World History according to Western Samples

13. Most Important Events in World History according to East Asian Samples

16. Detailed Coding of Events (1) Among Western samples, 39% of events were from Europe, 17% from N.America, 3% Australia/NZ and 25% were not regional. 7% were from East Asia, 6% from the Middle East Among Asian samples, 32% of events were from Europe, 11% from N. America, and 26% not regional. 21% were from East Asia, 3% SE Asia/Pacific, 6% Middle East

17. Detailed Coding of Events (2) Across cultures, 41% of events concerned War (30-51% variability), 26% Other Politics. Other categories were Eras 8%, Science/Technology 7%, Exploration/Colonization 7%, Economics 5%. Across cultures, the 20 th century accounted for 63% of events, with very little variability (56- 79%)

18. Most Important Figures in World History in last 1000 years according to Western Samples

19. Most Important Figures in World History according to Asian Samples

21. Image © Keystone Press Agency, New York

22. Detailed Coding of Figures (1) Figures were coded for up to 2 realms of achievement (why they were famous) Across cultures, 67% of Figures were famous for Politics, and 41% for War. Almost all wartime leaders were also political leaders. 12% were famous for Scientific Achievements, 11% Arts/Lit/Phil, 10% Humanitarian, 11% Spiritual, 3% Exploration, 1% Physical

23. Detailed Coding of Figures (2) Among Western samples, 67% were from Europe (46-77%), 18% N America, 2% East Asia, 0.3% SE Asia, 6% India, 3% Middle East. Among Asian samples, 38% were from Europe, 15% from N America, 28% East Asia, 8% SE Asia, 6% India, 4% Middle East

24. Detailed Coding of Figures (3) 72% of Figures named were from the 20 th century (48-83%). 16% were from the 19 th century (8-31%) Across cultures, over 90% of figures named were from the last 200 years

25. Summary – Representations of World History: (1) Focused on the recent past, with the 20 th century, with averages of 63% of events and 72% of persons (2) Centered around politics and war, which accounted for sample averages of 67% of events and persons. (3) Dominated by the events of the World Wars, and (4) the individual Hitler, who was perceived as negative. (5) Representations were more Eurocentric than ethnocentric, with events and figures from Western nations exceeding nominations from Asia even among Asians. (6) The importance of economics and technological advances (including science) was under-represented.

26. Discussion Representations are strongly globalized, with Asian samples seeing world history as emanating from the West. No dichotomy of “cultural differences”, just more or less Eurocentrism. Asian peoples do not acknowledge the importance of one another’s contributions to world history These hegemonic representations can be used by Western powers to justify their political and military actions. Not only military & economic resources, but representational power is part of the pre-eminence of the West.

27. International Politics Conclusion The current attempt by the United States to reposition itself following Sept 11 as “Policeman of the World” rather than as World War II’s “Defender of the Free World” draws upon less consensual social representations and may not be perceived as legitimate by other nations. Given the overwhelming preponderance of war as the subject of history, we should anticipate that security issues will continue to dominate international political relations far more than other important concerns like scientific, economic, or humanitarian issues

28. Global hegemony, regional and internal polemics? In international politics, most of the Asian and Western countries represented in the previous study tend to align with the USA to greater or lesser extent. However in internal politics within a nation, the general finding is that while there is agreement about what constitute (or are) the major events in the national history, there is disagreement about their meaning and relevance for current politics.

29. Social Identity According to Tajfel & Turner (1979), social identity is that aspect of a person’s identity that pertains to their membership in groups. It’s basic insight is that identity is not an essentialized quality of the individual, but is socially constructed out of an interaction between the person and the situation. In different situations, different aspects of a person’s social identity become salient.

30. Identity Salience (Context determines Identity) For example, in a conference on feminism, gender may become salient, and behavior will conform to norms for gender appropriate behavior. At meetings of the United Nations security council, nationality will tend to guide behavior more than gender (though there is room for individual differences). According to social identity theory, behavior is qualitatively different across situations, conforming to different norms for behavior depending on identity salience. Identity salience depends on social comparison between groups.

31. Identity creates context The literature focuses on how context (or situation) activates or makes salient social identity. However, Reicher & Hopkins (1996) argue that reciprocally, social identity can create reality (or context) by defining the situation in terms of who is in the in-group and who is in the out-group, and what the in-group should be doing in this situation.

32. History as a Symbolic Resource for Identity Reicher & Hopkins’ insight is that identity is mobilized by political entrepreuners to define group boundaries in such a way as to make their own agenda that of the group. Liu & Hilton (in press) argue that history is an important symbolic resource that can be used to legitimize group boundaries and define an agenda for groups. History is particularly important for peoples (e.g., ethnicities, nationalities).

33. Historical representations provide a narrative for national identity There is a broad consensus developing across the social sciences that history is important for constructing and maintaining the “imagined community” of nationhood (Anderson, 1983; Hobsbawm, 1996; Wertsch, 2002).There is a broad consensus developing across the social sciences that history is important for constructing and maintaining the “imagined community” of nationhood (Anderson, 1983; Hobsbawm, 1996; Wertsch, 2002). History “confers immortality” to events and people, it weaves them into stories with temporal form referred to as narratives of origin. Empirical research has shown broad consensus across ethnic and regional groups as to what events and figures constitute a nation’s history (Liu et al., 1999; 2002; Huang et al., 2004).History “confers immortality” to events and people, it weaves them into stories with temporal form referred to as narratives of origin. Empirical research has shown broad consensus across ethnic and regional groups as to what events and figures constitute a nation’s history (Liu et al., 1999; 2002; Huang et al., 2004).

34. Historical representations as a narrative for identity In national histories, the temporal sequence of nominations follows a U shape, with recent and foundational events nominated by lay people more frequently than intermediate events in time. History is appealing as a symbolic resource for nation building because it offers concrete events and people with widely shared emotional resonance whose relevance to the current situation is open to interpretation. A great advantage of history for politicians is that most of the participants in it are dead, and can speak only through the tongues of present day interpreters.

35. History as a narrative for identity History furnishes both concreteness (widely recognized people and events) and temporality, both of which are powerful tools in constructing narratives about identity, especially in terms of their implications for action. History provides the outlines of an open-ended drama, with prescriptive roles connecting the individual to a larger collective that has evolved through time and hence confers not only symbolic immortality, but persuasive power to those who can ascribe for themselves a place in the narrative.

36. Table 3. 10 Most important events in Taiwan ’ s history by demographic group (Huang et al., 2004) Mingnan (N=403) PctHakka (N=122) PctOutside Province (N=219) Pct 1Feb 28 incident 72 % Feb 28 incident 67 % Feb 28 incident71 % 2Free presidential elections 41 % Meilidao incident 31 % Liberation from Japanese 36 % 3Liberation from Japanese 28 % Free presidential elections 31 % Zhen Chen- gung 32 % 4Japanese Occupation 27 % Zhen Chen- gung 31 % Free presidential elections 28 % 5Meilidao incident 25 % Liberation from Japanese 31 % Japanese Occupation 25 %

37. 6Sep 21 earthquake 25 % Japanese Occupation 29 % Meilidao incident 23 % 7Zhen Chen- gung 24 % Peaceful transition of government 24 % 10 Construction projects 22 % 8Peaceful transition of government 20 % Sep 21 earthquake 22 % End of martial law 22 % 9End of martial law 18 % Taiwan ceded to Japan 21 % Land reform20 % 1010 Construction projects 18 % Jiao Ba nian incident 20 % Taiwan ceded to Japan 19 % 10 = 10 Construction projects 20 %

38. All three groups see the February 28 th incident, where the KMT violently disposed of local dissidence in Taiwan following liberation from Japan, as the most important event. All groups see it negatively. The history of Taiwan is the story of the struggle for autonomy and democracy (first liberation from Japan, then freedom from authoritarian rule by the KMT). The lesson that can be drawn from this is a need for self determination.

39. Hierarchical Regression Predicting Support for Taiwanese Independence

40. Evaluation of important leaders in Taiwan’s history by demographic groups. MingnanHakkaOutside province F-test Chiang Kai-shek (1945~1975) 3.69 <4.00 <4.80F(2,439)=17.62, p<.0001, eta 2 =.07 Chiang Ching-kuo (1978~1988) 5.54 =5.80 =6.11F(2,532)=10.53, p<.0001, eta 2 =.04 Lee Teng-hui (1988~2000) 4.01 >4.10 >2.54F(2,459)=37.15, p<.0001, eta 2 =.14 Chen Shui-bian (2000~) 4.61 >4.20 >3.12F(2,459)=37.15, p<.0001, eta 2 =.14

41. Evaluations of leaders Unlike the events, the leaders are evaluated very differently by the demographic groups. Native province people dislike Chiang Kai- shek, and outside province people dislike Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian. Only Chiang Ching-kuo is admired by all. He serves as a potent symbol of unity for Taiwan

42. History provides raw materials for the social construction of national identity There tend to be a limited number of events and people that are consensually regarded as important in a country. They are symbolic resources for constructing nationhood in that country. No research has been done to examine how and whether narrative structures (e.g., temporality, plot, character, theme) add to the “entitavitity” or coherence of imagined communities such as national identities. Does the process of storytelling build nationhood?

43. Social Representations provide culture specific frames for the conduct of intergroup relations Just as biculturalism provides the framework for understanding history and providing a narrative about national identity for NZ, the drive for autonomy provides the representational framework for Taiwan. Many people in Taiwan feel that the drive for Taiwanese independence is irrational, and flies against its economic well-being and security (which depend on a good relationship with China)

44. Social Representations provide culture specific frames for the conduct of intergroup relations Similarly, there is tremendous debate in NZ as to the degree to which people think that the Treaty and bicultural issues should be at the centre of national identity and resource allocations. But these particular political positions (biculturalism in NZ, independence in Taiwan) are easily warranted or legitimized by national representations of history