The effects of culture

It is vital to note that this study is limited to Western, individualistic cultures, as was Costello and Hodson’s (2010) study. Each culture has its own social representations and perceptions about different cultural groups and NH animals. As explained by Pivetti (2005), “’nature’ and ‘animals’ are culturally and historically specific and cannot be considered objective categories within which to organize the world” (p. 36). This is important to specify, because every prejudice contains a historical dimension, often overlooked in prejudice research (Moscovici & Perez, 1997). Gaines and Reed (1995) contend that, if we agree that prejudice is neither an issue of genetics nor errors in categorization, then biases are not inevitable, but rather they are “the historical

17 There have been several notable exceptions, addressed throughout section 2.

emergence of specific behaviors and their allied belief systems that equated physical and cultural differences with ‘goodness’ and ‘badness’ within the human species" (p.

101). As each culture defines its own standards for “goodness” and “badness,”

prejudices too must be profoundly relative, based upon culture.

Even talking broadly about Western, individualistic cultures is highly problematic.

Although it can be seen as one group, it is a broad, superordinate group made up of various countries and subgroups that can and do vary widely on different points.

Members of the same ingroup share social representations, but Western cultures are made up of numerous different ingroups. However, some hegemonic representations about NH animals may be broad enough to apply to the superordinate group of Western, individualistic cultures, sharing similar historical underpinnings. Hegemonic social representations are “consensually shared by all members of a society. Thus, they are uniform and coercive and constitute the collective reality of a given social

phenomenon” (Sakki & Pirttilä-Backman, 2009, p. 154-155). Because Western cultures share the broad roots that created and maintained the animal-human divide, as

illustrated in section 2.6.1, it is reasonable to suppose that there are at least some representations about NH animals and the divide that are generally shared.

Western culture is dissimilar to other social traditions, most notably Aboriginal and other hunter-gatherer cultures. The representations of NH animals and of nature more generally are very different in these groups, where the natural world is respected as a continuum in which humans are but one part (Patterson, 2002). Different religious groups such as Hindus and Buddhists likewise believe that we are all part of the cycle of rebirth, and can be reincarnated as any living entity (see e.g., Mason, 2005). That said, for Hindus and Buddhists, all beings can be put on the hierarchy from demons to gods, and one’s karma influences what one is reincarnated as, so Haidt and Algoe (2004) suggest that humans may simply be prone to such hierarchical thinking even when trying to avoid it. Jains however, are much stricter in their equality, and in their rules not to harm any living being (see e.g., Westermarck, 1939), so hierarchical thinking is not necessarily inevitable. Many different cultures have more egalitarian relationships with NH animals than Western culture, not necessarily because of their religious doctrines per se, but rather because of a sense of common origin and compassion

(Westermarck, 1939). These cultural differences are important to note in order to set the boundaries on what I am examining, and to illustrate that our Western perspectives on humans and other animals are not inevitable or all pervasive. It also explains the relevance of our history in shaping these social representations, because each SR is,

“directly linked and determined by historical, sociological, and ideological conditions.

As such it is strongly marked by the collective memory of the group and the system of norms to which is refers.” (Abric, 1993, p. 75)

A caveat: It is relevant to point out that this ignores the fact that most Western, individualistic cultures are at least somewhat pluralistic, and are home to almost all Aboriginal peoples, as well as numerous diverse religious and other groups that have differing social representations. Undoubtedly, not all of the hegemonic representations held by the majority are shared by these groups. Representations can also be

emancipated, which are liberated from the hegemony and are unique to every subgroup.

They can either coexist peacefully or become polemic representations when they come into conflict with divergent social representations held by other groups. (Moscovici, 1988.) Thus, a multitude of varying social representations, many of which are directly opposite to one another, exist in Western society.

It is also essential to note that, although Finland is a part of this Western, individualistic culture (e.g., Hofstede, 2001), it is unique in several ways that may have unexpected effects in this study. Finland has a relationship both with immigrants and with nature that is unique compared with other Western countries. Unlike other European countries, Finland did not have any substantial immigration until the 1990’s, and still has only a tiny minority population of immigrants (Haavisto, 2011). This means that experience with immigrants and representations about them are still rather new, and for the most part (aside from a small number of indigenous Sámi people and Romas who immigrated to Finland centuries ago) they have no weight of history behind them (Haavisto, 2011).

Historical conflict with Sweden and Russia is a different matter; however, issues of race-relations are much newer in Finland than elsewhere in the Western world.

Finns also have an unusually close relationship with nature, different from most other Western countries. Mythology about nature and the “forest Finn” is central to Finnish

identity (Haavisto, 2011; Peltonen, 2000). Representations of nature are vital to a sense of Finnishness, significantly more so than other key markers of Finnish identity, such as ice hockey and the Winter War (Finell, Olakivi, Liebkind, & Lipsanen, in press). Thus, there may be a greater sense of continuity felt between Finns and the natural world (including NH animals?) than normally exists in Western cultures. As I am not Finnish, and only have a second-hand understanding of the deep social representations shared by this society, it is somewhat difficult for me to predict how like or unlike they may be from other Western countries. It is nevertheless important to note that they may differ significantly from what one would expect from a Western, individualistic culture.

Moscovici (1984) has stated that, “Representations, obviously, are not created by individuals in isolation. Once created, however, they lead a life of their own, circulate, merge, attract and repel each other, and give birth to new representations, while old ones die out. As a consequence, in order to understand and to explain a representation, it is necessary to start with that, or those, from which it was born.” (p. 12). I have

attempted to understand and explain the representation of the animal-human divide and how it affects dehumanization and prejudice, by starting with those representations from which it was born. It is now time to return to the original question: Does the inclusion of NH animals in a person’s moral universe relate to the inclusion of other, diverse human groups? This leads us, finally, to Costello and Hodson’s (2010) study.