The English word “stereotypes” has no equivalent in Arabic, but is usually translated into two words (al-afkar al-namateya), literally meaning “standardized ideas.” In my search for one Arabic word that could best denote the meaning I intended, I dismissed the word “cliché” which, though commonly used in colloquial Arabic, is originally French. By stereotypes I mean the hackneyed expressions people use in a more or less automatic fashion without stopping to think what they really mean, that is, without exercising their critical faculties to determine whether these expressions are right or wrong and, accordingly, whether they should accept or reject them. It is, of course, easier to unquestioningly accept generally held ideas than to exert the mind searching for the deeper meaning behind them. A common feature of human behaviour that exists, to varying degrees, in all societies, stereotyping is nevertheless an extremely negative phenomenon that does nothing to foster greater understanding between peoples. Many of the West’s perceptions of other societies, civilizations and cultures are based on stereotypes, while we too are guilty of perceiving the Other through the prism of stereotypes which acquire an aura of truth through endless repetition. The universal tendency to accept stereotypes at face value rather than subject them to critical examination is a triumph of rhetoric over reasoning. While this tendency is part of human nature and, as such, can never be completely eradicated, I believe steps can be taken to limit its spread.

To that end, it might be useful to try and identify the main reasons for the profusion of stereotypes that have come to dominate people’s perceptions in today’s world. I believe there are four main sources for the phenomenon. The first is the lack of a rich store of knowledge that can serve as a shield against the blind acceptance of stereotypes. The second is the absence of what I believe to be the main enemy of stereotypes, namely, a free and uninterrupted dialogue. The third is the lack of a human dimension in the process of globalization currently sweeping the world, which proceeds from an economic/political premise with little regard for humanistic/cultural considerations. The fourth is a psychology dominated by a defensive mindset. I will try to cast some light on each of these four sources before moving on to the intellectual tools by which I believe the phenomenon of stereotypes can be cut down to size.

The first source from which the phenomenon springs can be found in societies where the store of knowledge forming the intellectual sensibility of the population in general and of the educated and cultured elite in particular can be characterized as either limited, flimsy or insular and hence inhospitable to opinions deviating from the norm. Even though some members of the educated and cultured elite could have a reasonably rich store of knowledge on which to draw, their frames of reference are often rooted in the past, whether a distant past stretching back for centuries or a more recent past going back only a few decades. As a result, their approach to questions of the day does not take into account modern developments in various fields of knowledge, especially in the field of social science. Many are the intellectuals, especially in the Third World, whose store of knowledge belongs more to the fifties and sixties than to the present day. Many are those who are imprisoned in a mindset that is incapable of breaking free of the shackles of parochialism to explore wider horizons. In some cases, these intellectuals may display a store of knowledge that is rich in some aspects and poor in others, notably in the area of modern social sciences. It is thus clear that the existence of a store of knowledge (for the ordinary citizens as well as for the educated elite) that can be characterized as strong, non-parochial and capable of expanding into new areas is society’s only shield against the spread of stereotypes. It is in such a context that critical faculties can develop and allow people to choose between several alternatives rather than blindly accept stereotypes as the line of least resistance.

The second source for the phenomenon of stereotypes can be found in societies whose educational and cultural constructs are not built on a solid foundation of dialogue. When educational techniques rely on rote learning and memory tests, when relationships in the world of education and in society at large are based on based on monologues (transmitters and receivers) and not on dialogue, this creates an ideal climate for the propagation of stereotypes. The opposite is true: dialogue is an effective tool by which their propagation can be limited.

The third source is the failure by the advocates of globalization to give a humanistic/cultural face to a project that has so far succeeded in portraying itself exclusively in economic/political terms. There is a pressing need to introduce a human dimension to globalization in order to allay the fears of many in the less developed parts of the world who regard it as a device to promote the interests of others at their expense, worse, as a weapon designed to destroy the structural underpinnings of their societies, whether political, economic or cultural. As one who has no problem recognizing that the West, where the notion of globalization was born, is firmly ensconced in the driving seat of progress in every sense of the word, I am convinced that the introduction of these two equally important dimensions, humanistic and cultural, to the globalization process is up to the West. I also believe one of the main reasons for this serious deficiency is that global leadership is now in the hands of the United States. In fact, it is not only the notion of globalization that suffers from this deficiency: the same is true of such other vital notions in today’s world as ‘human rights’, ‘general freedoms’ and ‘democracy’. The West, which developed these notions in its own societies, needs to add a humanistic dimension to their application by dealing with them as universal (not regional) values whose sovereignty extends to the whole of humanity. Otherwise the West will continue to be accused of applying double standards. Worse, it will render these values meaningless for those in the underdeveloped world who hear that they exist in the West but have seen nothing in the last fifty years to indicate that the West is overly concerned with extending their benefits to the rest of the world. I believe the failure to develop the globalization process in such a way as to place humanistic/cultural needs on the same footing as economic/political considerations is one of the main sources for the propagation of stereotypes.

The fourth and final source is a general psychological climate characterized by a perceived need to adopt a posture of self-defense. A sense of achievement and progress renders the members of any society less susceptible to two things: the need to be on the defensive and the feeling that they are victims of a conspiracy. These two factors create an ideal climate for stereotypes, which are usually used by people to cover their feelings of inadequacy and shift the blame for their society’s lack of progress from where it rightfully belongs on to the shoulders of others.

These then are what I consider to be the main sources of stereotypes. While it may be impossible to eradicate the phenomenon altogether, given that it exists in all societies to one degree or another, there are mechanisms by which its insidious spread can be reduced to manageable proportions.

The most effective mechanism is education –curricula, philosophy, teachers and the general learning environment. Only education can plant such values as pluralism in society; only education can form critical minds that require proof before accepting the truth of any proposition; only education can imbue people with a sense of the primacy of reason so that they test any idea through a reasoning process rather than through ensuring its conformity with set formulas. These are the tools which can limit the spread of a culture of stereotypes. However, in the short and medium term, information media can be more effective in exposing the incoherence and intellectual shallowness of stereotypes. They can also show up the link between a culture of stereotypes and other defects like the big talk syndrome, the tendency to indulge in self-praise and the irrational belief in conspiracy theories. For there can be no denying the existence of a dialectical relationship between all these negative phenomena.

(*) The Arabic version of this article was published at Al-Ahram newspaper – Cairo, 12th April, 2003.