http://tomoyoichijouji.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
tomoyoichijouji.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
hetalia2008-12-11 06:27 pm
tomoyoichijouji.livejournal.com) wrote in hetalia2008-12-11 06:27 pm
Entry tags:
A paper published on 'national character'
I'm not sure if this counts as discussion material but it was just too 'appropriate' for that to scare me off. (Also in a kind of extension of the post a while before about views on nation's stereotypes.)
Science gets the last laugh on ethnic jokes
Study shows that real personalities don’t match national stereotypes
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9598717/
Some snippets of the article for interest-piquing:
-----
If national stereotypes aren’t rooted in real experiences, then where do they come from?
One possibility is that they reflect national values, which may emerge from historical events. For example, many historians have argued that the spirit of American individualism has its origins in the experiences of the pioneers in the Old West.
-----
The authors found that in most of the countries, the two personality profiles that were based on information from real people matched each other reasonably well. But they were significantly different from the stereotype profile.
“There was essentially no agreement between people’s perceptions of the typical personality [in their culture] and what we actually measured,” McCrae said.
The one exception was Poland, where the ratings from volunteers provided a better-than-usual match between typical and real personalities, suggesting the volunteers were better at seeing past stereotypes to perceive people as they really are.
Perhaps in heaven, the therapists are Polish.
-----
Yeah, that's a reference to the "In heaven...In hell" quote that's posted at the beginning of the article, and was also the topic of a scanslation if my memory serves me.
As further discussion prodding, I might bring this up -- do the Nations embody 1) the general feelings and mindset of their country's people at any particular time, 2) the stereotypes held about that country that, according to the above study, would not likely match an average citizen of said country? or of course the obvious 3) both in some fashion.
My two cents says that perhaps the 'personality' of the Nation ends up matching to the stereotype, and their actions end up matching history. Or perhaps the 'national stereotype' is merely how other Nations typify them, and how they may even typify themselves, when in reality they're all very complex and multifaceted? *is at risk of sounding literarily pretentious XP*
Thoughts anyone?
Science gets the last laugh on ethnic jokes
Study shows that real personalities don’t match national stereotypes
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9598717/
Some snippets of the article for interest-piquing:
-----
If national stereotypes aren’t rooted in real experiences, then where do they come from?
One possibility is that they reflect national values, which may emerge from historical events. For example, many historians have argued that the spirit of American individualism has its origins in the experiences of the pioneers in the Old West.
-----
The authors found that in most of the countries, the two personality profiles that were based on information from real people matched each other reasonably well. But they were significantly different from the stereotype profile.
“There was essentially no agreement between people’s perceptions of the typical personality [in their culture] and what we actually measured,” McCrae said.
The one exception was Poland, where the ratings from volunteers provided a better-than-usual match between typical and real personalities, suggesting the volunteers were better at seeing past stereotypes to perceive people as they really are.
Perhaps in heaven, the therapists are Polish.
-----
Yeah, that's a reference to the "In heaven...In hell" quote that's posted at the beginning of the article, and was also the topic of a scanslation if my memory serves me.
As further discussion prodding, I might bring this up -- do the Nations embody 1) the general feelings and mindset of their country's people at any particular time, 2) the stereotypes held about that country that, according to the above study, would not likely match an average citizen of said country? or of course the obvious 3) both in some fashion.
My two cents says that perhaps the 'personality' of the Nation ends up matching to the stereotype, and their actions end up matching history. Or perhaps the 'national stereotype' is merely how other Nations typify them, and how they may even typify themselves, when in reality they're all very complex and multifaceted? *is at risk of sounding literarily pretentious XP*
Thoughts anyone?
no subject
no subject
Nation-tans are, in part, embodiments of their people. They are the feelings of their nationals.
Nation-tans are, in part, embodiments of how their people perceive them. They are the *idea* their nationals have of them, including, sometimes, fantastic perceptions.
They are both truth and stereotype.
no subject
no subject
I wouldn't say that all Russians are cold, heartless nutjobs with a pasted-on yandere smile simply because Ivan is. Ivan appears to be more of:
* A representation of the struggles and hardships of the Russian people (see the strips with Stalin.) Also, "I dream of a place... where there's a lot of sun all the time."
* An embodiment of some historical, but factually based exaggerations (pipe-robbing, see Pact of Steel; generally unstable as based on the rather tumultuous nature of Russian history.)
* A figure that combines, blends and magnifies some of the worst of the FANTASTIC vision of Russia (cold, heartless, violent. Also, see General Winter.)
Just like you could say that Arthur (England) is, indeed, only in part an accurate perception of English people. I find it dubious that all Englishmen are black magic-using, murderous tsunderes.
Italians are not all PASTAAA, I like to eat it. But Feliciano does at least possess some Italian mannerisms, and a certain liveliness, a bubbly love for the good life that I felt in people while I was in Italy. He also has some ill, incorrect stereotypes attached to him: the aforementioned fixation in his personality to food, his general uselessness, and a lot of unflattering things.
The Japanese are polite, often discrete, true to some of Kiku Honda's character. They are not, however, generally a backstabbing and violent people, and nobody is assuming that, despite "Japan, what are you doing with that sword-aru? Wait, don't point it at me! Aaaiyaaa!"
And so on.
no subject
The Japanese are polite, often discrete, true to some of Kiku Honda's character
Thinking about it, I think then that it has to do more with the country's historically held values and perceived collective identity (I would imagine, for example, that Italy the Nation would be very proud and fond of its Italian opera, something so core to the Italian people that opera arias are practically their folk songs) rather than a collective/average personality per se.
Which is probably what you meant anyway, bwah.So, to sum it up -- Nations' personalities are not simply a lump sum of the characters of their people, but rather a personification of otherwise intangible concepts and ideas about what represents them. Sounds like a "no-duh" thing but I think that's something subtle that needs to be pointed out to be made obvious.
no subject
I also have this weird theory that their personalities are very fluid depending on what they're thinking about. Like, there are so many things happening at the same time that everything becomes a little muddled. England can be talking about his own politics, but if America shows up his entire personality switches over to that vein of "~America, you idiot!" which I don't think is exactly explained by the tsundere.
I dig your Russia bullet points. I've obviously been reading too much of Vasily Grossman's war notes today, because Russia just keeps making more and more sense to me.
And sorry for the tl;dr! That was probably silly!
IN WHICH I COULD COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT...
Like: Well America is not always so positive / Or: American is positively portrayed due to the roots of its creation. It was a nation created off of the idea of freedom and therefore he is happy to have his freedom.
Simplistic, but it can be argued either way?
no subject
That's what makes the fanfics and such for this fandom so cool, I think. People that are more experts on certain nations than the original author can make them much deeper. For example, I think he does a pretty good job on America, but Canada is only somewhat like all my Canadian friends. But the fanfic Canada tends to be spot on quite a lot; I love reading them.
no subject
However, this means that you buy the stereotypes about the countries as true to some significant extent (different from acknowledging the stereotypes and understanding the reasons for them). America might be accurate in portraying how people stereotype Americans somewhat (I also think that he is strongly based off the history and lore of America, rather than off the people themselves per se), but by no means, according to the study, would an average American act like this. For example, you might compare your friends' personalities and Canada the Nation and they might be dis/similar, but remember the human tendency to gather positive indicators for their stereotypes and forget refutations that are thought of as "unique cases". This will happen no matter how much experience a person has with a people of a country. Besides, how do you 'average out' the personalities of a people of a Nation without resorting to stereotypes anyway...?
no subject
For example, if America acted like what his people are really like, well, he'd probably act like every nation that ever immigrated to America and then some and he would seem like a poorly developed and inconsistent schizophrenic character. Even though I know of few Americans who look/act exactly like Alfred America, I can still recognize him as America and not say, Britain Jr.
So pretty much, I think these particular nation-tans were created this way for the sake of art and story-telling. After all, you can interpret all of the (male) countries as female and their interactions could be different but still within the realm of accuracy. That's my 2 cents.
no subject
Take for example North Italy: Because of his experience with HRE, he doesn't like to be left alone. It has nothing to do with Italian people being clingy, it's just one of North Italy's little quirks. Did that make sense?
Well, that's my two cents.
no subject
Ex: America trying to find other countries on an American map.
Ex: Britain cursing Germany
Ex: Hungary in love with Austria (only at one moment in history, if any)
Ex: Chibi-Italy beating the Turks (Venice: Weak on land, invincible at sea)
Ex: Switzerland's miserly ways.
Ex: Prussia as the year-round powerful aggressor (only twice prior to WWI)
no subject
thank you. don't wanna piss on anyone's ship parade, the two tans are cute together, don't get me wrong -- but delusions of fantastic relations are just...delusions.
*so off-topic*
i have to agree with the "one characteristic at one time" explanation. nations change so drastically because the rulers change, the policies change, etc. etc. ad nauseum. then there's a good dose of stereotypes sprinkled in.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Off topic, but
Fascinating stuff here, otherwise.
Re: Off topic, but
(Anonymous) 2009-01-31 06:11 am (UTC)(link)