This contribution compares the ways people in Latvia and West Texas make use of stereotypes about themselves in their communication, creating strategies that meet their rhetorical goals and dealing with the stigma of being stereotyped. The focus of the paper is on stereotypes ascribed to the groups, both Latvians and Texans, by outsiders, and not self-stereotypes that are made by the cultural group itself.
A stereotype is defined here as it is usually approached in folklore studies. The editor of The Emergence of Folklore in Everyday Life, George H. Schoemaker, for example, describes a stereotype as “a preconceived idea, image, or attitude that an individual or group has about another person or group. Stereotypes are not based on experience but are learned as part of our socialization process” (240). Usually stereotypes are critical, negative, and well known to the “labeled group,” which, avoiding the criticism, takes on the “outside” stereotype and contests or devalues it by various rhetorical means.
It is important not to confuse a stereotype with the so-called “self-stereotype” – a set of characteristics a group ascribes to itself, although sometimes the boundaries may be somewhat fuzzy (as the images may fluctuate, a group may accept and “internalize” an outside image, or vice versa, outsiders may accept the group’s self-stereotype, transform it and use it for their own ends). Orvar Lofgren, a Swedish scholar studying nationalism and national identity issues, points out the difference between an insiders’ and outsiders’ view, when writing about Swedish identity: “... being Swedish is a kind of experience which is activated... in making ironic comments about the Swedish national character (and feeling hurt when non-Swedes make similar remarks)” (23).
For stereotypes about Latvians and responses to them, I looked into web-based news agencies’ publications and the wide variety of letters sent to the posted news by everyday readers. E-mail format interaction in a discussion group seemed in many ways similar to verbal debate, so it allowed me to compare Latvian sources to communication in Texas, mostly collected from verbal interactions, the official rhetoric of local government and other officials, as well as opening speeches at public events and local newspapers. However, as the following examination reveals, despite the similarity in sources, each community’s “stereotype history” is different, as are the ways each group has developed of coming to terms with these stereotypes.
In Latvia, a country that regained independence from the Soviet occupation only 10 years ago, the dominating stereotypes that people in discussion groups refer to mainly come from historical texts written by outsiders over the course of the last two to three centuries. It seems that the recent period of independence has not yet been long enough for new stereotypes to take form and enter the group’s discourse, although the discussion groups display a certain interest in how Latvia is seen and represented in the European media.
The Latvian web community reveals itself to be aware of labels attributed to Latvians in “olden times” by early travelers and German landlords. Outsiders nowadays are hardly aware of the existence of these stereotypes, but we Latvians keep these images current by referring to them in various ways, as if thereby paying tribute to the past. At the same time, these are not self-stereotypes because the community does not accept them as “true,” and they were not created by Latvians. It seems that the Latvian community deals with these stereotypical images for its own sake, to test their validity.
These stereotypes are quite negative, and, as the interaction material shows, some are dealt with ironically, some questioningly, while others attribute them to Latvian “government structures.” Here it is worth mentioning that several scholars, such as David Chioni Moore and Sigma Ankrava, have pointed to the general similarities between post-Soviet countries and postcolonial countries. Ankrava, for instance, has proposed that Latvia, as well as other post-Soviet countries, be considered a postcolonial state. The atmosphere characteristic of postcolonial (and also post-Soviet) countries is that of disillusionment with government and official structures, and of people questioning the political and economic course the country has taken.
In order to understand the dynamics of stereotypes and national cultural symbols, the following brief sketch of Latvian history could be helpful. Latvia has been an independent country since 1991; it was under Soviet occupation after WWII, and its only other previous experience with statehood was only 20 years long, between 1920 and 1940. Before that, the territory was mostly in the hands of Baltic Germans (since the 13th century) and, later, was part of tsarist Russia, during which time the Baltic Germans maintained their dominant position as the largest landowners and governors. Latvians took the subsidiary role of farmers in the countryside and lower craftsmen in the cities. The descriptions of outside travelers the present discussion group is referring to come from the days when Latvians were not allowed to have positions in the government and, if they wanted careers as merchants, higher level craftsmen, or just to become educated, they had to give up their Latvian identity and become German.
I would like to discuss the two stereotypes that the web news readers seem to refer to most often. One describes Latvians as “a small, thievish people who mostly live in trees and woods and eat (live on) mushrooms.” The popular attitude vis-à-vis this stereotype is somewhat ambiguous: on the one hand, it seems that people like to remember it because it is so funny from the present-day standpoint; on the other hand, they still appear to be a little uncomfortable about it, as if being afraid that, in a way, the stereotype may still hold true. Checking in the mass media and the discussion groups, I found abundant references to this stereotype, some of which I will quote here. A homepage advertising Latvia and Latvian culture says in its introduction: “Although a small people eating mushrooms, this is the page of Latvian culture... yes, we do have one [culture]” (http://ai1.mii.lu.lv/kultura.htm). Quite recently the Latvian cultural arena experienced an art exhibit by Agnese Bule, the motto of which was the creation of a myth of origin for Latvians. With symbolic irony, the artist takes us back into “Latvian pre-history,” where Latvians lived in trees and in empty barrels and were “just poking their heads out.” One of the many sites that advertise the phenomenal rocks in the Pokaini area in Latvia remarks that it was very advantageous to the other nations that tried to conquer the Latvian land and people, to show themselves as the ones that have brought enlightenment to Latvians, while depicting Latvians as a “small thievish people that live in trees and eat mushrooms” (http://www.dobele-tourism.openlatvia.lv/pokaini.html; January 2003). In another example, an art professor, Tatjana Suta, reflecting on her life and career, remarks on her homepage: “...[I was teaching students] so that they would realize that we are not only ‘a small people that sit in trees and eat mushrooms...’” (1, http://www.gramata21.lv/users/suta_tatjana/; January 2003). Thievish and small – these are two attributes from the above-mentioned extended stereotypical image most often referred to in web-based news discussion group.
Are we still the same? Yes, we are small, since the population of Latvia is only 2.5 million. Do we like to steal? This accusation is often tossed at corrupt government officials and politicians ready to sell the good of the country and people for their personal benefit. Or steal tax-payers’ money without even blinking an eye. The following bitter comments of discussion group members show the recent frustration and disillusionment with a structure characteristic of all postcolonial states. From a recent exchange during a discussion group debate over the possible sale of the renovated Blackhead’s house in Old Riga:
Discussant A: Sold country, sold people, it is too bad we
went to barricades for that...
B: If [we] sell [it], then we could also
sell the Presidential palace. Don’t you think we could find another place
for the President? Sure, we could. And that building would bring in much more
money...
About another scandalous case involving overspent taxpayers’ money, a discussant writes:
The Minister of Interior Affairs Segliņš, with the help of his party leaders Skele and A.Berzins, had turned the Ministry of Interior Affairs into the headquarters of thieves, policemen – drug dealers, car thieves, contraband trafficers and crime organizers. Yes, we are a thieving people, I guess.
Another stereotype Latvians are concerned with is “Latvians as cowards and cringers (toadies).” The 19th-century German traveler J. Kohl wrote about Latvians: “You cannot trust a Latvian because they flatter and compliment in a very crude manner. They are cowards and traitors, and thus you can always find the guilty person, just pay the traitor and you will find out names of all accomplices in stealing and crooked deals...” (35). Other sources of history also describe one or another Latvian tribe forming an alliance with German invaders and thus helping to conquer the land. A folk legend about Lacplesis (Bearslayer), which later was formed into an epic, includes mention of a traitor – Kangars, and that has become the name used to denote all traitors who betray the Latvian people. This name was especially popular during Soviet times, referring to those that made alliances with the Communists for personal benefit, and gave up their Latvian identity and the idea of an independent Latvian state.
Now, in another time of disillusionment with the official government structures, people return to the image of the traitor and coward. Some direct it against those who side with joining the European Union, others – against globalization and the Americanization of the people. Representative of the general atmosphere is the discussion about whether to back the war in Iraq or not. The Latvian president was the only one of the Baltic countries’ presidents to be invited to the US to meet with President George W. Bush as Latvia was the only Baltic state to express immediate interest in supporting Bush’s “coalition of the willing.” In this respect, there has been a lot of discussion and turmoil in the newsgroups about how to interpret this invitation, which at the same time invoke this stereotypical quality of Latvians. Take the following exchange on http://www.delfi.lv [December 2002 – January-February 2003]:
Participant A: In Soviet times, the Latvian brethren kissed Breznev’s hand (the former Soviet general secretary of the Communist party), and now – Bush’s. Participant B remarks: Latvians – a nation of cowards and cringers.
Participant C: In Latvia, you will always find people who consider the interests of strangers more important than the interests of their own nation. So it was in Soviet times, and so it is now.
D: What’s the problem, what’s the ruckus? It’s politics, and what song will you sing if some Kangars (traitors) started traveling frequently to Moscow? It is better to kiss the hand of Americans than to ‘be free’ in Siberia(referring to the deportations of Latvian citizens to Siberia’s concentration camps during and after the Soviet take-over).
E: Unfortunately, outsiders will again get the impression that Latvians are lacking spine...
F: Even Euronews commented on our flattering the Americans, saying that we still have to join the European Union and sit at the same table, and that will put a damper on our enthusiasm for the US.
G: We are lucky that at least the president and the Foreign Affairs ministry do not go hand in hand with low, class- blind anti-Americanism. Now it has become fashionable; in the past, everybody was against the Russians, and now they’re swearing at the Americans. Our interests should come first!
H: Is deceitfulness a characteristic of all Latvians or only of some Latvian regions?
Discussions like this reveal that a preoccupation with being a traitor, deceiver or flatterer of “bigger brothers” is still part of the political and cultural situation in Latvia and may have even taken a new spin. Latvians are concerned about the possible stereotyping of us as a nation of cringers; therefore they redirect these negative images at our political leaders and government officials. In this way, the blame is taken off the whole nation, which is deprived of a voice in this political situation, except on the listservs.
Texans have also experienced fixed, slow to change stereotypes about themselves and have been aware of these stereotypes for a long time. In contrast to Latvians, who attribute their stereotypical images to the “government,” Texans have developed different discursive strategies in dealing with unfavorable images, both vis-à-vis outsiders and among themselves. Texans seemed to be very aware of outsider’s stereotypes about themselves, but not as concerned about the possible truth in them as Latvians.
Three main stereotypes came up repeatedly in private conversations and official rhetoric: the southern accent, speaking “incorrect” English, and cowboy attributes (such as spurs, cowboy hats, everybody driving pickup trucks, etc.). The most common rhetorical strategy was to mention the stereotype themselves first and to do it with humor, in this way not letting “outsiders” make use of the stereotype in an ironic way, which may hurt the feelings of the stereotype carrier. To put it in another way, “not to wait to be attacked” but rather to disarm the potential opponent by applying humor that makes the outsider laugh with the stereotyped but not at the stereotyped.
It is well known that humor and joking are popular devices that help people to come to terms with reality, especially in cases they feel disempowered. Humor also invites other participants to share in the same feelings.
While joking about themselves and the stereotypes attributed to them seem to be a valid, comfortable coping strategy for Texans, the Latvian way of dealing with stereotypes is more ambiguous. On the one hand, we can see that the images of stereotypes are diverted away from the whole nation and applied to the government structures, on the other – people still display heightened awareness of the existence of the stereotypes and question their truthfulness.
Ankrava, Sigma. “Post-colonial Syndrome and Identity in Latvia.” Unpublished manuscript; report delivered at the conference “Post-Communism: Theory and Practice,” Centre for Translation and Comparative Cultural Studies at the University of Warwick, June 2002.
Kohl, Johann G. Die deutsch-russischen Ostseeprovinzen. Dresden & Leipzig, 1841.
Lofgren, Orvar. The Nationalization of Culture. Ethnologia Europaea XIX. 1989.
Schoemaker, George H., ed. The Emergence of Folklore in Everyday Life. Bloomington, IN: Trikster Press, 1990.
Web sources:
Quotations of the debates from news/discussion group Delfi: http://www.delfi.lv; December 2002 – January-February 2003.
On Latvian culture: http://ai1.mii.lu.lv/kultura.htm, January 2003, homepage revised.
Pokaini phenomenal rocks: http://www.dobele-tourism.openlatvia.lv/pokaini.html; January 2003.
Suta, Tatjana: http://www.gramata21.lv/users/suta_tatjana; January 2003.
Bule, Agnese: http://www.manifesta.org/manifesta3/a_agne.html; January 2003.
Daina Jurika has a Ph.D. in philology (folklore) from the Institute of Literature, Folklore and Arts of the Academy of Sciences of Latvia. Her dissertation was A Comparative Analysis of Latvian and English Proverbs (1992). At present, she lives in Abilene, TX, and is affiliated with McMurry University in Abilene. Twice a Fulbright scholarship holder, she has studied at the Folklore Institute of Indiana University in Bloomington and participated in the research project “Traditional Arts Indiana” (2000). Her scholarly interests include organizational folklore and expressivity, proverbs, ethnography of speaking, and issues of identity and nationalism.