This sentiment is mirrored in my quantitative methods final project where I conducted a quasi-experimental survey to assess visual framing effects on opinions of international leaders. This is currently being revised for submission to a journal, but I feel that part of the study is of separate interest for inclusion here.
After exposure to an international leader (Kim Jong-il, Muammar Gaddafi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden), participants were asked to complete Likert scales on their likelihood to agree with certain statements about the leader. There was also an open-ended question where survey-takers could justify their responses. Whereas the initial intention was to see if the image provided of the leader influenced responses, the answers to the open-ended questions showed many patterns in participant opinions.
The most startling responses and overall most frequent responses were the admission by the survey-taker that he or she did not know who the person whose image was shown was. Re-read the list above and think about college students in two prestigious undergraduate universities who are unaware of important and (in some ways) infamous world leaders. Each of these leaders were unknown to at least one person who took the survey (N=157) with the relative percentages listed below. These numbers reflect the percentage of people who did not know who the person was, even though they were given the leader's name, their image, and a brief description.
Saddam Hussein: .08% (1 person)
Osama bin Laden: 2.5% (4 people)
Kim Jong-il: 22.8% (36 people)
Muammar Gaddafi: 23.5% (37 people)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: 43.6% (68 people)
Vladimir Putin: 47% (74 people)
Here is the element of overestimation: I assumed that college students at competitive universities would be aware of prominent world leaders. A wild assumption? Probably not, but an assumption nonetheless about my survey population that greatly affected the outcome of my survey.
Additionally, a pattern emerged regarding negative, slanderous, and crude remarks about the leaders. For example, Osama bin Laden received many descriptions such as "MONSTER!", "terrorist!", and "evil man" with similar, but not quite as aggressive comments towards Saddam Hussein, among other disparaging remarks about the other leaders. The emerging dichotomy became that participants either knew nothing or only knew that they were "evil". Very few respondents (20) answered the open-ended question section with any semblance of policy knowledge, global awareness, or political savvy. Although the survey was not meant to measure that, there was the assumption made that the population selected would be more knowledgeable about these world leaders.
These patterns of ignorance, limited knowledge, and negative descriptions reinforce stereotypes of the "dumb, navel-gazing American" who has no interest in global study and is not involved in the political system. I previously discussed the current problems in voter skepticism and lack of participation, which is only exacerbated by a lack of information. Without knowledge about world politics, people are less likely to be involved or interested in domestic politics, creating an uninformed electorate that is unwilling to be involved. Take, as an example, one survey response that echoes this withdrawal from political participation: "I don't care about politics. I believe governments are corrupt and I don't care to talk about them." Silencing discussion, purposefully blocking out new information and insights is damaging to a healthy public sphere that can hold representatives accountable and lead to meaningful actions.
Who is at fault? The dissolving of social networks in favor of individualism? Obstacles to voting and registration? The growing wealth gap? The failing education system? Waiting for Superman is a documentary film that addresses the educational system as leading to increased high school drop-outs who are 50% less likely to vote.
Waiting for Superman Trailer, available on Netflix
In the survey responses, I found cynicism, skepticism, ignorance, and a failure in American democracy to produce and cultivate passionate and informed citizens. There was, however, one survey response that made me dare to hope for a brighter tomorrow and a new generation of Americans that will reinvent the xenophobic, egotistical stereotype of the country. One respondent wrote, "sorry, but I feel really bad that I don't know enough about these leaders, even when I consider myself relatively more aware about social issues, and I think I will learn more." My survey may have brought to light the lack of information this person had about world leaders and has inspired him or her to learn more. Perhaps with more education, in a regulated school system or personally acquired, American democracy can be strengthened.
No comments:
Post a Comment