Does togetherness make friends?
Stereotypes and intergroup contact on multiethnic-crewed ships.
Dorte Østreng1
Abstract: This paper explores the construction and maintenance of distance
and social boundaries on multiethnic-crewed ships. Ethnic and national
stereotypes are frequently used to explain conflicts, communication
problems and the segregated social life among sailors of different national,
ethnic and cultural groups. The main object of this paper is not to discuss
how and why stereotypes are made and used in the first place, but why
sailors continue to hold stereotypical attitudes when they are working and
living together on the same ship for several months. The analysis in this
paper shed light on working relations and stereotypical attitudes among
Norwegian and Filipino sailors as an empirical case. By exploring the
contact hypothesis this paper discusses why togetherness does not
necessarily generate friendships across national, ethnic and cultural
boundaries, why intergroup hostility and tension are maintained, and why
contact does not lead to changes in stereotypical attitudes.
This paper is originally prepared for the dr.polit course ’Comparative Cultural Sociology’ lectured by Professor
Michèle Lamont, Oslo Summer School in Comparative Social Science 2000, University of Oslo. The paper has
been written as part of my doctoral research project in Sociology ’Interethnic communication among sailors’. I
thank Grete Brochmann, Pål Meland, Christin Berg, Jon Reiersen and Are Branstad for helpful and valuable
comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Correspondence: Vestfold College, Department of Maritime Studies,
P.O. Box 2243, N-3103 Tønsberg, Norway, or e-mail to Dorte.Ostreng@hive.no
1
Does togetherness make friends?
2
”The subtlest and most pervasive of all influences are those which create and
maintain the repertory of stereotypes. We are told about the world before we see it”.
Walter Lippmann (1922: 89-90)
“If unacquainted with the individual, observers can glean clues from his conduct
and appearance which allow them to apply their previous experience with
individuals roughly similar to the one before them or, more important, to apply
untested stereotypes to him”.
Erving Goffman (1959:13)
Introduction
Over the last decades, researchers in the social sciences have been concerned about the
relationship between social stereotypes and intergroup contact. Despite intensive research2
there is still no clear consensus on how to improve intergroup relations and attitudes through
intergroup contact. However, it is quite often assumed that intergroup contact and interaction
plays an important role in the reduction of intergroup hostility and the elimination of
stereotypes, but intergroup contact could just as much lead to increased tension between ingroups and out-groups. This paper explores the relationship between stereotypes and
intergroup contact on multiethnic-crewed ships. The crew of a ship constitutes a small group
and is clearly demarcated from the world around it. The question of how the group is
integrated and the extent to which the members are dependent upon one another is therefore
an interesting object of study. Research about the ship as a multiethnic workplace, describes a
segregated social environment, with distinct boundaries and stereotypical attitudes among
sailors from different national, ethnic and cultural groups. One might assume that sailors who
are working and living together in an isolated and closed social system over a long period of
time would generate friendships and eliminate intergroup tension and hostility. However, this
doesn’t seem to be the case. By examining the contact hypothesis I will discuss how
intergroup contact might lead to decategorization and improved intergroup relations, and
more importantly why togetherness does not necessarily create friendships through discussing
characteristics of the contact situation and the interacting groups by viewing multiethniccrewed ships as a case3. The main aim of the paper then, is to discuss why contact among
sailors from different national, ethnic and cultural groups does not lead to unity and reduction
2
Mostly in Social Psychology.
I am writing this paper in an early stage of my doctoral research project. I have therefore not yet been able to
collect data for this project, and must therefore base my analysis in this paper on data selected by other
researchers. I am planning to do fieldwork during spring and summer of 2001. The empirical descriptions and
analysis in this paper are therefore based on current research literature about multiethnic-crewed ships. However,
there is not much research done recently in this field, and most of the literature presents several key topics in a
highly superficial way. One of the exceptions though, is an ethnographical research project done by Christoffer
Serck-Hanssen (1996, 1997a, 1997b) on two cargo ships crewed exclusively by Norwegians and Filipinos.
3
Does togetherness make friends?
3
of intergroup tension and categorisations. In order to do this I will first define social
stereotypes and describe the process of stereotyping, by focusing on the social identity theory.
I will then describe distinctions and stereotypes between sailors of different national origin. I
will further discuss the relation between stereotypes and intergroup contact and the process of
decategorization and the contact hypothesis, but most important I will take into consideration
characteristics of the contact situation and the interacting groups. Contact situations among
sailors of different nationalities will be used as a case for explaining why togetherness does
not necessarily make friends.
Social stereotypes and the process of stereotyping
Social identity theory
Several researchers have examined the tendency for human beings to differentiate themselves
according to group membership. The sociologist William Graham Sumner has documented
this through careful observations (Sumner 1906), and is known for adopting the terms ingroup and out-group to refer to social groupings to which a particular individual belongs or
does not belong, respectively. Sumner used the term ethnocentrism about attachment to ingroups, and the preference of in-groups over out-groups.
“A differentiation arises between ourselves, the we-group, or in-group, and everybody else, or
the others-groups, out-groups. The insiders in a we-group are in a relation of peace, order, law,
government, and industry, to each other… Ethnocentrism is the technical name for this view of
things in which one’s own group is the centre of everything, and all others are scaled and rated
with preference to it… Each group nourishes its own pride and vanity, boasts itself superior,
exalts its own divinities, and looks with contempt on outsiders.”
(Sumner 1906: 12-13)
The social identity theory (Tajfel 1986) holds that an individual’s personal identity partly is
based on membership in significant social categories. In a given situation, or when a
particular social category distinction is highly relevant, the individual will respond with
respect to that aspect of his social identity, acting towards others in terms of their
corresponding group membership rather than his personal identity (Brewer & Miller 1984).
The theory (for further readings, Hinton 2000; Tajfel 1978, 1981; Tajfel & Turner 1986;
Brewer & Miller 1984, 1996) assumes that people are motivated to evaluate themselves
positively, and that insofar as a group membership becomes significant to their self-definition
they will be motivated to evaluate that group positively. In other words, people seek a positive
social identity. Since the value of any group membership depends upon comparison with
Does togetherness make friends?
4
other relevant groups, positive social identity is achieved through the establishment of
positive distinctiveness of the in-group from relevant out-groups.
According to Sumner’s analysis, the essential characteristics of an individual’s
relationship to in-groups are loyalty and preference (Brewer & Miller 1996). Loyalty is
presented in adherence to in-group norms and trustworthiness in dealing with fellow in-group
members. Preference is represented in differential acceptance of in-group members over
members of out-groups, and positive evaluation of in-group characteristics that differ from
those of out-groups. Personal identity refers to self-conceptualisations that define the
individual in comparison to other individuals. Social identities refer to conceptualisations of
the self that derive from membership in emotionally significant social categories or groups.
Personal identity and social identity are mutually exclusive levels of self-definition. Social
identities are categorisations of the self into more inclusive social units that depersonalise the
self-representation. Depersonalisation does not, according to Brewer and Miller (1996), mean
a loss of individual identity, but rather a change from the personal to the social level of
identity. Individuals are likely to think of themselves as having characteristics that are
representative of that social category. In other words, social identity leads to selfcategorisation or self-stereotyping. A primary consequence of such categorisation is the
depersonalisation of members of the out-group categories (Brewer & Miller 1984). There is a
tendency to treat individual members of the out-group as undifferentiated items in a unified
social category, independent of individual differences that may exist within groups, and
independent also of any personal relationships that may exist between members of the two
groups in other situations. As further described below, this is the process of stereotyping.
What are social stereotypes?
There seems to be a general agreement among social scientists as to the key features of a
stereotype. Due to Hinton (2000) a stereotype has essentially three important components.
First, there is a group of people identified by a specific characteristic, which could be
anything from nationality, ethnicity, gender or occupation. By identifying the group on this
characteristic we are able to distinguish them from other groups. Second, we attribute a set of
additional characteristics to the group as a whole. These characteristics are usually personality
characteristics, but could include physical characteristics as well. The important is the
attribution of these additional characteristics to all members of the group, and finally, on
identifying one person as having these characteristics we attribute the stereotypical
characteristic to him. Stereotyping is then the process of ascribing characteristics to people on
Does togetherness make friends?
5
the basis of their group memberships. The stereotypes of one group shared by members of
another group are usually referred to as social stereotypes (Tajfel 1981). Stereotypes are
shaped by group memberships and are a product of intergroup relations. In holding
stereotypical attitudes we make boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’. The contents of
stereotypes are due to that commonly constructed as binary oppositions, like ‘black/white’,
‘masculine/feminine’, ‘tall/short’ or ‘aggressive/emotional’. When two groups are contrasting,
or making distinct boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’, the less favourable characteristics are
used to describe the out-group and the preferable opposition is used to identify themselves
with the in-group. Defining what the in-group is also requires defining what it is not. In that
sense in-groups require out-groups (Brewer and Miller 1996).
Distinctions and stereotypes among sailors
The empirical case being discussed in this paper is multiethnic-crewed ships owned and
registered in Norway but sailing in international trade4. The Norwegian ship owners differ in
their policy in how many different ethnic groups they mix on each ship, and also from which
countries they recruit the crew. In 1999 the number of sailors on Norwegian ships in
international trade was 66 250 in total. Of those, 15 100 were Norwegians and 51 150 were
recruited from other nations (The Norwegian Shipowners Association 1999). The Norwegians
are exclusively officers and never among the able seamen aboard these ships. Most of the
foreigners are recruited from the Philippines, India, Poland and Russia, which are all poor
countries where the salaries can be kept low. 60% of the foreigners are recruited from the
Philippines.
The social environment on ships is in many ways quite unique compared to other
workplaces on shore. The organisational structure is highly hierarchic, based on military
principles. The responsibilities and tasks are clearly defined, and the communication is based
on commands. The hierarchic organisational structure is quite visible through symbolic
boundaries and structural distinctions among the high and low status groups aboard, which
mostly mean Norwegians and foreigners respectively. The most visible sign of status is where
they eat and the quality of their cabin (Spjelkavik 1993, Serck-Hanssen 1997a). There are
separate dining- and sitting rooms for Norwegians and foreigners. On ships where foreigners
4
I am mainly focusing on cargo ships carrying no passengers. The social environment on cruise ships or other
passenger ships differ from cargo ships in important ways; there are more people aboard, the crew consists of
several occupational categories who most likely differs in socio-economic and educational backgrounds and the
working environment is less closed and isolated.
6
Does togetherness make friends?
are working as officers, they still eat and relax together with the subordinates from their
countries. Despite the fact that these men are living and working in the same social system for
several months, the interethnic interaction is minimal. They eat separately and they hardly
ever do the same social activities in their spare time. The contact they have during their
workday is mostly based on orders and commands. A ship could in many ways be seen as
what Goffman (1962) call a total institution, or a 24-hours-society (e.g. Aubert & Arner 1962;
Sørhaug & Aamot 1982; Smith-Solbakken 1997). A total institution is a place of residence
and work where a number of like-situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for an
appreciable period of time, together lead enclosed, formally administered round of life. The
ship is physically closed and isolated, and the sailors aboard are far from their home and
families for a long period of time. Further, there is hard to separate work-relations from
private relations, and the workday from the time off.
Research about the ship as a multiethnic workplace, describes a segregated social
environment, with hardly any social contact and interaction among sailors from different
national,
cultural
and
ethnic
groups
(for
further
readings
see,
Blystad
1992;
Bedriftsrådgivning 1995; Dahle, Aall & Thorseng 1991; Serck-Hanssen 1996, 1997a, 1997b;
Spjelkavik & Næss 1993; Johnsen & Kvande 1991). Researchers also focus on conflicts,
problems of communication and intergroup hostility. The sailors themselves explain most of
intergroup conflicts and hostility, by using stereotypes and categorisations of the out-group.
Serck-Hanssen (1997a) has done observations on two different cargo ships crewed by
Norwegians and Filipinos. He particularly explored the discourse among Norwegians and the
discourse among Filipinos, and found that there was a striking difference between them. The
discourse among Filipinos was mostly about their homesickness and less about the
Norwegians (Serck-Hanssen 1997a, 1997b), most possible because they didn’t seem to
contrast themselves to the Norwegians5. Being a sailor among Filipinos is mostly seen as a
variety of labour migration in general, which is a common phenomenon on the Philippines.
To be a labour migrant can be seen as a sacrifice for a better future. To show their
homesickness and longing for their families could be a part of the suffering involved (SerckHanssen 1997b). The discourse among Norwegians, on the other hand, was mostly about
being a good sailor, meaning physically strong, masculine, conscientious and responsible
men, concerned about the ship and with a strong commitment to their work. They stereotyped
5
It could of course be argued that Serck-Hanssen as a Norwegian most likely had limited access to the discourse
among the Filipinos, both due to language differences and his obvious relation to the Norwegian officers aboard.
This methodological problem must therefore be taken into consideration when analysing distinctions between
Norwegians and Filipinos.
7
Does togetherness make friends?
themselves as being “good sailors” knowing about “practical seamanship”. The dedication
to the life as a sailor and masculinity were core values, which expressed their attitude to the
work. The historically and culturally background for this discourse and self-categorisation is
partly that sailors in Norway since long back have been struggling for social acceptance in
their work. Moral stigmas regarding alcohol and prostitutes, and their long vacations at times
of the year when everybody else work are among reasons for this. The Norwegian sailors
have also for many years been losing jobs to Filipinos and others on much lower salaries.
Their emphasis on themselves as being good sailors must be seen as a result of their struggle
for their jobs, and as a defence for their relatively higher salaries. Serck-Hanssen (1996,
1997a, 1997b) argues that the Norwegians were expressing their self-categorisations as being
good sailors, mainly through contrasting themselves against the Filipinos. The Norwegians’
view of the Filipinos was contradictory to the criteria of being “a good sailor”, stereotyped as
being physically weak, feminine, negligent and irresponsible. The fact that Norwegians are
bigger than Filipinos is for example regarded as a sign of better working abilities and a key to
be a better seaman. This has also to do with masculinity, as Filipinos are regarded as feminine
and quite often labelled as homosexual. Serck-Hanssen explains this as an inquisitive result of
the fact that Filipinos mix the English ‘he’ and ‘she’ because these pronouns are the same in
Filipino language, and more importantly because Filipino sailors often are seen hand in hand
which in fact is quite normal among Asian men. The Norwegian stereotypes of Filipinos in
contrast to their self-stereotyping are clearly constructed as binary oppositions, i.e.
“physically
strong”
versus
“physically
weak”,
“masculine”
versus
“feminine”,
“conscientious” versus “negligent”, and “responsible” versus “irresponsible”. As argued
previous, the contents of stereotypes are commonly constructed as binary oppositions
especially when one group is contrasting to another group and making distinct boundaries
between ‘us’ and ‘them’. The stereotypes appear also to be constructed partly on the basis of
different ideas about masculinity. The social environment on ships is highly male-dominant,
and there has always been a very masculine working environment among sailors. The work
identity as seafarers or sailors most likely differs with nationality or as a result of cultural
differences, and it is obvious that culture has a significant influence on how and why
stereotypes are made as several researchers have examined (see e.g., Hinton 2000; Lippman
1922).
Does togetherness make friends?
8
Stereotypes and intergroup contact
The main topic being discussed in this paper is the role of intergroup contact in change of
negative stereotyping and prejudice. Intergroup contact does not necessarily reduce intergroup
tension or prejudice, and there is enough evidence to show that people prefer interaction with
others who are similar to themselves (e.g. Homans 1950). Work situations, on the other hand,
seem to provide the best opportunities for intergroup contact and decategorization (Amir
1976). Billy Ehn found, through his observations in a multicultural factory in Sweden, that the
work situation reduced intergroup tension and boundaries among workers across national,
cultural and ethnic differences (Ehn 1981:155). It could be argued though, that intergroup
contact might be needed primarily when intergroup conflict or tension is present. As
previously described this seems to be the situation among sailors from different national,
cultural and ethnic groups. In the sections below I will therefore discuss the process of
decategorization, and also under what conditions intergroup contact could lead to reduction of
prejudice and stereotypes.
The process of decategorization
The overall question asked is how to reduce intergroup tension and categorisation, and
whether intergroup interaction and contact affect people in positive ways. I have already
indicated, due to the social identity theory, that the major symptoms or consequences of
category-based social interaction are de-individualisation and de-personalization of outgroup-category members. If the goal is to reduce intergroup prejudice and negative
categorisation, intergroup interaction must thus involve the process of differentiation and
personalization (Brewer & Miller 1984, Jensen & Pedersen 1991). The two processes can be
distinguished conceptually and do not necessarily co-occur, though the two processes are
necessary for reduction of prejudice and stereotypical attitudes. Differentiation refers to the
distinctiveness of individual category members within that category, but does not necessarily
imply the elimination of category boundaries that differentiate the in-group from the outgroup. Personalization involves responding to other individuals in terms of their private and
personal relationship, which involves making direct interpersonal comparisons across
category boundaries. Differentiation occurs when one learns information that is unique to the
individual outgroup members, allowing one to draw distinctions among them and organise
them into smaller subgroups. Such differentiation does not necessarily eliminate the tendency
to view the subgroups as components of the larger social category. Differentiation may occur
without personalization. One may acquire information that differentiates out-group members
Does togetherness make friends?
9
under circumstances that entail no involvement of the self. Interaction that is highly task
oriented may encourage differentiation among category members in terms of their task
contribution, but such differentiation may have no personal implications. Brewer and Miller
(1984) consider differentiation as a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for
personalization. The elimination of categorised responding in an intergroup social situation
requires both elements. Differentiated and personalised interaction is necessary before
intergroup contact can lead to intergroup acceptance and reduction of social competition. The
differentiation and personalization indicates two steps in the decategorization process. First
step eliminates the negative stereotypes held against the individual; the second step eliminates
the categorisation of the whole group where this person is a member. The processes of
decategorization will only occur when the contact-situation takes place under favourable
conditions as will be described below.
Contact hypothesis
The above discussion describes how decategorization might occur as a result of intergroup
interaction and contact-situations. The conditions for this process to take place are of course
opportunities for intergroup contact. Cook has formulated the phrase “acquaintance
potential”, which refers to “the opportunity provided by the situation for the participants to get
to know and understand one another” (Cook 1962:75). Some contact situations provide little
opportunity for attitude change, and even if contact is established there is a good chance of a
consequent increase in the negative attitude. One factor that may prove to be very important
in ethnic contact situations, but has been almost completely ignored by researchers, is the
attitude of the interacting or the potential interacting individuals toward ethnic contact. This,
among other conditions, will be further discussed below.
The contact hypothesis, as explored by several researchers (see e.g., Hinton 2000;
Brewer & Miller 1984, 1996; Amir 1976; Jensen & Pedersen 1991; Cook 1962, 1984), is
based on the following assumption: If stereotypes are inaccurate and people from one social
group do not have much contact with the social group they view in a stereotypical way, then
the stereotype is unlikely to change. If we can bring the two groups together in a positive way,
then according to the contact hypothesis, the first group will view the second more accurately
and stereotype change will occur. In other words, if ignorance and unfamiliarity promote
hostility, then opportunities for personal contact between members of opposing groups should
reduce hostility by increasing mutual knowledge and acquaintance. Several researchers have
tested this hypothesis empirically, and thereby specified the conditions under which
Does togetherness make friends?
10
intergroup contact might promote positive relations. As discussed below, intergroup contact
does not seem to be quite enough for reaching the goal of reduced intergroup hostility.
Characteristics of the contact situation and the interacting groups
Of course, to believe that physical proximity alone would be sufficient to eliminate intergroup
conflicts and stereotypes is naïve. The contact hypothesis has been carefully qualified to
specify the conditions under which intergroup contact should promote positive relations. Due
to that, theorists have discussed some conditions that are expected to influence the
effectiveness of personal contact as a method of reducing intergroup hostility. Based on
different theorists’ reconsiderations of the contact hypothesis (Amir 1976; Brewer & Miller
1984, 1996; Jensen & Pedersen 1991; Cook 1962, 1984), I will discuss intergroup interaction
and contact-situations on ships. The main goal is to analyse why decategorization and
elimination of prejudice does not necessarily occur among sailors in mixed crews, despite the
fact that these groups are in contact for a longer period of time in the same social setting. As
previously described the processes of decategorization will only occur when the contactsituation takes place under favourable conditions. The main question is then; under what
conditions does contact lead to changes in stereotypical attitudes and reduction of intergroup
tension?
Cooperative interdependence
Contact situations may differ in the degree to which they involve cooperative and competitive
factors such as common or conflicting goals, shared concerns and activities, mutual
interdependence or competition in the achievement of objectives and needs. Many theorists
regard cooperative and competitive factors as extremely important considerations in
intergroup contact, and some argue that the most effective way of inducing lasting attitude
changes among participants is when the contact situation involves joint interaction, mutual
interests, common goals, and active give-and-take contact situations. Cooperative task
interaction has been found to reduce hostility between members of the cooperating social
categories, and to increase intergroup friendships in comparison to competitive intergroup
conditions. Brewer and Miller (1996) argue that effective cooperation should involve at least
two important conditions of interdependence: shared goals (if one gains, we all gain) and
shared effort (we must work together in order to achieve our goals). Like equal status,
cooperative goals provide an opportunity for reducing the salience of category membership as
Does togetherness make friends?
11
a relevant or important aspect of individual identity but whether it does so will depend on the
task structure and the nature of the interaction it promotes among team members.
Sailors’ mutual interest in keeping the ship going is an obvious dimension of their
cooperative interdependence. One might assume that contact situations among sailors on the
same ship involves a high degree of factors such as common goals, shared concerns and
activities, and mutual interdependence in the achievement of objectives and needs. In one
sense the cooperation involves both shared goals and shared effort, and therefore one could
expect unity among sailors on the same ship. However, this appears not to be the entire
picture. When it comes to opportunities and goals for the individuals there are considerable
intergroup differences. First, the Filipino sailors are working on ten months contracts, while
Norwegians are regular employees on the same ship. Filipinos do not know for sure if they
ever will be working on the same ship for another period, and they are never in contact with
the shipowner because they are recruited directly by an agent on the Philippines (SerckHanssen 1997a). Norwegians and Filipinos may therefor not have a shared interest in the ship.
Second, there are not equal opportunities for the Norwegians and the foreigners when it comes
to obtaining high status positions on most ships. Norwegians exclusively occupy the high
status positions on the officer-level on many ships. This most likely produces various
individual goals among sailors from different national groups, and it will probably influence
on the willingness to adopt a cooperative intergroup attitude. Norwegians complains about the
Filipinos being irresponsible and negligent, and claims that the ship would “fall apart” if
Filipinos were in charge (see e.g., Spjelkavik & Næss 1993; Johnsen & Kvande 1991). One
reasonable explanation to this could be that the Norwegians feel that they must justify their
high status positions and their much higher salary compared to the Filipinos.
Equal status
The relative status of groups seems to be highly relevant for contact situations to reduce
intergroup hostility and prejudice, and one could argue that in cases where no hindering
conditions are present equal status contact is likely to produce positive attitude change
(Brewer & Miller 1996, Jensen & Pedersen 1991). In many racially and ethnically mixed
settings this is not so easily achieved, since participants come into the situation with preexisting status differences based on group membership. Even if there are no formal status
differentials within the cooperative setting, ethnic identity may serve as a generalised cue for
expectations of differences in ability and competence. Members of higher status groups may
be unwilling to learn from or be influenced by members of lower status groups, and their
Does togetherness make friends?
12
expectations of differences, and their expectations of lesser competence may be reinforced
(Brewer & Miller 1996). Under these conditions, the relative positions of members of the
cooperative work group are not truly “equal”. Cooperation may be undermined when the
contributions of the two groups are not well balanced.
Among others, Amir (1976) argues that the relative status of group members within
the contact situation may be a more important factor for attitude change. If this is the case,
then more success in improving intergroup relations may be achievable, since it is easier to
assign members of minority and majority groups to equal status positions within a given
situation than to bring together individuals who are of equal socioeconomic and educational
status outside of the contact situation. It could be argued though, that pre-existing status
differentials between groups tend to carry over into new situations, making equal-status
interaction difficult or impossible. One the one hand, elimination of status differences within
the contact setting may make category distinctions less salient. However, systematic attempts
to reduce or reverse existing status differences may threaten members of the initially highstatus group, leading to resistance and attempts to reestablish in-group distinctiveness and
positive status differentials.
As previously described, the organisational structure on ships is highly hierarchic and
authoritarian. The status differences between the in-group and the out-group are therefore far
from equal in most work situations. The task-oriented communication between high- and lowstatus groups is mostly based on orders and commands, and the order-takers have little or no
influence on their own tasks or working day. Since the high and low status groups hardly ever
interact during meals or in their time off, the relative status of groups is rarely equal in contact
situations. Of course there are situations not limited to work situations only, when individuals
from different status groups and different national groups are interacting. When contact
situations become more socially oriented, the possibilities for existing status differentials
between the interacting groups to carry on into these situations are considerable. Even if there
are no formal status differentials within the cooperative setting (e.g. contact situations
between officers on the same status-level but from different national groups), ethnic identity
may serve as a generalised cue for expectations of differences in ability and competence.
There is for instance reported a number of conflicts when young Norwegian officers are being
trained by more experienced Filipino officers. The reason given by Norwegians to these
difficulties is that Filipinos have too much respect for Norwegians to train them or give them
orders (Serck-Hanssen 1997a). Nations’ superiority in the world-economy is even given as an
explanation of the status inequalities and distribution of tasks aboard.
Does togetherness make friends?
13
Intimacy
One important condition is the promotion of interactions that reveal enough details about
members of the out-group to encourage seeing them as individuals rather than as stereotyped
group members. In Brewers and Millers (1996) view this effect will depend on whether the
focus of the interaction in the contact setting is primarily task oriented or interpersonally
oriented. In task-oriented environment, the primary standard of evaluating fellow participants
will be task requirements and contribution to task performance. This tends to narrow the range
of information that is attended to and reduce perception of individual differences, thus
limiting the opportunity to learn anything about group members other than their salient
category identity. Work situations have for instance shown only limited attitude changes
(Amir 1976). One possible explanation may be that work situations involve superficial
interethnic contact. Even when the relationship becomes more personal, it is generally
confined to the work situation only. In more socially oriented environments, on the other
hand, evaluations of others will be made primarily with reference to the self, and thereby the
process of personalisation is more likely to occur. When the intimate relations are established,
the in-group member no longer perceives the member of the out-group in terms of stereotypes
but begins to consider him as an individual and thereby discovers many areas of similarity.
According to research on multiethnic-crewed ships, private or intimate contactsituations rarely occur. The contact among sailors across national boundaries and status
groups are mostly task-oriented and rarely interpersonally oriented. But of course, there are
individual exceptions. Ships are further known among mariners to have their own spiritual or
social atmosphere. The descriptions “happy ship” and “unhappy ship” are commonly heard.
When a ship is known as a “happy ship”, sailors can’t always tell the reason, but the good
atmosphere seems to be there because individuals among the leadership are making an effort
in having healthy relations aboard. In Weibust’s (1969) ethnographical study “Deep Sea
Sailors” an informant describes the term “happy ship”:
“… a happy ship, by which we meant a ship that was seaworthy, well-rigged and ship-shape
with a skipper we could respect, mates who were sensible enough to treat their hands in a way
that encouraged them to work – yes, and a cook who took pride in cooking good food…”
Weibust 1969:451
Anyway, social relations on “happy ships” are less tensed and the possibilities for sailors
having personal or intimate relations across national, ethnic and cultural boundaries are
increased. Personal relations among sailors of different national groups and status groups
Does togetherness make friends?
14
most likely would start the process of personalisation where individuals perceive each other as
individuals (not primarily as a member of a category) and thereby discovers many areas of
similarity. However, this does not necessarily leads to changes in the group stereotype. The
information about the individual could most likely be irrelevant to existing stereotypes, and
the new information may fail to be noticed or represented in memory. Friendships across
group boundaries will then be the exception more than the rule, and do not necessarily lead to
elimination of stereotypes.
Amount and frequency of contact
There is a strong link between the intimacy of the contact situation and the amount and
frequency of contact. Proximity and frequency of contact as well as other factors may exert
important influence in determining both the amount and nature of intergroup contact. Causal
intergroup contact typically has little or no effect on basic attitude change (Amir 1976). When
such contact is frequent, it may even reinforce negative attitudes especially when it occurs
between nonequal status groups. Frequency of contact can in some case produce intimate
relationships and advance better intergroup relations, but in other circumstances it may
strengthen prejudice and ethnic hostility.
The structural features of a ship make sailors stay together for long periods at the time.
Intergroup contact is therefore more or less by force, both frequent and continuous. As
argued, the ship could be seen as a total institution or more precisely, an isolated and closed
institution where people are staying for quite long periods. Their sailing-periods vary though.
Filipinos mostly have periods of ten months on one ship before going home for one or two
months, while Norwegians most commonly have periods of six weeks up to four months
before going home. One might assume that sailors should have more than enough time for
creating friendships and eliminate stereotypical attitudes towards each other. However, when
the contact is task-oriented and causal it often has a minor effect on basic attitude change, and
as argued above, when such contact is frequent it may even strengthen negative attitudes
especially when it occurs between unequal status groups as in this case.
Institutional support and egalitarian norms
The effectiveness of interethnic contact on reduction of stereotypes is greatly increased if the
contact is sanctioned by institutional support. The support may come from the law, a custom,
a spokesman for the community, or simply from social atmosphere and general public
agreement as discussed in the next paragraph. The social structure in the work place should
Does togetherness make friends?
15
encourage equality norms and intergroup contact. In many intergroup situations neither the
social atmosphere nor institutions favour intergroup mixing for a variety of reasons, and it
may strongly hinder the development of successful intergroup contact and ethnic integration
(Amir 1976). Institutional support for ethnic interaction and reducing of prejudice is important
partly because it produces social desirability and consequently people will be more willing to
act in the required direction. Together with institutional support the shared values that
participants bring to or acquire in the contact situation will be of critical importance. When
norms favouring intergroup equality and expression of individuality are salient, adherence to
such values provides an alternate source of positive self-identity that may replace social
category identity.
One might say that the institutional support on a ship favours unequal intergroup
relations. The hierarchic social structure is quite visible on the ship, and the most visible sign
of status is where one eats and the quality of the cabins. There are physical distinctions
between high and low status groups, like separate dining- and sitting rooms, and during meals
each sailor has his regular seat which fit with his status position aboard (Spjelkavik 1993;
Serck-Hanssen 1997a). This physical structure on ships goes long back in history.
Traditionally, there has always been a highly hierarchic structure on ships and still many old
sailors support this inequality aboard. During the 1960s and 70s researchers did experiments
on ships, with an attempt to make a ship’s organisational structure consistent with democratic
and egalitarian values (e.g. Roggema & Hammarstrøm 1975). However, it seems like these
experiments failed in creating ships based on lasting democratic and egalitarian norms and
values (Blystad 1992). The unequal opportunities among sailors when it comes to conditions
of work, as described earlier, should also be mentioned as part of the institutional structure
that may hinder the development of successful intergroup contact.
Intergroup anxiety
One factor that may prove to be very important in ethnic contact situations is the attitude of
the interacting or the potential interacting individuals toward ethnic contact. Negative affect
or emotions, such as anxiety, plays an important role in maintaining intergroup prejudice.
Researchers have provided evidence for a direct link between experienced anxiety and the
outcomes of intergroup contact. Anticipated contact with out-group members in a competitive
environment seems to produce intergroup anxiety. Intergroup anxiety is quite often viewed as
both a determinant and a consequence of intergroup contact (e.g. in Greenland & Brown
1999). Brewer and Miller (1996) argue that the nature and the quality of contact experiences,
Does togetherness make friends?
16
rather than the frequency of contact, makes the biggest difference in intergroup attitudes.
According to social identity theory as previously described, individual’s identity is partly
based on membership in significant social categories or groups. The value of group
membership depends upon comparison with other relevant groups, which results in preference
of in-groups over out-groups and the making of distinct boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’.
This leads to stereotypes of out-group members, and can easily lead to discrimination and
intergroup anxiety.
Intergroup anxiety might prove to be of importance in this case, though it is hard to
assume anything because the available data of multiethnic-crewed ships tells nothing clear
about this. The fact that Norwegian sailors feel pushed out by foreigners who are working on
much lower salaries might lead to intergroup anxiety, or at least some sense of hard feelings
among Norwegians. However, sailors are after all used to the highly global setting they are
working in, and one must assume that most of them also have chosen this occupation partly
because of it being highly international.
Disconfirmed stereotypes
The interaction should encourage behaviour that disconfirms stereotypes that the group hold
of each other (Brewer & Miller 1996). Maximizing the opportunity to learn stereotypeinconsistent information about out-group members is closely related to the differentiation
component of the decategorization process as described above. The crucial point is that the
contact situation must include a diverse representation of out-group-category members.
Brewer and Miller argue (1996) that it takes exposure to many diverse group members to
break down stereotypes and the perceived homogeneity of out-groups. A problem though,
seems to be that information about an individual that is irrelevant to existing stereotypes may
fail to be noticed or represented in memory. Information that is highly inconsistent with
stereotypic expectations is more likely to be salient and well remembered, but does not
necessarily lead to changes in the group stereotype (Brewer & Miller 1984). Instead, the
inconsistent individual may be subcategorised as a special case or a subtype within the social
category without any overall effect on categorisation. Reduction of stereotyped expectations
requires frequent exposure to multiple types of disconfirming information that is dispersed
across a large number of out-group members. Such information reduces the usefulness of
category identification as a basis for clarifying individuals. As the category becomes more
and more finely differentiated, the boundaries between categories become less salient, which
increases the probability of a more personalised interpersonal evaluation. The conditions of
Does togetherness make friends?
17
interaction must encourage attending to individual differences on a number of dimensions,
and as mentioned previously; highly task-focused interactions do not ordinarily lead to such
attention. In general, a variety of contact experiences produce more generalised change than
experiences that are limited to a few group members or a single interaction setting.
Sailors are living together on the same ship for several months, so it is obvious that
they get to know different sides of their co-workers. However, it seems like the contact
between different national groups is highly task-oriented and not very intimate despite the fact
that they are living on the same boat for å long period of time. In fact, many sailors describe
life at sea as very lonely because they quite often spend their time off alone in their cabin
(Serck-Hanssen 1997a). Highly task-oriented interactions do not encourage attending to
individual differences, and thereby break down stereotypes and the perceived homogeneity of
the out-group. A more important point though, might be that the similarities among sailors
from the same national group most likely are considerable, in terms of socio-economical and
educational background. Intergroup contact situations then, do not include a diverse
representation of out-group-category-members that is necessarily to learn stereotypeinconsistent information about out-group members.
Summary
I have throughout this paper discussed the relationship between stereotypes and intergroup
contact on multiethnic-crewed ships. Stereotyping is the process of ascribing characteristics to
people on basis of their group membership, and if stereotypes of one group are shared by
members of another group they would be labelled as social stereotypes. Several social
scientists have examined the relationship between stereotypes and intergroup contact, but
there is no clear evidence stating the role of contact in reduction of intergroup hostility and
elimination of stereotypes. In this case one might assume that sailors, who are working and
living together in a small and clearly demarcated social system over a long period of time,
would generate friendships and eliminate intergroup tension and hostility. However, empirical
studies show that this is far from the reality. By discussing the contact hypothesis and its
prerequisites I have explained why decategorization does not occur in this case. There seem to
be various conditions on ships that do not promote positive relations. The highly hierarchic
and authoritarian organisational structure on ships seems to be of considerable importance,
because of the status differences between the interacting groups. There are further
considerable intergroup differences when it comes to individual opportunities, goals and
Does togetherness make friends?
18
effort. Despite the frequency and amount of intergroup contact, positive relations do not seem
to be established. One reason for this might be that the contact is highly task-oriented and not
very intimate and therefore do not promote disconfirmed stereotypes in general.
References
Amir, Y. (1976) “The Role of Intergroup Contact in Change of Prejudice and Ethnic Relations”, in: Katz, P. A.
(ed.) Towards the Elimination of racism, New York; Pergamon Press.
Aubert, V. & Arner, O. (1962) The ship as a social system, Oslo: Arbeidspsykologisk Institutt.
Bedriftsrådgivning A/S (1995) Flerkulturell skipsdrift. Oslo: Bedriftsrådgivning AS.
Blystad, R. (1992) Verne og miljøproblematikk på skip med flerkulturell bemanning. WRI notat 4/85. Oslo:
Work Research Institute (WRI).
Brewer, M. B. & Miller, N. (1984) “Beyond the Contact Hypothesis: Theoretical Perspectives on
Desegregation”, in: Miller, N. & Brewer, M. B. (ed.) Groups in Contact. The Psychology of
Desegregation, New York: Academic Press.
Brewer, M. B. & Miller, N. (1996) Intergroup relations, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Cook, S. W. (1962) “The systematic analysis of socially signicant events: A strategy for social research” in:
Journal of Social Issues, 62:18.
Cook, S. W. (1984) “Cooperative Interaction in Multiethnic Contexts”, in: Miller, N. & Brewer, M. B. (ed.)
Groups in Contact. The Psychology of Desegregation. New York: Academic Press.
Dahle, Aall & Thorseng (1991) Skip med flernasjonal bemanning. Trivsel og sikkerhetsmessige forhold. Høvik:
Det Norske Veritas.
Ehn, B. (1981) Arbetets flytande gränser. En fabrikstudie. Stockholm: Bokförlaget Prisma.
Goffman, E. (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life, New York: Penguin Books.
Goffman, E. (1962) Asylums: essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates, Chicago:
Aldine.
Greenland, K. & Brown, R. (1999) “Categorization and intergroup anxiety in contact between British and
Japanese nationals”, in: European Journal of Social Psychology, 29. London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Hinton, P. R. (2000) Stereotypes, Cognition and Culture, East Sussex: Psychological Press.
Homans, G. (1950) The Human Group, New York: Harcourt Brace.
Jenssen, A. T. & Pedersen, E. (1991) ”Jo mer vi er sammen dess gladere blir vi”? Kontakt, vennskap og konflikt
mellom nordmenn og innvandrere. in: Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning, Årgang 32.
Johnsen, I. og Kvande, M. (1991) Menneskelige og organisatoriske faktorer ved drift av skip. Trondheim:
Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Forskningsråd (NTNF).
Lippman, W. (1922) Public Opinion, New York: Harcourt Brace.Oakes, P., Haslam, S. A., Turner, J. C. (1994)
Stereotyping and social reality, Oxford: Basil Blacwell.
Roggema, J. & Hammarstrøm, N. K. (1975) Nye organisasjonsformer til sjøs. Oslo: Tanum-Norli.
Serck-Hanssen, C. (1996) ”De er ikke ordentlige sjøfolk, de er her bare for å tjene penger”. in:
Hovedfagsstudentenes årbok, 9. Årgang, Universitetet i Oslo: Institutt og museum for Antropologi.
Serck-Hanssen, C. (1997a) Det er et ensomt liv. En analyse av to skip med filippinsk og norsk mannskap.
Universitetet i Oslo: Hovedoppgave i antropologi.
Serck-Hanssen, C. (1997b) The Construction of Distance and Segregation onboard Ships with mixed crew.
Unpublished manuscript for a speech presented at the 4 th International Symposium on Maritime Health,
Oslo, June 1997.
Smith-Solbakken, M. (1997) Oljearbeiderkulturen. Historier om cowboyer og rebeller, Trondheim, NTNU:
Skriftserie fra historisk institutt nr. 17.
Spjelkavik, Ø. og Næss, R. (1993) Flernasjonale utfordringer på norske skip. Oslo: AFI, Rapport 7/93.
Sumner, W. G. (1906) Folkways, New York: The New American Library.
Sørhaug, H. L. & Aamot, S. (1981) Skip og samfunn, Oslo: Arbeidspsykologisk institutt.
Tajfel, H. (1978) (ed.) Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup
relations. London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. (1981) ”Social Stereotypes and Social groups”, in: Turner, J. C. & Giles, H. (eds.): Intergroup
behaviour, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986) “The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour”. In: Worchel, S. & Austin,
W. (eds.) Psychology of intergroup relations, Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
The Norwegian Shipowners Association (1999) Quarterly report about shipping and offshore, no: 4/99.
Does togetherness make friends?
19
Weibust, K. (1969) Deep Sea Sailors. A study in Maritime Ethnology. Stockholm: Nordiska Museets Handlingar
71.