Niektóre społeczne uwarunkowania stereotypu chłopa wśród łódzkich robotników
MetadataShow full item record
The main hypothesis was that the forming of stereotypes is strongly influenced – apart from other factors – by certain biographical traits. Analysed were relationships between the valence of the stereotype of a peasant and such traits as the social background (father’s occupation), possessing a family and acquaintances in the country, and “contacts with the country”. It was found that such relationships existed – as evidenced by a much higher percentage of persons having the positive stereotype of a peasant among the respondents who were children of peasants and/or had “contacts with the country” – than among those whose parents were not peasants and/or who did not have families in the country and/or did not, keep “contacts with the country” (the respective percentages were: 68%, as against 56%, 67%, as against 48%, and 70%, as against 48%). It was also found that certain circumstances, such as helping in the agricultural work in the country (e.g. in the harvest) contributed to the formation of the positive stereotype of a peasant (72% of persons had such a stereotype among those “helping in the agricultural work” as against only 66% among those “not helping”). Other circumstances, though, such as helping peasants in settling different kinds of business in the city (particularly in the sale of meat) were favouring the formation of a negative stereotype (34% of persons had such a stereotype among those “helping peasants in the city” as against only 9% ' , among those “not helping”). Studied was also the influence of respondents’ opinions about “where the life is better – in the country or in the town”. Among 116 persons, 45% replied that the life was “much better” in the country and 26% thought that it was only “a little better”. (The rest gave other replies). There was a relationship between the kind of opinion concerning the degree of “superiority” of the country life and the kind of the stereotype of a peasant; there was also a relationship between having “contacts with the country” and the opinion that the country life was a “little better” on the one hand, and between lack of such contacts and the opinion that the country life was “much better”, on the other. The highest percent of persons with a negative stereotype of a peasant (52%) was found among those respondents who showed a cumulation of two factors: the lack of contacts with the country, and the conviction that the country life was “much better” (among these persons the number of those with a positive stereotype was lowest as it amounted to 36% only). Similarly, the highest per cent of persons having the positive stereotype (83%) appeared in another category of respondents, viz. among those who also showed the cumulation of two factors: “contacts with the country” and the conviction that the country life was only “a little better” (only 6% of them had a negative stereotype). So, “contacts with the country” or the lack of such contacts influence the emergence of a stereotype of an appropriate valence in an indirect manner, i.e. through eliciting – or not eliciting – an opinion about the degree of superiority of the country life – which opinion contains, less or more jealousy of peasants’ “richness”. Respondents substantiated their opinion about the superiority of country life by pointing to the following circumstances: peasants have their own flats, luxury objects, property, they are independent, and privileged; their work is nowadays quite easy, they sell food illegally and at very high prices and live in comfort. It was found that there existed weak relationships between some of these categories of substantiation and the valence of the stereotype of a peasant.