This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA]On: 20 May 2012, At: 04:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language and Intercultural CommunicationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmli20

What's in a National Stereotype? AnIntroduction to Imagology at the Thresholdof the 21st CenturyWilliam L. Chew III aa Vesalius College, Brussels, Belgium

Available online: 05 Jan 2009

To cite this article: William L. Chew III (2006): What's in a National Stereotype? An Introduction toImagology at the Threshold of the 21st Century, Language and Intercultural Communication, 6:3-4, 179-187

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/laic246.0

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation thatthe contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions,formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publishershall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out ofthe use of this material.

What’s in a National Stereotype? AnIntroduction to Imagology at theThreshold of the 21st Century

William L. Chew IIIVesalius College, Brussels, Belgium

Image studies, or imagology, was traditionally subsumed under the uncritical notionof ‘national character’, which was itself replaced by the constructivist term ‘nationalstereotype’. Since its origins in comparative literature, the field has moved beyondthe narrow disciplinary confines of the humanities, with their predominantlyqualitative methodology, and become truly interdisciplinary. This happened intwo steps. First, by bringing history into the picture, thereby adding a strongdiachronical approach and additional elements of theory. Secondly, by attracting theinterest of social scientists � in the main psychologists, sociologists, and socialanthropologists � and, in the process, adding further theoretical frameworks andquantitative methodologies typically absent from the humanities. This has resultedin a whole array of insights and models. Specialists aside, however, mainstreamscholars are still largely unaware of the field’s essential notions, insights, models,disciplinary composition and claims to relevance. This article, therefore, provides abrief survey of the state of imagology on the threshold of the 21st century.

Die Imagologie, das Studium der,,Images’’, wurde zunachst unkritisch unter demBegriff,,Nationalcharakter’’ zusammengefasst, der spater jedoch selbst unter demkonstruktivistischen Terminus des,,nationalen Stereotyps’’ subsumiert wurde. Seitseinen Anfangen in der vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft hat dieses For-schungsgebiet allerdings den ursprunglichen geisteswissenschaftlichen, und dahermethodologisch vorwiegend qualitativen Rahmen gesprengt und ist nun wirklichinterdisziplinar geworden. Diese Wendung vollzog sich in zwei Schritten. Zuerstwurde die Imagologie um die Geschichtswissenschaft, und damit um einen starkdiachronen Ansatz sowie um zusatzliche Theorieelemente, bereichert. Danachwurde das Interesse der Sozialwissenschaftler � hauptsachlich der Psychologen,Soziologen und Sozialanthropologen � geweckt, wodurch weitere theoretischeRahmen und quantitative Methodologien hinzugefugt wurden, die den Geisteswis-senschaften fur gewohnlich fehlen. Dies fuhrte zu einer ganzen Reihe vonEinsichten und Modellen. Dennoch sind den meisten Wissenschaftlern, ausgenom-men einigen Spezialisten, die wesentlichen Begriffe, Erkenntnisse, Modelle, diedisziplinare Zusammensetzung und der Relevanzanspruch dieses Forschungsge-biets weitgehend unbekannt geblieben. Dieser Beitrag mochte nun eine kurzeUbersicht uber den Stand der Imagologie an der Schwelle zum 21. Jahrhundertliefern.

doi: 10.2167/laic246.0

Keywords: studies, imagology

IntroductionIn recent years, the study of ‘images’ of the ‘other’ � traditionally subsumed

under the uncritical notion of ‘national character’, then replaced with the

1470-8477/06/3 179-09 $20.00/0 – 2006 W.L. Chew IIILanguage and Intercultural Communication Vol. 6, No. 3&4, 2006

179

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

A]

at 0

4:26

20

May

201

2

constructivist term ‘national stereotype’ � has evolved considerably from itsorigins in France in comparative literary studies, in the 1950s. This evolutionhas had a profound influence, for it has taken the field beyond the narrowdisciplinary confines of the humanities, with their predominantly qualitativemethodology, and made it truly interdisciplinary. This happened in two steps.First, by bringing history into the picture, thereby adding a strong diachronicalapproach and additional elements of theory. Secondly, by attracting theinterest of social scientists � in the main psychologists, sociologists, and socialanthropologists � and, in the process, adding further theoretical frameworksand quantitative methodologies typically absent from the two classic huma-nities. This has resulted in a whole array of insights and models, which Dutchimagologist Joep Leerssen has collectively termed � drawing on linguisticmetaphors � a ‘grammar’ of image studies (Leerssen, 2000). Recent interna-tional developments, finally, marked by continued regional conflicts and aglobal terrorism characterised by apparent ethnic and religious incompatibil-ities � famously stylised by some as a ‘clash of civilisations’ � has lent addedurgency to the deconstruction of complex stereotypes that seem to obscure andhinder understanding ‘the other’ rather than provide the true understandingand insight that can lead to a peaceful co-existence, characterised byhumanistic values and common respect. If ever a scholarly field had directrelevance to contemporary social issues, it must certainly be imagology.Therefore, a practical manifesto of this young, exciting and interdisciplinaryfield might be the proposition that:

We are all imagologists, even if we do not realise the fact, and we cannotfunction socially and politically, in a humane and reasoned fashion, asindividuals or groups, without studying the (national) stereotypes socurrent in our collective memory. For these stereotypes colour, to a largeextent, not only our self-perception (our ‘auto-image’) via the image ofthe other (our ‘hetero-image’), but determine for better and, regrettably,more often, for worse our behavior toward the other. Indeed historically,this behavior has taken forms as relatively harmless as bad ethnic jokesand as noxious as ethnic cleansing and the Holocaust. (Chew, 2001: 3�4)

Specialists aside, however, mainstream scholars are still largely unaware ofthe field’s essential notions, insights, models, disciplinary composition andclaims to relevance. A brief survey of the state of imagology on the threshold ofthe 21st century, therefore, appears much needed. Such a survey must also, forpurposes of historical explanation, provide a brief summary of the field’sorigins.

Historical Roots and Development of the Concept of‘National Character’

The traditional notion of ‘national character’ is as old as Westerncivilisation, and examples of stereotypical depictions of peoples and nationscan already be found in the early ethnological descriptions of foreignpeoples by classical authors, such as Herodotus, Tacitus, or Caesar. Yet asystematisation of national stereotypes, and subsequent pseudo-scientific

180 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

A]

at 0

4:26

20

May

201

2

justification, did not take place until the early modern period through theinterwar era (Leerssen, 2000). ‘National types’ were classified for literature anddrama in the 17th century, while the 18th century linked national characterwith politics, attempting to demonstrate that certain types of nationalcharacter could be matched to one of the three classical governmental systems� despotism, aristocracy, democracy � already distinguished in antiquity, e.g.by the Greek historian Polybius. None other than Montesquieu put thisapproach on a proto-scientific footing with his famous climate theory,developed in De l’Esprit des Lois , book XIV. Climate made the man, hecontended, so that ‘Northern’ men from cold climates were vigorous andvirtuous, honest and hard-working, rational and reflective. ‘Southern’ typeswere temperamental, impulsive, highly sensitive and indolent. In effect, theBaron de la Brede had already enunciated what imagologists now call the‘North-South model’ (see below).

The 19th and early 20th centuries further elaborated, hardened, and indeedattempted to provide empirical scientific proof of this essentialist position, i.e.that there is a positively demonstrable ‘essence’ of national character inherentin the representatives of a nation or people. Fichte and Hegel even elevatednational character to the status of ‘Geist’ or ‘Volksgeist’. Evolutionary theoryand so-called racial science soon merged with volkisch ideologies in Germany,and general European and American colonialist notions of manifest destiny,mission civilisatrice , or Sendungsbewusstsein , to produce Social Darwinism �with the well-known consequences for indigent populations and all manner of‘racial undesirables’. Yet, during the inter-bellum, even eminent historianswith impeccable anti-fascist credentials, such as Johan Huizinga, continued tohold to an essentialist view of national character. Indeed, research tended toconfirm traditional and uncritical notions of national character (Stokvis, 1997;Zacharasiewicz, 1982).

Birth and Evolution of Imagology as a DisciplineSince World War II, however, mainstream imagological scholarship has

moved toward the study of national stereotypes in terms of perception andattitude, rejecting positivism�essentialism in favour of constructivism. Pio-neering work was conducted by French scholars in comparative literature,Jean-Marie Carre and his student, Marius-Francois Guyard, who examined thenational stereotypes so prevalent in literary texts, with their conventionaldepiction of actors and settings. While their work has since undergonecriticism for conceptual and methodological reasons, it had the merit of firmlygrounding the comparative imagological principle in an otherwise highlytraditionalist discipline.1 As early as 1977, the perhaps then leading literaryimagologist, Hugo Dyserinck, could argue that, thanks to Carre and Guyard,imagology, ‘fragt in der Tat nicht: Welches ist das ‘Wesen’ oder die nationale‘Eigenart’ der deutschen, franzosischen, englischen Literatur? Sondern siefragt, welche Eigenschaften von außen der deutschen, franzosischen undenglischen Literatur zugeschrieben werden’ (Dyserinck, 1977: 131). Still, up tothat point, image studies remained limited to the domain of literature.

An Introduction to Imagology 181

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

A]

at 0

4:26

20

May

201

2

Since the late 1970s, however, the field has broadened, with major impulsesfrom history providing greater depth in the dynamic study of images shiftingover time. By drawing on their research into group mentality, socialpsychologists have also helped sharpen the definition of national stereotypesconceptually as ‘self-serving biases’ or ‘belief systems, which associateattitudes, behaviours and personality characteristics with members of a socialcategory’, in the process strengthening one’s own group identity (Cinnirella,1997: 37). Modern imagologists, therefore, refuse to pronounce on anysupposed objective validity of national stereotypes but, recognising theirexistence as commonplace discursive constructs, focus on their descriptionand analysis, origin and impact (Stokvis, 1997). National stereotypes, imagol-ogists conclude, continue to be highly recognisable, and many people, whileconceding that these stereotypes are generalisations, stubbornly contend thatthere might be a core of truth substantiating the basic allegation.

Imagology: Insights, Interdisciplinarity and ModelsDrawing on the categories of comparative literature (or communication

theory), imagologists distinguish ‘culture regardante’ from ‘culture regardee’,or ‘spector’ from ‘spected’. National stereotyping occurs because spectorsperceive an ‘effet de typique’, whereby they recognise (and ascribe) character-istics as ‘typical’ of the spected countrymen. These characteristics areperceived as both distinctive and representative of the group in question.Leerssen has cited trivial examples from clothing to illustrate the effect, such asGerman Lederhosen and the French beret. I would argue that these examplesindicate an additional paradigm of national stereotyping, namely a pars prototo attribution, elevating regional characteristics to the national level.For Lederhosen are typical of Bavaria, but not Germany as a whole; the beretis typical of the Midi, but not France as a whole. Indeed, Caesar in De BelloGallico (4.1�4; cf. also 6.21�4) already made use of this paradigm when heelevated one regional German tribe, perceived as typically vigorous andwarlike, to the status of ‘typical’ German barbarian warrior. The ‘effet detypique’, as we shall see, is one of a whole array of insights gained, andmodels developed by imagologists since the 1960s.

Imagologists have also demonstrated, through a varied array of case studies,that national stereotypes owe their origins, construction, dissemination,reception, and impact, to historical circumstances. These stereotypes aredynamic, and can only be understood in their historical context. Thishistoricist argument implies a diachronical methodology, as opposed to thesynchronical methodology of the social scientist looking at a single segment oftime. It also implies the application of the classic categories of historicalcriticism pioneered by Jean Mabillon in the 17th century, for medieval studies,and brought into mainstream historical scholarship by Leopold von Ranke.One class of source which typically abounds with national stereotypes,long analysed by historians � though not necessarily with an imago-logical perspective � is the travel account.2 More recent examples might bethe propagandistic productions of 20th-century totalitarian regimes or the

182 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

A]

at 0

4:26

20

May

201

2

schoolbooks published in the ex-Yugoslavian states, most of which demoniseregional ethnicities, perceived as hostile to the national group identity.

When analysing sources with national stereotypes, one must take care todifferentiate within the spected group, rather than proceed in a reductionistmanner � which would, of course, tend to replicate the stereotype. This meansgiving due attention to regional, religious, or gender differences, alwaysbearing in mind that the stereotypical characteristics of the image are afunction of the dynamic between alterity and identity, for the auto-image isnormally the spector’s point of reference (Leerssen, 2000). Thus, imagologiststend to conclude that their research reveals more about the ‘culture regardante’than the ‘culture regardee’. Indeed, social psychologists argue that stereotypesare, to a degree, necessary as a simplified classification scheme for a complexreality. In addition, because classification categories are highly emotional,differences between self and other tend to be exaggerated, intra-groupdifferences within the spected group minimised (Stokvis, 1997). This social�psychological functional approach to stereotyping can help explain complexphenomena of historical�social causality, such as the scape-goating of the Jewsby the Nazis for the German defeat in World War I (Cinnirella, 1997).

Sociological research into the origin of national stereotypes of ‘the other’(nation) has stressed the significance of stereotypes for the complex process ofimage-building of one’s own national identity. The function for the spectinggroup is the construction of a positive identity and a feeling of belonging,unfortunately often at the expense of the identity of the spected group. This is,of course, a projection, on the national level, of the well-known psychologicalin-group/out-group paradigm or, in imagological terms, the self-servingdynamic. In 1993, Orvar Lofgren and colleagues examined the historicalorigins of Swedish national auto-images in a case study, with results thatappear to be largely valid, structurally, for other national groups as well. Theself-image of Swedish national character (the ‘auto-stereotype’), Lofgrendetermined, was expressed by evoking a common cultural identity based onlanguage, religion, manners, common myths and common-place nationalsymbols. This image was further strengthened by a selective national memory,with roots which could be traced back to the 19th century, and what he termedthe ‘nationalisation’ of the past through the creation of a ‘gallery of heroes’.During the 20th century, with the apparent end of large-scale nation-stateconflicts, sports heroes and patterns of leisure behaviour tended to replacenational political heroes as focal points of national character (Ehn et al ., 1993).

Given their long history, origin in historical circumstance, and apparentfundamental social�psychological function, it is not surprising that imagolo-gists have demonstrated again and again that one of the key features ofnational stereotypes is their durability. This is true, not only because nationalstereotypes are generally rationalised by the spector as based on a supposedlyobjective reality, but also because they tend to be omnipresent in comics,cinema, literature, computer games, public media, jokes and the like, and areconstantly � though not consciously � invoked to confirm one’s auto-image,one’s national identity. Once established, they remain latent in the individualconsciousness, or collective mentality, to be called upon when needed (Stokvis,1997). Here, they tend to manifest themselves in binary form, as a pair of

An Introduction to Imagology 183

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

A]

at 0

4:26

20

May

201

2

opposite characteristics, to be activated according to the exigencies of historicalcircumstance. Probably inspired by the linguistic term ‘phoneme’, Leerssenhas termed this Janus-like characteristic of image-building, an ‘imageme’.‘Meta-attribute’ or ‘meta-stereotype’ might be other apt terms for the samephenomenon. Drawing on his own research into how the Irish are perceivedby other national groups, Leerssen demonstrates the existence of an Irishimageme of ‘emotionality’, which manifests itself in positive form in the imageof the convivial, slightly drunk singer of folk-songs in a pleasant pubatmosphere; in negative form as the knee-capping, bombing IRA terrorist(Leerssen, 2000).

An example from popular media illustrates how both sides of an imagemecan sometimes be activated in a single context. Consider American filmmakerSteven Spielberg’s depiction of an SS-raid on the Cracow ghetto in the film‘Schindler’s List’. Nazi soldiers are storming a Jewish house, when oneGerman stumbles on a piano and sits down to play. Joined by two comrades,the mayhem is interrupted while the SS men argue over the piece’s composer.‘Ist das Bach?‘ the first soldier queries. ‘Nein, du Idiot! Das ist doch Mozart!’the second replies, upon which the rampage continues. The basic stereotype is,of course, that of the highly cultured German � note that these soldiers are notmonocled officers of noble Prussian extraction � but einfache SS-Manner. Theopposition within the imageme is that of creator of culture and, in this context,destroyer of culture.

In addition to the basic insights and paradigms sketched out above,imagologists have developed a series of models to help explain the mechanicsof national stereotypes, with a functional�structural approach. Similar tothe meta-stereotype or ‘imageme’, these models consist of oppositions.We have already encountered the basics of the North-South model, opposingthe supposedly ‘cooler’ temperament of the ‘more cerebral, individualist, morerugged, less pleasing but more trustworthy and responsible’ Northernpeoples, better suited to democracy and egalitarianism, and imbued with a‘spirit of business enterprise, a lack of imagination and a more introspective,stolid attitude’ with the ‘warmer’ temperament of the Southerner, who isconsidered ‘more sensual, collective, more polished, more pleasing but lesstrustworthy or responsible’ and better suited to aristocracy and hierarchy(Leerssen, 2000: 271). Going beyond Montesquieu, however, the modelsuggests that this opposition works not just inter-nationally, but also intra-nationally (i.e. between regions). This can lead to contradictory characterisa-tions, given the relative position of any region to any other. The Germanprovince of Hesse can be ‘northern’ if viewed from Bavaria, or ‘southern’ ifviewed from Hannover; Flanders ‘northern’ if viewed from Wallonia, ‘south-ern’ if viewed from Holland, and so on.

The centre-periphery model attaches various characteristics to nations andregions, depending on whether they are seen as central or peripheral.Centrality and peripherality can be ascribed in both the literal (geographical)or metaphorical sense. Centrality, as a stereotypical characteristic, is perceivedas dynamic, progressive, and modern, whereas peripherality is viewed as itsantithesis, i.e. static, traditionalist, and old-fashioned. Similar to the North-South opposition, centrality or peripherality can be assigned on a scale ranging

184 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

A]

at 0

4:26

20

May

201

2

from municipal to global. Thus, a nation’s capital might be seen as thedynamic powerhouse at the center of a ring of backwater provinces, whilewhole continents, i.e. North America, Europe and Australia can constitute thegeographically dispersed progressive ‘center’ of an otherwise backward global‘periphery’.

The last imagological model, the weak state�strong state opposition, is themost historically minded of these models, in that it focuses on the temporallyshifting stereotypes of the classic nation-state during its rise and fall.According to this model, states at the height of their power tend to beassigned negative stereotypes because, at the moment of observation, theyoften pose a threat to their neighbours. Conversely, the very same states � indecline � are assigned more benign stereotypes. A case in point might beSpain under Philip II (with a negative-hostile stereotype), oppressed byNapoleonic hegemony (positive-sympathetic), under Franco (again negative),and modern democratic Spain under a constitutional monarchy (againpositive-sympathetic). This dynamic bi-valence demonstrates the key rela-tionship between spector and spected in a context of shifting historicalcircumstance.

An integration of these insights, paradigms and models, might result,I believe, in an attempt at a ‘total’ imagological ‘system’, not unlike theDiasystem proposed by the Romance philologist, Bodo Muller, for the study ofthe French language (Muller, 1975). Thus, three key parameters for the study ofnational stereotypes appear to be emerging. Of these, the diatopical (geogra-phical) and diastratical (social), are inspired by, and more suited to, asynchronical and quantitative social scientific approach. The diachronical(historical) parameter, of course, inspired by comparative literature andhistory, is suited rather more to a humanities-based and qualitative histoiredes mentalites approach. The current state of research indicates that this is, infact, the overall trend.

ConclusionOf all academic specialisms we have seen, image studies number among

the most inter-disciplinary, though the center of gravity remains in the broaddomain of the humanities, in particular history and literature/philology.Historical-criticism and literary analysis thus remain core methods thatcomplement each other nicely when analysing texts containing nationalstereotypes. Nonetheless, much can be learned from the social sciences, asevident in the strong influence of social psychologists and ethnologists. Mostrecently, an eminent team of over 60 social psychologists collaborated in amassive international field project aimed at testing the possible objectivevalidity of national stereotypes for 49 cultures. Using quantitative social-scientific tools, applied to 3989 individuals, they compared character traitsascribed to these cultures from outside (i.e. the ‘hetereo-stereotypes’ of‘spectors’), with the cultures’ own self-perceived character traits (i.e. the‘auto-stereotypes’). Not surprisingly, the team determined strong differencesbetween the two. In fine , Terracciano and colleagues concluded that‘Perceptions of national character thus appear to be unfounded stereotypes

An Introduction to Imagology 185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

A]

at 0

4:26

20

May

201

2

that may serve the function of maintaining a national identity’ (Terraccianoet al ., 2005: 96). In other words: the self-serving dynamic at work. This resultis far from anti-climactic and serves to strengthen not only the interdisci-plinary character of imagological studies, but also to buttress the conclusionsof colleagues from the humanities, employing the qualitative methodologiesof their own fields.

Scholars such as Terracciano, Leerssen, and Stokvis have repeatedly under-scored the broad academic and social relevance of image studies. This, Ibelieve, is above all the case in the field of language and inter-culturalcommunication � itself, like image studies, a relatively young and highlyinterdisciplinary field drawing primarily on the methodology and theoreticalmodels of the more traditional fields of linguistics, literature, sociology,anthropology, and cultural studies in the broadest sense of the term. Imagestudies, I would argue, can make a real contribution to language and inter-cultural communication in two important ways, i.e. the structural�theoreticaland the practical�social. Several of the papers presented at the 2005 IALICconference � to name just one among several relevant examples � approachedlanguage and inter-cultural communication with sociolinguistic methodsapplied to a given case study, e.g. a series of dialogues between a Greekemployer and his Albanian ‘guest-worker’. Such case studies, all of which aresituated not only in a sociocultural synchronical, but also a historical andtherefore diachronical context, could clearly benefit from the application ofseveral imagological insights, notions and models. One might, for example,explore how far a self-serving dynamic is at play in the cultural categoriesused by the two interlocutors; examine how the Greco�Albanian stereotypesshifting over time and dependent on the fluctuating relations between the twostates, resonate in the dialogue; or how the large state�small state, center-periphery, or North-South models apply to the stereotypes implicit (or explicit)in the given dialogue. This would doubtless constitute a worthwhilestructural�theoretical contribution of image studies to existing language andinter-cultural communication paradigms. On a practical-social level, lastly, thepotential sociocultural and, indeed, political benefits of image studies for thefield of language and inter-cultural communication can hardly be exaggerated.While both fields are slowly emerging as recognised � if not yet quite‘mainstream’ � academic disciplines, it is very much hoped that they will findtheir way, sooner rather than later, into schoolbooks and school curricula.In this way, they might be able, in a small yet significant way, help mitigate � ifnot prevent outright � any of the several intractable contemporary regionalethno-religious conflicts, many of which are fuelled by a persistent lack ofinter-cultural communication and a lack of insight into the origins andfunction of stereotypes. Perhaps then current history schoolbooks in Serbia,glorifying the great Serbian past, and demonising the other ex-Yugoslav ethnicminorities it found itself pitted against during the last Balkan conflicts, mightbe replaced by books promoting the cultural understanding necessary for apeaceful co-existence based on fundamental humanistic values.

186 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

A]

at 0

4:26

20

May

201

2

CorrespondenceAny correspondence should be addressed to William L. Chew III, Vesalius

College, Pleinaan 2, Brussels, B-1050, Belgium (wchew@vub.ac.be).

Notes1. In his foreword to Guyard’s textbook La Litterature comparee , Carre defined the new

role of comparative literature studies as follows: ‘Comment nous voyons-nousentre nous, Anglais et Francais, Francais et Anglais.’ For a review of the origins ofimage studies in France, with a critical assessment of Carre’s and Guyard’scontribution, see Fischer (1981: 157�90).

2. For an introduction to the methodological problems entailed in the analysis oftravel accounts within the field of European cultural history, including thediscussion of several case studies, see Maczak and Teuteberg (1982).

References

Chew, W.L. III (2001) ‘Literature, history, and the social sciences?’ An historical-imagological approach to Franco-American stereotypes. In W.L. Chew III (ed.)National Stereotypes in Perspective: Americans in France � Frenchmen in America (pp.1�53). Amsterdam: Rodopi Press.

Cinnirella, M. (1997) Ethnic and national stereotypes: A social identity perspective. InC.C. Barfoot (ed.) Beyond Pug’s Tour: National and Ethnic Stereotyping in Theory andLiterary Practice (pp. 37�51). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Dyserinck, H. (1977) Komparatistik. Eine Einfuhrung. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag HerbertGrundmann.

Ehn, B., Frykman, J. and Lofgren, O. (1993) Forsvenskningen av Sverige. Det nationellasforvandlingar. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.

Fischer, M.S. (1981) National Images als Gegenstand Vergleichender Literaturgeschichte.Untersuchungen zur Entstehung der komparatistischen Imagologie . Bonn: Bouvier VerlagHerbert Grundmann.

Guyard, M-F. (1951) La litterature comparee. Paris: PUF.Leerssen, J. (2000) The rhetoric of national character: A programmatic survey. Poetics

Today 21 (2), 267�292.Maczak, A. and Teuteberg, H.J. (eds) (1982) Reiseberichte als Quellen europaischer

Kulturgeschichte, Aufgaben und Moglichkeiten der Historischen Reiseforschung . Wolfen-buttel: Herzog August Bibliothek.

Muller, B. (1975) Das Franzosische der Gegenwart. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universi-tatsverlag.

Stokvis, P.R.D. (1997) Nationale identiteit, beeldvorming, stereotypen en karakteris-tieken. Theoretische Geschiedenis 24 (3), 279�288.

Terracciano, A. et al . (2005) National character does not reflect mean personality traitlevels in 49 cultures. Science 310, 96�100.

Zacharasiewicz, W. (1982) National stereotypes in the English language: A review ofresearch. Yearbook of Research in English and American Literature 1, 75�120.

An Introduction to Imagology 187

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

A]

at 0

4:26

20

May

201

2