Pérez Juan A, Moscovici Serge, Chulvi Berta
University of Valencia, Spain.
Br J Soc Psychol. 2007 Jun;46(Pt 2):249-72. doi: 10.1348/014466606X111301.
The concept of this article is that the symbolic relationships between human beings and animals serve as a model for the relationships between the majority and the ethnic minority. We postulate that there are two representations that serve to organize these relationships between human beings and animals: a domestic and a wild one. If the domestic animal is an index of human culture, the wild animal is an index of nature which man considers himself to share with the animal. With the wild representation, contact with the animal will be taboo, as it constitutes a threat to the anthropological difference. We offer the hypothesis that ontologization of the minority, that is, the substitution of a human category with an animal category, and thus its exclusion from the human species, is a method the majority use when the taboo against contact with the wild nature is necessary. Three experiments confirm the hypothesis that the Gypsy minority (as compared with the Gadje majority) is more ontologized when the context (a monkey or a clothed dog) threatens the anthropological differentiation of the Gadje participants.
本文的观点是，人类与动物之间的象征关系可作为多数群体与少数群体之间关系的一种模式。我们假定，存在两种用以构建人类与动物之间这些关系的表征：一种是家养动物的表征，另一种是野生动物的表征。如果说家养动物是人类文化的一种标志，那么野生动物就是人类认为自己与动物所共有的自然的一种标志。对于野生动物的表征而言，与动物接触是禁忌，因为这对人类与动物的差异构成了威胁。我们提出这样一个假说：将少数群体本体化，也就是说，用动物类别替代人类类别，从而将其排除在人类物种之外，是多数群体在有必要对与野生自然接触设禁时所采用的一种方法。三项实验证实了这一假说：当情境（一只猴子或一只穿着衣服的狗）威胁到家养群体参与者的人类身份差异时，吉卜赛少数群体（与非吉卜赛多数群体相比）更容易被本体化。
