The social conditions within which people find themselves are in large part the outcome of human activity, and those who occupy positions of power have been known to manage conditions in ways that ensure the continuation of these positions (Fay, 1 983). While it may appear that western 'powers' no longer colonise non-western countries and their peoples, they do continue to 'colonise' them psychologically. The manner in which this occurs, however, is more subtle, and is executed through policies such as bi-culturalism for example, that do not necessarily alter the balance of power in the significant areas of life, such as political and economic governance (Tauri, 1 999). One of the most powerful ways in which the social world is 'colonised', is by the way in which knowledge about this world is filtered through language and communication.
3.8.1 Western Discourses of Power
With the demise of traditional forms of colonial conflict, western imperial power has produced new forms of conflict which involve new political languages, new powers, new social groups, new desires and fears, new subjectivities (Stocking, 1 999: 323). Power is considered to be the medium of the realisation of collective human interests (Giddens, 1 995: 2 1 5), and in modem times colonialism is sustained through the power of language and discourse. van Dij k (1 998) declares that discourse has a special function in the expression, implementation and the reproduction of ideologies, since it is only through language use, discourse or communication that they can be explicitly formulated. These are legitimised and nurtured through western administrative systems and institutions which
reproduce the hegemonic discourse of colonial administrators. These western discourses of power are used to define and control social knowledge and the social order.
The language of modem constitutionalism, which has come to be authoritative, was designed to exclude or assimilate cultural diversity and justify uniformity (Tully, 1 995: 58). Tully suggests that the design is difficult to see because this 'modem' language has become the customary way of thinking about, reflecting on and envisioning a just constitutional order. While masquerading as universal, Tully notes that this language is imperial in three respects: in serving to justify European imperialism, imperial rule of former colonies over Indigenous peoples, and cultural imperialism over the diverse citizens of contemporary societies. The words we use today to describe the 'other' and matters pertaining to that 'other' were coined by colonisers to relegate these peoples to the lowest strata of society and to perpetuate the status quo. Those terms and the uses of them have come to be accepted as the authoritative vocabulary for the description of the colonised 'other' over the last three hundred years. They were developed during the age of European imperialism, and served to legitimate it (ibid: 36-37).
Tully ( 1 995) asserts that the first and often overlooked step in any enquiry into justice is to investigate if the language in which the enquiry proceeds, is itself 'just' . It is necessary to call into question and amend a number of unexamined conventions, inherited from the imperial age, that continue to inform the language used to describe non-western peoples and cultures, and their place in the global society. A significant change is required in the way of thinking about these issues, as well as about having to use the dominant, imperial, English language to describe such matters. Such a stance has always had the support of vibrant thinkers such as Habermas ( 1 98 1), Taylor (1 994), Tully ( 1 995), and Hall ( 1 996) who have sought to subvert that cultural dominance.
Habermas ( 1 98 1 ) maintains that in contemporary capitalist/industrial societies communication has become the new form of legitimation for political power. However, the manner in which the instrumental nature of particular social structures (the capitalist economy and the State, particularly) has come to 'colonise' the 'lifeworld' (the world of
interpersonal interaction) has distorted communication. Habermas ( 1 98 1 ) considers systematically distorted communication and the barriers to genuine discourse consensus as the real chains of humankind.
3.8.2 The Theory of Communicative Action
The mechanism for manipulating the social world is described in Habermas' ( 1 984) theory
of communicative action and notion of communicative rationality, which concerns speech
oriented toward reaching understanding. This theory of communication that draws on a formalist theory of linguistics and utilizes a consensual rather than a correspondence theory of truth has important implications for critical social theory because it can explain social action. It shows how communicative acts (verbal or non-verbal) take on the function of coordinating action, and thereby contribute to the construction of social interactions. A description of this process will facilitate comprehension of the argument that language and its mode of communication have the power to influence social outcomes.
Habermas believes that there are unavoidable presuppositions that guide linguistic exchanges between speakers and hearers in everyday processes of communication in any language. These presuppositions are about a commonly supposed system of worlds, the
'lifeworld', which is a kind of deep-seated, implicit, background knowledge including knowledge of the speaker's personal history or familiarity with the culturally specific contexts in which a topic is normally discussed (Habermas, 1 984). In the background of the lifeworld, which embodies cultural reproduction, social integration and socialisation (Outhwaite, 1 994); knowledge of the world and knowledge of language are integrated. The background knowledge of the lifeworld forms the indispensable context for the communicative use of language, and without it meaning would be impossible.
The concept of communicative action is based on and supplemented by this concept of the shared lifeworld of participants. When participants in communication refer to objects or states of affairs in the world, they are situated within the horizon of this intersubjectively shared lifeworld about which they have knowledge which is culturally transmitted and
linguistically organised (Outhwaite, 1 994). The social space of this lifeworld inhabited in common provides the key to the conception of society proposed by the theory of communication. Communicative action is hence dependent on situational contexts, which represent segments of the lifeworld of the participants in interaction, i.e. our knowledge concerning particular aspects of our world has to be linguistically organised using a formal language before it can be communicated. Knowledge is therefore intrinsically of a linguistic nature (Habermas, 1 998: 3 1 1 ).
The dimension of validity (i.e. the truthfulness of the knowledge being imparted) is inherent in language. Everyday linguistic interaction is primarily a matter of raising and responding to validity claims about knowledge. There are a number of validity claims: a claim to the truth of what is said or presupposed, a claim to the normative rightness of the speech act in the given context, a claim to the truthfulness of the speaker, (Ibid, 1 998: 3). In communicative linguistic expression all these claims are raised simultaneously, but in a typical exchange just one of the claims is raised explicitly, and the others remain implicit presuppositions (background knowledge) of understanding the utterance. Accordingly, in the context of interaction between western and non-western peoples, communication does not have to be explicitly racist for its implicit racist connotations to be understood.
The idea of universal validity claims has implications for language and social theory. It proposes that language has an in-built connection with validity claims (about the truthfulness of knowledge) thereby giving rise to a proceduralist conception of social order
(which makes no claims to prescribe or evaluate the content of any given order) as reproduced through communicative action, i.e. knowledge about the world is disclosed through language.
The significance of Habermas' proposition for this study lies in the support it provides for the theory that the social order prevalent today (i.e. the nature of the interaction between western and non-western peoples), continues to be 'colonised' by the instrumentalism of western administrative logic which (through technologies and organisation) 'reifies' knowledge into pseudo-objectivist forms which are supposedly independent of human
production and purpose (Habermas, 1 998). However, knowledge is related to action, and there is an intimate connection between the ideas that we have and the sort of life that we lead. Our knowledge about social life affects our living of it. Accordingly, the purpose of knowledge gained from social science is to enable people to control their social environment, thereby making it more harmonious and congruent with the needs and wants of its members (Fay, 1 983: 1 9). Scientific study provides objective knowledge of how events or properties of systems are related, and provides us with the power requisite for the task of social control.
In modem industrial societies, there is an inherent tendency to support the dominant elements in the social order. When social systems are rooted in dominant-submissive social relations of this sort, to strengthen and reinforce this type of social relationship, appropriate knowledge conducive to the support of these systems must be provided (ibid: 20). In multi-ethnic societies where western peoples are dominant and seek to control non western peoples, knowledge is not always objective and truthful. Subjective knowledge about the inferior status of non-western peoples is used to provide western peoples with power to control and dominate them and support the status quo. This knowledge is communicated through distorted language designed by colonisers, which, this thesis contends, plays a pivotal role in maintaining the present social order between westerners and non-westerners.
Within this dominant-submissive system, basic social relations are taken to be 'objectively required' and thus given an independent status; consequently, members of the dominated group are not able to see that this domination is not necessary but only conventional (Fay, 1 983). Their language and understanding of themselves and their society consists of concepts which reflect this illusion about which they know nothing because they have neither the language nor the perspective to discuss their truer relationship, and they believe that this inegalitarian relationship has to be that way because it is natural and 'given'. They cannot see the dominance as 'coercive or thwarting' because they have become 'prisoners of a set of ideas which lends seemingly rational, if implicit, support to these inegalitarian social institutions' (ibid: 63). If they do not somehow come to see this dominant-
submissive social structure as repressive, they have no reason to expect that it would disappear. This is because social relations are conceptual relations (defined and regulated in terms of duties, rights, roles etcetera) which form part of a cultural tradition of communication. Until different concepts are employed for speaking about subject positions and social relations, there can be no emancipation from an oppressive society (Fay, 1 983 : 62-63). In all these social processes language, whose distortion protects the interests of the dominant group, has been an important vehicle through which the desired social order has been reproduced and maintained.
3.8.3 Language of Social Control
Habermas (as does Humboldt ( 1 963 in ibid) and Taylor ( 1 99 1 in ibid), and Fay, 1 983) recognises that social interactions of all types are mediated by language because language has a world-disclosing function i.e. it interprets the world for people, and allows what is in the world to appear there in a certain way. ' World-disclosure' means for these authors that language is the constitutive organ of thought, of social practices and of experience, and also of the formation of ego and group identities (Habermas, 1 998: 1 9 1 ). From a rationalist perspective, this will therefore mean that the way people perceive their worlds, and the identities they form will be determined by the language used to describe them and their worlds.
Some of the symbols of everyday language that legitimise and maintain the oppression of ethnic minorities are the labels that are casually attached to such peoples. Labels are usually encountered in the form of stereotypes which are the cognitive categories people use when thinking about groups and about individuals from those groups (Ashmore et al., 1 98 1 in Jussim et aI. , 1 995). The labels attached to ethnic groups reflect the interpretations, evaluations, beliefs or judgments of these different targets by their users, and applying a label to a target also influences how perceivers judge and evaluate that target (Jussim et aI, 1 995). However, marginalised groups have been able to develop considerable social power through 'overidentifying' with the very labels that were intended to deride them (e.g. Nigger, Queer, Slut) (Zizek, 1 997), or by social creativity such as the re-evaluation of
existing labels which carry an unfavourable connotation (e.g. 'Black is beautiful') (Tajfel, 1 978). In Zizek's tenns, the political goal becomes that of 'traversing the fantasy' which sustains the pejorative viewpoint. Re-articulation of the caustic labels and a refantasising of identity using those labels (e.g. Queer) bring about progressive fonns of subjectivity. Despite this creative ability of marginalised groups, the use of language that reflects positive attitudes and behaviours needs to be encouraged in order to ensure favourable evaluations of people that may lead to positive interethnic relations.
An analysis of a few significant core concepts that, from an ethic minority perspective, have consolidated the colonial fantasy, and have been used to misrepresent global social relations and to encourage (perhaps inadvertently) negative relations, is undertaken below. The concept of ethnicity has already been examined in chapter one.
'Assimilate'
It is common practice to use the word 'assimilate' to describe the process of change that non-western immigrants must undergo when they enter a western society. This suggests that they must be absorbed into and made like the new system. For this to happen, it is expected by western societies that peoples of different cultures must change their culture to fit in with western culture. This expectation is based on the Eurocentric belief that western cultures are superior to all other cultures. Clearly, its usage in this context is the product of colonialism. Whilst those who understand the concept of assimilation avoid its use and choose to use the word 'integrate' instead, the large majority of people are not aware of its decline in favour and continue to use it. By using it they not only display ignorance about the (supposed) change in attitude, but also their preference in tenns of relations with ethnic minorities. (It is assumed that those who have a change in attitude would be aware of the change in tenninology.) The continued use of this word is hurtful and insulting to non western ethnic minorities. People must accordingly be made aware of the negative connotation of the word, and its use should be discouraged.
'Tolerate'
All writers in the area of interethnic relations, including supposedly well-infonned theorists
and philosophers, continually use the word 'tolerance ' instead of 'acceptance' when
talking about the desired attitude and response that western peoples should have toward the non-western ethnic 'other'. In the light of the discussion of the language of colonialism in chapter one and above, this usage suggests a particular mindset of westerners toward ethnic minorities and multiculturalism. The very use pre-empts an attitude, one which is negative rather than positive. It automatically transports the user to a frame of reference that includes distance and civility, even political correctness, but not acceptance. It suggests to ethnic minority readers that they are inferior and must therefore be 'put up with' or endured. The language we use detennines our attitudes and behaviours. The use of the word 'tolerance' in relation to the ethnic 'other' clouds the judgement of the user and throws a negative light on the relationship.
Even non-western writers use the word 'tolerance' in place of 'acceptance'. This could display ignorance on their part of the connotations ofthe word, and/or a blind acceptance of the language of westerners who are purported to know better (a result of the internalisation of their dominant social status by non-westerners). Its effect on ethnic minority users can only be a consolidation of their inferior status in the eyes of the western world. The denotation of the word tolerate is: endure (suffering etc.), pennit, forbear to judge harshly or rigorously (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1 964), and other such negative denotations. The current usage in tenns of other peoples is clearly a contrivance of colonialism, and describes the negative attitudes held by colonisers toward the colonised 'other' . The word brings with it a host of negative connotations associated with inferiority. It represents linguistic domination - a colonising of the mind. Our diction needs to be considered more carefully in our effort to promote better ethnic relations. Hopefully, constant use of the positive term 'acceptance' will eventually ameliorate attitudes.
'Melting Pot'
The metaphor of the 'melting pot', which is widely used in AotearoalNew Zealand by journalists, politicians and lay-people alike, signifies an assimilationist approach to diversity. It projects to users of the term the notion that all distinct cultures and identities must be sacrificed in favour of some nebulous condition in which all are presumably 'equal' in their cultural indigence. The enlightened amongst those who are expected to jump into this 'melting pot' are left with a deep sense of enormous loss. The only outcome of such a situation would be a prolonged period of grieving and conflict from which nobody with a distinct sense of self could possibly recover, and which could only engender more conflict and grieving. The view that the use of this metaphor needs to be discouraged so that its concomitant mindset can be eradicated is supported by social theorists such as McGrew ( 1 992) who believes concepts such as the 'melting pot' are obsolete.
The influence of colonialism is still evident, even in academic work. Whilst this may often be inadvertent, the possibility that some academics may be voluntarily under its influence, is an unsavoury 'reality'. These fortuitous or wilful effects keep the colonial connection alive. Some western researchers, however broadminded in their views, appear to display vestiges of colonial attitudes toward ethnic minorities (perhaps subconsciously), which can often be detected in their work. For example, Ward et al. (200 1 ) in their brilliant review of intercultural contact, report Paige and Martin ( 1 996) as listing the KSAAs (knowledge, skills, abilities and attitudes) desirable for culture trainers as being personal characteristics such as self-awareness, 'tolerance ' for ambiguity, and cognitive and behavioural flexibility; past cross-cultural experience; motivation; interpersonal and communication skills; and knowledge of the field. They add 'respect for the local culture' as also 'a desirable trait' (not an imperative trait!) 'as it is increasingly being recognised that intercultural training has ethical implications, in particular with respect to the consequences of the asymmetrical power that often characterises the relationship between trainers and trainees' (ibid: 268). This begs the following question: would they not include respect for the local culture if there were no perceived ethical implications? It is apparent from this that the reasons for making adjustments to ethnic minorities are influenced by ulterior motives which are self-
protecting, as alluded to above. Self-interests are apparently more important than the interests of the ethnic minorities concerned, and the wider interests of the global