Living Library - News

Oleg KHUKHLAEV

Ph. D. in Psychology, Head of the Department of Ethnopsychology and Psychological Problems of Multicultural Education, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

On November 5–6, the Russian State Library for Youth hosted the “Living Library” project, where real people acted as books: an ambulance assistant, a mother with many children, a transsexual, a homeless person, a Muslim woman, an HIV-infected person, a police officer and a mother in a same-sex family.

The aim of the project is to reduce prejudice towards certain social groups. This happens through direct communication with people representing groups towards which there is a bias in our country. Many skeptics will ask: "How can communication with a person change my attitude towards him?" A cautious person will notice: “No more prejudices! And then they can fight. " But, as we already know, the "library" was extremely successful. And there is a psychological explanation for this. Back in the 1950s, psychologist Gordon Allport experimentally proved that direct contact reduces the level of intergroup bias. He called this the "contact hypothesis." However, in the same experiments it was shown that "casual" contact often aggravates the situation. Communication breaks stereotypes only when it meets a number of conditions. This is the equal status of the participants, lack of competition, a positive atmosphere and support from the authorities. All of this is most often absent if I meet a person from a stereotyped group on the street. And in an organized format (like the "Living Library"), these conditions must be met. Then, in the process of communication, a person realizes that the “other” group (for example, “Caucasians” or “policemen”) is extremely heterogeneous. When communicating with a specific representative, he realizes that the category of an out-group is useless for understanding its individual representative.that the “other” group (for example, “Caucasians” or “policemen”) is extremely heterogeneous. When communicating with a specific representative, he realizes that the category of an out-group is useless for understanding its individual representative.that the “other” group (for example, “Caucasians” or “policemen”) is extremely heterogeneous. When communicating with a specific representative, he realizes that the category of an out-group is useless for understanding its individual representative.