According to Abrams 1981: 21, there are two methods in characterizing characters, i.e., “ showing” and “ telling”. In “showing”, the author describes characters’
action and dialogue but he or she does not include the characters’ motives of the action and dialogue. Furthermore, the author lets the reader to guess behind the action and the
dialogue. In “telling”, the author describes not only the physical appearance but also the motives and sometimes evaluates the characters. The author, for instance, also comments
what the character says and does. Klarer 1999: 19-20 uses explanatory characterization for “ telling “ method and
dramatic characterization for “ showing “ method. In explanatory characterization, the author becomes the narrator who describes the character’s action and dialogue including
the narrator’s comment and evaluation towards the character. The dramatic characterization places the author as an obvious narrator. It means that the author
describes the character’s utterances and actions without giving any comment or intervention.
2.1.2.3. Theory of Conflicts
According to Jafte 1968:2 conflict will always come in our daily life, whether it is a conflict, which can be resolved and cannot be resolved or not resolved easily.
Conflicts have great effects on us; conflicts can change our basic values or our conception of life. It will modify our characters, values, ideas, the concepts of life, and
the nature of right and wrong. Conflict is one of the interesting parts in the story. Without the conflicts, the story
will bore its readers. According to Jafte 1968:2 conflict means that a story brings together two opposing forces called a protagonist one who struggles for and an
antagonist one who struggle against and then resolves the resultant struggle between these forces.
According to Stanton 1965:16 there are two conflicts, i.e. the internal conflict, which happens between two desires within a character, and the external conflict, which
happens between characters or between a character and his or her environment. In his further explanation he says that specific conflicts are in turn subordinate to the central
conflict, which may be internal, extenal, or both. A central conflict is always between fundamental and contrasting qualities forces, such as honesty and hypocrisy, innocence
and experience, individuality, and the pressure. A story may contain more than one conflicts force, but only the central conflict fully accounts for the events of the plot.
2.2. Review of Related Theories 2.2.1. Theory of Prejudice
According to Karen Huffman 1997:591 prejudice is a generally negative attitude directed to toward specific people because of their membership in a specific group. For
example slaves are likely to be viewed by their master as lazy, irresponsible, and lack of ambition.
Further, Huffman explained that the term prejudice is prejudgment of others based on limited knowledge and limited contact. It biases people against others and limits their
ability to accurately process information. This opinion is supported by Kalish in his book The Psychology of Human Behaviour
. He 1973:353 said that many people are rigid in their thinking. They seem to say “ Don’t bother me with the facts of new ideas. I know
what’s right,” they are referred to as people with closed minds; because they are not
willing consider new information. People that racially prejudiced are more difficult in discharging old ways of thinking and trying new ways.
But prejudice, like all attitude, is actually composed of three separate elements: 1 a cognitive components or stereotype, consist of negative thoughts and beliefs, 2
an affective components, consisting of emotion associated with objects of prejudice, and 3 a behavioural component, consisting of predispositions to act in certain ways toward
members of the group discrimination Richard A. Khalish 1973:351 stated that to have prejudice is to make
prejudgement or to make judgement or hold an attitude before all information is available. Prejudiced people will have either favourable or unfavourable reaction toward
people, things, and idea. A person is prejudiced against other people may make his thinking less effective. For example, a man who is prejudiced against a particular
newspaper may not believe something it published even though it is true. Khalish in his further explanation said that prejudice is learned largely through
interaction with significant others and tend to fit it in with personality needs and the self- concept. Prejudice then will be reinforced by approval from friends and the community,
by personal experiences, and by reduction of anxiety. According to Huffman there are five most commonly sources of prejudice:
learning, cognitive process, individual personality needs, economic and political competition, and displaced aggression. People learn prejudice through classical and
operant condition and social learning. For example, children hear their parents, friends, and teachers expressing prejudice and they imitate them. People also learn their prejudice
through direct experience. They receive attention and sometimes approval for expressing
racist of sexiest remarks. And also, they may have single, negative experience with a specific member of a group that then generalize and apply to all members of the group.
The second way people develop prejudice is through cognitive process. According to this perspective, prejudice develops as a result of normal cognitive process
and the every day attempt to explain a complex social life. And this cognitive process is divided in three categorisations. First, people create in-groups and out-groups. An in-
group is any category in which people see themselves as a member, while an out-group is all others. In-group is seen as more attractive, as having more desirable personality
characteristics, and engaging in more socially accepted forms of behaviour. The second cognitive process is this group has tendency to see more diversity
among members of one’s in-group and less among the out-group. This “ they-all-look- alike-to me” tendency is termed the out-group homogeneity effect. This is a kind of
cognitive bias. It is dangerous because when members of minority groups are not perceived as varied and complex individuals who have the same needs and feelings as the
dominant group, it is easier to perceived them as faceless objects and treat them in discriminatory ways. And the third cognitive process is the tendency to blame the victim,
a type of attribution bias. The third way people develops prejudice is out of an individual’s personality
needs. From this perspective, people with traits of rigidity, conventionality, and sadism tend to do prejudice. To identify it researchers use F scale. People who scored high on the
F scale is known as the authoritarian personality. The fourth way that is believed to develop prejudice is out of competition for
limited sources. It is maintained because it offers significant economic and political
