CONF 803: MACRO THEORIES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Professor Ho-Won Jeong
George Mason University
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes and Disucssions

I. Social identity is defined (by Tajfel) as "that part of an individual's self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership." (6)

II. Ingroup Identification and Intergroup Conflict arises out of the study of the self in a social context, has multiple analytic meanings for the exploration of hostility occurring on various levels in which individual identity at the social level may manifest as ethnic hostility, identity within groups may foster intergroup hostility and competition, and at the level of modern nations, may manifest as armed violence.

· An ingroup - defined as the primary identification group that holds significant attachment for its members; the outgroup - as who not belonging to the ingroup.
· Brewer's position - ingroup identity arises separately from that of attitudes toward outgroups
· Attachment - primary process fundamental to human survival, precedes outgroup hostility and intergroup conflict, but is not sufficient to explain such conflict.
· Sumner's early (1906) theory of "ethnocentrism" - a "universal characteristic of human social groups whereby a differentiation arises between ourselves, the we-group, or in-group, and everybody else…" It is a view in which one's own group is centralized and exalted and the attitudes toward the outgroup are negative.

 

o Ethnocentrism, according to Sumner, possesses four elements:
o The social-categorization principle - groups are distinctly organized into in/outgroups
o The ingroup positivity principle - ingroups value and react positively to its members
o The intergroup comparison principle - ingroup status considered superior to outgroup
o The outgroup hostility principle - relationship between in/outgroups are conflictual

· Brewer - Sumner's categorization of elements of ethnocentrism are not disparate features of, but exist along a continuum of potential relationships between the identified outgroup and ingroup -
o the first two principles are most likely universal the latter two are not inherent to group formation.

· Categorization - basic human cognitive process underlying all intergroup phenomena in which individuals group according to perceived differences and similarities

 

oFrom this social structuring process, arises stereotypic formulations which
are attempts at categorization for social order and simplification - the positive or negative connation associated with stereotyping - correlated to the degree of information held about those within the identified category.

III. Social Identification - an affective process that facilitates attachment to the group; it involves the degree to which the "ingroup is incorporated into the self" and self is identified as a part of ingroup. This integration and subordination of the self formulates the basis for the positive view of the ingroup held and internalized by the ingroup member; this in turn positively correlates to the sense of self worth and self esteem.

· Identification with the ingroup does not occur with membership, is a product of motivation to belong to said ingroup, which implies some aspect of intentionality.

· Optimal Distinctiveness Theory seeks to explain why individuals choose to identify with certain groups; it describes a state of cognitive and emotional dissonance in which two powerful motives occur: the need for inclusion and the need for differentiation. (29)

 

o These needs check each other through identification with social groups that satisfy both needs simultaneously
o Inclusive and distinctive group membership satisfies the need for social affiliation; contrasting with "others" satisfies the need for differentiation.
o If the ingroup satisfactorily satisfies both of these needs, the individual's sense of self worth is enhanced.
o ODT - the satisfaction of these two motives - primary reason why attachment to ingroup occurs and not increased self worth. Self worth, may enhance positive attitudes toward the ingroup.
o Empirical data - positive affect associated with the ingroup exists, is automatic and without awareness, creates "benign cycle" of positivity towards the ingroup -
attitudes towards those on the periphery or in the outgroup may be indifferent -
differential indifference can be the basis for discrimination against outgroupers.
o Studies on racism in the U.S. and Europe have revealed that "subtle" racism more likely encountered by outgroupers than overt discriminatory acts.
o This subtle racism takes the form of an "absence of positive sentiments towards the outgroup" (aversive racism reflects pro-white (pro-ingroup) vs. anti-black bias)
o Power and resources attributed to one group may facilitate positive regard ingroup which may contribute to hostility or indifference towards the outgroup and vice versa. (Query: Would not this also enhance the likelihood that the group with perceived power and resources is not regarded with indifference, but with hostility?)

· Intergroup/Social Comparison - due to uncertainty about one's standing, resolved by comparing oneself or one's group to relevant others who; for comparison to be meaningful, must have something in common, some similarities with the other group (relevant others).

 

o Social competition arises when groups vie for ingroup advantage ("we are better") and status viewed as relative, when acquiring scarce social or economic resources, creates a zero-sum mentality which increases competition.
o Tesser - the more similar the groups are in values and aspirations - more acute the competition. Competition reduced only if ingroup isolated from outgroup or ingroup is so distant in evaluative comparison, holds such high status, that magnanimity towards the outgroup occurs. (Examples?? What are the implications for understanding and explaining intergroup conflict?)
o Brewer research that ingroup bias and discrimination occur if view of ingroup is evaluated higher on certain dimensions that are important to the group members; social competition occurs only "when there is no alternative for the establishing of one's own positive identity than at the expense of the outgroup"; fairness occurs when both groups have perceived alternatives for establishing positive identities. (25) (Implications for conflict resolution practices?)

· Outgroup Aggression and Antagonism - distinctive from competition; aggression may be considered the desire to do harm to the outgroup.

 

o Brewer discusses research in which the data conclude that there does occur a tendency to minimize intentional harm inflicted upon outgroup members, eliminating or reducing ingroup bias.
o When elements of hate or contempt are added, constraints are lifted and tendency to engage in violent conflict against the outgroup is enhanced, even if it occurs at great costs to the ingroup. (27) (U.S. vs. Iraq?)
o Aggression towards the outgroup viewed as justified if it reflects the attitude that the very existence of the ingroup or its social identity is threatened.

· Origins of Intergroup Conflict - competition over scarce resources does arise, symbolic and subjective elements of perceived threat and prior intergroup antagonism also contribute to the likelihood of outgroup/ingroup conflict

 

o Intergroup conflict arises separately from ingroup positivity; to fully understand the fundamental origins of ingroup/outgroup behavior, one must look to the biological and anthropological origins of human behavior.
o Humans evolved through process of natural selection in which social cooperation unfolded as superior method of survival as compared to the isolated individual ("cooperation rather than strength and social learning rather than instincts") as basic human adaptations.
o Accordingly, humans characterized by obligatory interdependence, a relationship of trust dominating over mistrust, necessary for long-term survival - forms the basis for ingroup cohesion.
o Social boundaries and categorization, become instrumental in facilitating group cohesion and trust by identfying those who are more likely to insure the survival of the ingroup - its members, without excessive cost to the unit.
o This trust within the ingroup is depersonalized and applicable to all within the group.
o The psychological/social identity model of optimal distinctivenss assumes that there exists a co- evolutionary process between the needs for group trust and protection and the individual need for distinction.

· Ingroup Differentiation and Outgroup Stereotypes - Individuals reflect norms of behavior associated with the ingroup (behaving differently with members of the outgroup); these norms are often the basis for outgroup wariness, constraint and negative stereotyping which is exacerbated by the accentuation principle which exaggerates differences. (See example of East African intergroup surveys) (31)

 

o In intergroup exchanges, more competition than in an interpersonal context - this is known as the "individual-group discontinuity effect".
o According to Insko, schema-based distrust arises out of the belief that relations with the outgroup are inherently competitive and cannot be trusted; exacerbated when strong emotions are present.
o The Role of Emotions in intergroup conflict - The existence of distrust can lead to competition elicited by a process of misattribution, producing negative affect towards outgroup; this creates arousal, intergroup anxiety and can be transformed into virulent negative emotions such as hatred and fear. This emotional component is instrumental in turning intergroup comparison into intergroup antagonism.
o The author surmises causal element in intergroup emotions arising out of perceived threats to the social identity of the individual - through marginalization from the desired ingroup which creates hypervaluation and hyperidentification with the ingroup and thereby an exaggerated opposition to the outgroup.
o Contempt and disgust lead to avoidance and isolation (segregation); when social transformaton occurs and close contact with the outgroup is likely (integration), loss of distinctiveness becomes possible and threat of invasion elicits fear and angry. It is at this point, when combined emotions of hostility and contempt, anger and fear can become the basis for violent conflict such as ethnic cleansing.

· Conditions that Impact Ingroup/Outgroup Hostilities - Common goals, facing a shared threat, etc. can facilitate intergroup cooperation; if groups are highly differentiated, may promote hostility; power politics and the political maneuverings of group leaders may also have an impact on reducing outgroup hostility or exacerbating differences; degree to which the culture of the in group is adhered to impacts the extent of outgroup distancing; collectivist societies tend to reflect greater outgroup wariness than is present in those that are individualistic.

 

o Social structure - less outgroup conflict in those societies that allow for greater diffusion of differentiation than in societies where dichotomous categorization.

· Symbols and Inclusion - Brewer states that development of superordinate symbols and models of inclusion may facilitate greater ingroup/outgroup cooperation; when strong emotions such as hate take hold, such superordinate symbols and machinations may not result in the reduction of hostility; if hostilities flourish, then protection of intergroup boundaries and distinctive identities may be warranted.

 

Ethnic Identity, National Identity and Intergroup Conflict (Chapter 3)
Thomas Hylland Eriksen

I. Eriksen identifies culture as complex, paradoxical, often fragmented aspect of the social world that cuts across ethnic differences, where ethnic identity refers to a notion of shared ancestry and culture refers to shared norms and practices.

· Debates about identity - primordial (rooted in collective experiences) or instrumental (rising as an ad hoc response to the environment)
· Current focus is on identity and "conscious agency" and dynamism rather than on culture as a static entity. It may be summarized as:

 

o The relationship between culture and ethnicity is asymmetrical, varied and complex.
o Ethnicity is result of the relationship between two or more groups - exists between
and not within group
o Ethnicity should be studied at the level of social life, not symbolic culture
o Ethnicity is relational and situational.

II. Yugoslavia - state came into existence twice (post WWI and post WWII) - and was arguably the most heterogeneous, liberal and culturally tolerant nation-states in Europe prior to its dissolution, comprising Croats, Slovens, Serbians, Albanians and Bosnian Muslim.

· During time of Tito, ethnicity a non-isssue, the non-ethnic flavor of Yugoslavian politics, the author suggests, contributed to the eventual dissolution of the state.
· Eriksen identifies the primary schism in Yugoslavia - due to religious differences rather differences in ethnic origin; example of Bosnia and how the Bosnian Muslims, Serbs (Orthodox) and Croats (Catholics) lived, worked and socialized together - the conflict that subsequently erupted, did so along these religious lines (religion being the "central marker collective identity").

 

o Though there was frequent interaction, boundaries still existed, intermarriage was rare, close personal friendships tended to be monoethnic, each group, maintained mythic tales of origins and discord.
o Ethnic boundaries contributed to the failure of the Yugoslavian society and resulted in very strong ethnic identification when the crisis led to war.

III. Fiji - A state that is comprised of two major ethnic groups, indigenous Fijians and Indians brought as indentured servants by British colonials; historically their relationship has been one of contention throughout their history together, characterized by distinct cultural differences in religion, language and group traditions; intermarriage is rare. These differences led to conflicting interests politically and have facilitated on-going competition for resources.

· An atmosphere of group accommodation arose as a means to cross cut cultural and ethnic differences, e.g. English as a national language and shared educational institutions.
· Group compromise has yielded a manner of conflict avoidance as each group has distinct functions within the society (Fijians are the predominant landowners, Indians have the economic stronghold)
· Perceived inequalities led to the Fijian political leaders espousing rhetoric to galvanize the nativist spirit within that community, declaring "Fiji for Fijians" and leaving Indians without status in the political arena.
· Eriksen - cultural differences in Fiji evidence that distinctiveness does not necessarily result in intergroup conflict, but differences can be exploited and cleavages exacerbated in order to obtain political gain.

IV. India - reflects a society that possesses several layers of cultural, religious, language and caste differences; (80% Hindu, second largest Muslim population, sizeable Christian population); a secular country, the ethnic nationalist movement, "hindutva" (Hindu-ness) has been flourishing as a response to Islamic fundamentalism, sociocultural change (modernism) and the growing egalitarian movement within the country.

· Like in Fiji and Bosnia, intermarriage between the distinct groups is rare, personal interactions seldom cross cultural or religious lines
· The complexities of the Indian society have been identified as being more distinct and diverse than has been found in either of the above societies
· The rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party and its hindutva movement has been correlated to the liberalization of the Indian economy and the perception that cherished traditions may be threatened by the new consumerism and increased media presence.

V. Comparing the three conflicts: Eriksen identifies sociological features and additional ideological features of identity politics of the conflicts that are characteristic of each society.

· In each society, contention evolves around competition over scarce resources (economic wealth, political power, recognition and symbolic power).
· Process of modernization exacerbates differences and creates conflict as distinction is highlighted and group comparisons escalate.
· Since little or no intermarriage occurs between the conflicting groups, they tend to be self-sustaining; this focuses on kinship factors which are significant social functions and is an important principle around which group categorization and identity occurs.
· In each of the three countries, cultural similarities overruled social equality, the ingroup emerged as a homogeneous entity; another commonality - the invoking of mythic and symbolic past sufferings and injustices (Turks in Kosovo - 1389, Mughals in India - 1500s, Fijians bemoaning their plight as an indigenous people suffering at the hands of an invading people)
· The author sees most important ideological feature of identity politics as being political symbolism and rhetoric evoking personal experiences. Myths, metaphors and symbolism have been used in each case to engage in eliciting feelings of loyalty by creating meaningful images that have personal relevance to the ingroup members.
· Other significant ideological features - the view that the historical reference of the self on the continuum of descent ("We were here first…") and the focus on the simplicity of identifying a single enemy as a political tool to galvanize the populace. ("The Other is reduced to a minimal set of "traits" and so is the collective Self".)
· Eriksen suggests that these ideological commonalities of identity politics incorporate the self and personal experiences into a socially viable collective identity.

VI. Identity Politics - a more appropriate term than "ethnic" differences; given the complexity of the societal conflicts discussed, the more appropriate designation may be one that recognizes the impact of social identity - thus "identity politics" is the preferred terminology.

· Identity may be considered to be relational, situational and flexible, with each individual possessing numerous identities - only a few will become socially relevant as they relate to social or political transformation.
· Modern institutions such as the media, economic and political systems facilitate the process of transformation from the personal discrete in smaller communities, to the larger more diffuse society. Simmel's Rule states that "internal cohesion of a group is contingent on the strength of external pressure". Eriksen indicates that this may explain the intense cohesion in smaller oppressed groups than in larger ones. The kind of group that this produces depends upon the origins of the pressure applied.
· Certain occurrences do mitigate intergroup conflict - cross-cutting ties and conflicting loyalties; shared experiences that transcend boundaries may also reduce conflict; fission and fusion in tribal societies (groups splitting and coming together).
· Segmentary organization (Evans-Pritchard) occurs when groups fuse for the purpose of defeating a common enemy ("It's me against my brother, my brother and I against our cousins, our cousins, my brother and I against everybody else.") In modern societies this form of organization may be a cause of oppositional politics when a sufficient political arena is not provided.
· An expansion and contraction of identity politics occurs in the form of group segmentation as a means of establishing a firm boundary within the state when intergroup conflict arises; the challenge to alleviate contention involves the recognition that processes such as segmentary fusion and fission, Simmel's Rule, in-group competition, etc. demonstrate the need to create communities that facilitate a sense of individual belonging to a community larger than the referenced ingroup.

Reference: Ashmore, Richard, Jussim, L. & Wilder, D. Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict, and
Conflict Resolution. New York: Oxford University Press. 2001.

Critin, Wong and Duff, "the Meaning of American National Identity; Patterns of Ethnic Conflict & Consensus"

National identity is one among other social identities and the US faces competing identities between the national and ethnic identities. In the last 50 years, the US has become more diverse at a time when intellectual trends are promoting the legitimacy of ethnicity. The authors used survey research to analyze American national identity and indicate that there are three dimensions to this.

a) Identiy definition
- Identity is an assertion of sameness (in group) and difference (the other)
- People have multiple, overlapping identities, some of which are optional (e.g. religion), while others are imposed (e.g. race or sex). It is not only self identity which matters, but what the ingroup also says (acceptance or rejection)
- Even mere awareness of belonging to an in group engenders positive feelings about the group (e.g. national identity)
- There is a distinction between identification "as" from empathy i.e. identification "with" e.g. a cause like gay cause.
- The content of group identity is socially constructed (no discussion of origination)

b) Affective Dimension
This refers to the feelings of closeness to and often pride in the "in group" e.g. patriotism as well as chauvinism i.e. a sense of superiority over "others" or blind loyalty such as "my country right or wrong."

c) Normative Conceptions of identity
In its neutral sense, national identity implies that membership in the nation is the citizen's overriding group loyalty. Thus construction of a nation entails both gains and losses. The normative dimension consists of the core values and ideas that make a nation distinctive- currently in America its liberalism, nativism & multi-culturalism. American national identity is civic, not ethnic, i.e. it is based on common beliefs and customs and not primordial.
- Nativism is insistence on cultural conformity, its the insistence that newcomers must assimilate into the Anglo-Saxon tradition. Thus Blacks, Asians & Mexicans were initially excluded.
- Associate liberalism with nativism (not clear what they mean by this) and opposite to multiculturalism which emphasises ethnic consciousness and pride .
- Multi-culturalism is in contrast to nativism and accepts cultural plurality.
- Those who oppose multi-culturalism often fear balkanization

Methodology
The aim was to balance national against ethnic identities. The authors were guided by symbolic politics theory i.e. " individuals possess stable pre-despositions acquired through early socialization and reinforced by later experience."
In this view, the US, national pride and sense of exceptionalism are strongly socialized attitudes. Which pre-desposition, national or ethnic, influences political choice depends on such variables as events, policies,candidates messages etc.
They relied on sample population surveys based on self reporting.

Findings; Public Attachment to America
Found that ethnic differences are slight when it comes to patriotic sentiment.
- Hispanics have a continuing affirnity to their country of origin among recent
immigrants. (Not clear if Blacks are classed as recent immigrants)
- There are no ethnic differences on views about assimilation i.e. whether it is better for groups to
blend than maintain their distinct culture.
- There was a big difference in judging empirical, historical experience. Minorities are
less positive about this.
- Ideological conceptions of Americanism (values) are similar across ethnicities.

Conclusions; Public Attachment to America
The tables are on page 80 ff. And the conclusions were;
- Patriotism is pervasive in the American public and there is latent hostility towards other nations.
- Many view a unifying American culture as compatible with respect for pluralism.
- Americans are in sync about national identity. There is no race effect on patriotism or chauvinism
- Blacks endorse nativist conceptions of American identity and this is because of their support for Christianity as a defining criterion for nationalism. (Not sure how this conclusion is drawn)
- Ist generation immigrants are less likely to be patriotic
- Whites are more nationalistic than Blacks. Hispanics are somewhere in the middle.
- National and ethnic identities are complementary rather than competing.
- Because 1st generation immigrants are more likely to ethnicity identify, socialization must account largely for patriotism.

Findings; Identities and Policy Preference
- Broad attitudes are more likely to determine preferences on specific issues when those predispositions are central to an individual's self definition e.g. Jewish

identity and policies towards Israel.
- Dedication to American nationalism is antithetical to multi-culturalism
- Multi-culturalism is stronger amongst Blacks because they have stronger ethnic affirnities.

Conclusion; Identities and Policy Preference
- Found that race is related to anti-affirmative action among whites which proves the
point about self-interest.
- There is no ethnic devide on nationalism in America
- American values especially egalitarianism, tolerance & freedom, are the most attractive
ideals to nationalism.
- Minorities concieve of themselves in dual terms while whites have only one
predominant identity.
- Blacks identify with American ideals not American realities.
- Strong nationalism is also found to be anti-immigration and pro-militarism
- The above shows either a big gulf between activist and ordinary citizens, or else the survey
framing was faulty.
- For conflict resolution, the mobilization of group consciousness can lead to less inequality and
more social justice but it provokes reaction leading to conflict.
- It is better overall to go with the common sense of American identity.

Jim Sidanius and Peter Petrocick; "Communal and National Identity in a Multi-ethnic State; A Comparison of Three Perspectives"

Introduction
Intergroup conflict in multi-ethnic states turns on compatibility among subgroup identities and levels of commitment to the nation state i.e. the modern state is predominantly (if not exclusively) organized around ethnic definitions of citizenship (¿). On the other hand, it is the state which provides the framework within which communal differences get resolved.
The aim of the article is to examine the relationship between ethnic and national identities in the United States through three perspectives; the melting pot, pluralism and social dominance.

· Diversity is a source of conflict. Social diversity inevitably generates conflict because social identity will always be salient to some faction of the society especially when there is material interest along or coincidental with communal distinction.
· Ethnic, racial and national loyalty have been examined in terms of the melting pot and pluralism/multicultralism, but the authors subscribe rather to the social dominance theory.
· The history of American identity and ethnic diversity shows that there can be conflict along communal divisions even in the most stable democratic societies. Thus the US's attempts to limit the impact of immigration and diversity on the predominant English, protestant society.

The Three perspectives
a) The Melting Pot; Initially, the US used the policy of Americanization to deal with diversity, i.e. new immigrants were expected to adopt language, dress, customs etc of the dominant English culture that defined America (incorporation). The melting pot idea replaced Americanization in that it concieved of America in terms of a continuos reformulation through the addition of new languages, cuisine etc.
b) Pluralism. The authors attribute the rise of pluralism to the re-emergence of white ethnic identity in response to the civil rights movement. The central idea in pluralism is that sub-group identities are retained but primary loyalty is to the nation.
c) Social dominance theory is a critique of pluralism's assumption of equality among ethnic groups. Social dominance theory asserts that socieites tend to organize as group based hierarchies with predominant groups enjoying disproportionate power, prestige and privilege. Some groups will remain consistent losers in the struggle.

Methodology
The authors used 5 data sets with a total of 7400 respondents.; UCLA students (including resident aliens), the Los Angeles county Social Survey, the National election Studies of 1992 and 1996, and the General Social Survey. Two of the data sets are the same as those also used by Critin and others but Sidanius and Petrocick have a higher sample population.

Findings
a) Issue 1, The Salience of Ethnicity
· Ethnicity is a salient social identity for most Americans. Whites feel closer to other whites, and the phenomenon is even more pronounced amongst the minorities.
· All four major American ethnic groups have an ethnocentric bias against other groups
· Ethnic group membership has political relevance and political overtones. All groups feel that their ethnic group needs more political influence.
· A minority of the respondents would vote on a strictly ethnic basis
· There has not been a melting of ethnic identities in America.
b) Issue 2, Ethnicity and Patriotism
" Patriotic attachment is not uniform across ethnic status hierachy. However, the differences are not substantial
" All the groups have a high degree of patriotism
" No group is absolutely alienated from the American polity, but patriotism is highest among whites.
" African Americans are more likely to exhibit exclusionary conflict between their ethnic identity and national sentiment.
" Africna Americans were found to be no more patriotic than resident aliens.
c) Issue 3, Patriotism and Communal Identity
· Feelings about the nation are related to communal identity
· The more whites were ethnocentric against African Americans, the more patriotic they were (except in Los Angeles.)
· African Americans associate institutions of the nation state with abuse and oppression and this is because the severity of the oppression of African Americans is unique.

Conclusion
Future research should explore the material and perceptual situational and contextual factors associated with the linkage of communal and national identity.