Relations between social groups, expressed in states of war and peace, conflict and harmony, domination and slavery, business transaction and loot, have always been consequential matters in human affairs. But today, it will be hardly an exaggerated statement to say that the balance of the fate of the human race hangs primarily on the course of developments in the area of inter group relations on both national and international levels. The momentous events in human history of the last decades, and particularly the great changes brought about during and as a consequence of the recent war, have created an unprecedented state of disequilibrium and flux in the relationships of social groups. Modern means of transportation and communication and other modern technological developments have made countries and even the world too small for the isolated existence and functioning of social units whether they are small or large no matter how distant or self sufficient these groups might have been previously. In this general world setting, no human grouping can function as a closed system today; no human grouping, no matter how weak or powerful, has an independent existence today. This state of affairs is ever bringing all social units into closer and closer functional relationship. Increasing interdependence is the tendency both within nations and between nations. In many quarters of the world today (both academic and more practical), there is rapidly increasing concern over the vital and frequently grim problems of inter group relations. The concern is an inevitable product of this widespread situation.
As in any kind of behavior, there are immediate psychological factors impelling the individual to behave this or that way in inter group relations. These psychological factors, e.g., frustration, rivalry, desire to dominate, to be mightier and wealthier than others, or cooperation, sympathy, and altruism, have bearing on inter group relations as they are patterned, deflected, channelized, or altogether transformed in their appropriate group settings. No matter how strongly this or that psychological tendency may be operative at the time inter group behavior is exhibited, posting such impulses as the main explanatory principle of inter group behavior is inadequate. For these impulses are products of antecedent conditions in a social setting. If our aim is prediction and control of inter group behavior we have to bring these antecedent factors into the picture. As Gordon Allport, one of the leading exponents of the “psychological” approach to human relations, cogently stated: “Therefore, the psychological and psychiatric emphasis is correct and proper so far as ‘immediate’ causation is concerned. Now, it is equally true that the warlike expectations, hates, and anxieties that give a hostile bent to personality may be the result of hunger, exploitation, tradition, and social structure. Hence for ‘long run’ causation, social, historical, and economic influences are often decisive”. Under ordinary circumstances, inter group relations are regulated in terms of social distance scales of the group of which the individual is a member. Ladylike or gentlemanly behavior, or a kindly act appropriate in relation to in group members may be out of place, even weird, when bestowed upon a member of an out group placed at considerable social distance. On the other hand, an act of cruelty may not be perceived by the person engaged in it or by members of his in group as unladylike or ungentlemanly when meted to that out group member. It may be viewed as simply putting the impertinent person in his appropriate “place.” Very deliberately we prefaced the generalization in the above paragraph with the phrase, “under ordinary circumstances.” The state of flux and interdependence that characterizes relations among groups in the present day world has gone beyond the state of regulation of inter group relations only in terms of surviving social distance scales of the groups in question.
Whenever an in group or its members, collectively or individually, react in relation to an out group or its members, we have a case of inter group relations. This essential feature of inter group relations imposes on the student and practitioner in this area certain crucial and distinctive considerations. In accounting for inter group behavior, some authors have singled out deep seated instincts inherent in human nature as the determining factors; other authors pointed out frustrations of the individual with ensuing displaced aggressions. Some have placed major emphasis on “national character” and culture. Still others sought the explanation of inter group issues primarily through the character of the leadership.
The very fact of stabilization of a system of reciprocities implies the demarcation of in group structure from other in group structures. The in group thus delineated becomes endowed with positive qualities which tend to be praiseworthy, self-justifying, and even self-glorifying. Individual members tend to develop these qualities through internalization of group norms and through example, verbal dictum, and a set of correctives standardized to deal with cases of deviation. Hence possession of these qualities, which reflects their particular brand of ethnocentrism, is not essentially a problem of deviate behavior, but a question of participation in in-group values and trends on the part of good members who constitute the majority of membership as long as group solidarity and morale are maintained.
Functionally related out groups and their respective members are attributed positive or negative qualities depending on the positive or negative nature of functional relations between the groups in question. The positive or negative nature of these functional relationships may result from actual harmony and interdependence of the goals and values of the in groups or from actual incompatibility and conflict of the aspirations and directions of the groups in question. Or, especially in relations of larger group units where face to face contacts are supplanted to a large extent by indirect communication including the powerful mass media, the nature of inter group relations may reflect a picture promulgated by powerful and interested parties within the in groups or from other functionally related groups.
In time, the adjectives attributed to out groups take their place in the repertory of group norms as a social distance scale of the group in question toward so many out groups. The lasting stereotypes attributed to out groups low on the social distance scale are particular cases of norms toward out groups.
Because they become integral parts of the group’s norm or value system, are carried through the vehicle of language, and transmitted to new group members through short cut dictums and verbal counsel, norms or stereotypes toward out groups tend to outlast the conditions which gave rise to them. In this light it becomes easy to understand why, in times of changed relations between former antagonistic groups, it is difficult for leadership to plunge into the line of action direly necessitated by developing conditions. “Tradition” lies between them.
References
Allport, E. H. Social Psychology . Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1924.
Allport, G. W. In H. Cantril (ed.), Tensions That Cause Wars . Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1950.
Nahavandi, A. The Art and Science of Leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ.Prentice-Hall. 2003.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment