Of Badges, Bonds and Boundaries: Ingroup/outgroup differentiation and ethnocentrism revisitedby Johan M.G. van der Dennen, Center for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Groningen, The Netherlands Abstract Show
At the fifth Annual Meeting of the European Sociobiological Society (ESS), St. John's College, Oxford, U.K. (January 5-6, 1985), I presented the following paper: "I present a literature review of theories and research concerning the phenomena of ethnocentrism, ingroup/outgroup differentiation, moralistic aggression, xenophobic aggression, collective intolerance, and intergroup violence, all of which are regarded as parts of one complex and composite syndrome. An attempt to interpret the ethnocentrism syndrome as a symbol-system-cum-sentiment-structure is offered, and its value as an explanatory category for the causation of 'primitive' warfare is assessed" (The paper was published as "Ethnocentrism and in-group/out-group differentiation" in: V. Reynolds, V. Falger & I. Vine (Eds.) The Sociobiology of Ethnocentrism: Evolutionary dimensions of xenophobia, discrimination, racism and nationalism, 1987, pp. 1-47). In this paper I intend to revisit this literature and research, and especially what has been added since that time (in particular the important Shaw & Wong (1989) Genetic Seeds of Warfare monography and Anne Katrin Flohr's (1994) Fremdenfeindlichkeit: biosoziale Grundlagen von Ethnozentrismus. I shall also attempt to assess the value of sociobiological or evolutionary ethnocentrism theory to account for the origin of warfare and intergroup violence in general. Introduction In order to appreciate what is so special about human group phenomena and ethnocentrism, I start by presenting some observations on human (collective) violence generally. Cultural pseudospeciation. Dehumanization Ethnocentrism Ethnocentrism is considered to be a schismatic in-group/out-group differentiation, in which internal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity,
loyalty and devotion to the in-group, and the glorification of the sociocentric-sacred (the own cosmology, ideology, social myth, or Weltanschauung; the own 'godgiven' social order) is correlated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war (status hostilis) toward out-groups, which are often perceived as inferior, subhuman, and/or the incorporation of evil. Ethnocentrism results in a dualistic, Manichaean morality which evaluates violence within the in-group as
negative, and violence against the out-group as positive, even desirable and heroic. Ethnocentrism: Brief History of the Concept In 1767 the Scottish philosopher Adam Ferguson published an Essay on the History of Civil Society, probably the first attempt at an empirical investigation of the origins of war using
ethnographic data. His analysis seemed to confirm Hobbes (1651): the primitive state was indeed a state of war (status hostilis): "We have had occasion to observe, that in every rude state the great business is war; and that in barbarous times, mankind, being generally divided into small parties, are engaged in almost perpetual hostilities" (Essay 3.5). Ethnocentrism and Nationalism Ethnocentrism is not a monopoly of primitive peoples. It is also a common theme, in the guise of
nationalism, in the history of civilization. The Adaptive Significance of Xenophobia There is an analogy, according to Rosenblatt (1964), between immunological reactions of the body and the ethnocentric reactions of the individual or of a society. Just as the body is better prepared to avoid destruction by foreign substances as a result of a generalized tendency to resist the impingement of foreign substances, so an individual or a society may be better prepared to avoid destruction by aliens as a result of a generalized tendency to distrust, avoid, or reject apparently foreign individuals. The disadvantage of severe damage or destruction, whether likely to occur or not, is so much greater than whatever advantages contact with things alien confers on one, that a psychological or biochemical paranoia is the preferred strategy for survival. Where one failure to anticipate the malevolence of an alien person or substance may be fatal, organisms that must acquire defensive reactions to each specific harmful person or substance are less likely to survive during a given period of time than organisms prepared to be defensive against all alien persons or substances (Rosenblatt, 1964) Also Lumsden & Wilson (1983), Barash & Lipton (1985), H. Flohr (1987), and Shaw & Wong (1989) postulated an adaptive significance of (mildly)
paranoid thinking. In situations of strong intergroup competition, they explain, the payoff for vigilance and suspiciousness could be substantial. "A genetically coded aversion toward strangers would have enabled individuals to avoid attack more readily or immediately than would learning alone, and by avoiding injury and death, survival would be enhanced, leaving more offspring from these individuals. Over time, those with the genetically coded aversion toward strangers would come to prevail in
the population" (Shaw & Wong, 1989). Theories of Ethnocentrism Several theories have been proposed to explain the phenomenon of ethnocentrism. LeVine & Campbell (1972), whose work on the subject is a classic, listed the following: Realistic group conflict theory; reference group theory; sociopsychological theories (including group narcissism theory, projection theory, protest masculinity theory, and frustration-aggression-displacement theory); cognitive congruity theories; transfer theory; and reinforcement theory. The most relevant of these theories will be briefly discussed. Realistic Group Conflict Theory Group Narcissism Projection Compensatory or Protest Masculinity Social Identity Theory and Group Animosity Social identity theory - which was largely developed after the appearance of LeVine & Campbell's classic opus - proposes that individuals engage in a process in which they place themselves and others in social categories. There are several important consequences of this social categorization process: Dynamics of In-group/Out-group Differentiation Many authors have suggested that the separation of ethnic, racial, or social groups fosters hostility by blocking off communication. Without interaction
between people or groups, it is easy for autistic spirals of hostility to develop. Especially, Newcomb (1947) pointed out the vicious circle by which an individual or a group once ready for hostile responses gradually reduces the channels of communication with the potential enemy, thus preventing rectification of the early impression of hostility and redress by friendly actions. Hostile isolation or autistic hostility is likely to make hostile tension more enduring (which does not necessarily
mean that contact reduces hostility and prejudice between individuals and groups). The Logic of Ethnocentrism: The Duality of the Human Mind The particular logic of
ethnocentrism, its Manichaean duality which dichotomizes the world into A and non-A, self and other, in-group and out-group, us and them, friend and foe, seems to spring from the cognitive capacity of Man to classify, categorize, differentiate, dichotomize and discriminate, but also his ability to generalize. Evolutionary Theories of Ethnocentrism Ethnocentrism is a major explanans in contemporary theories of primitive warfare. The founding father of modern sociobiology, E.O. Wilson (1978) regards it as a culturally hypertrophied biological predisposition: The practice of war is a straightforward example of a hypertrophied biological predisposition. Primitive men cleaved their universe into friends and enemies and responded with quick, deep emotion to even the mildest threats emanating from outside the arbitrary boundary... Also Meyer (1977 et seq.) regards ethnocentrism and xenophobia as cultural hypertrophies. He argues that the extreme ethnocentrism of primitive peoples sets preconditions for violent interaction, while specific conditions serve as triggers. Meyer suggests that the basic motivation in violent encounters between members of distinct groups is not 'aggression' impelled by some sort of drive, instinct, or appetite, but 'fear'. Fear generated by the position of the cultural 'we-group' in a threatening universe made up of 'they-groups', endangering the social cosmos by their very existence. Kin
Selection and Inclusive Fitness Cultural Badges and the Proximate Mechanisms of Kin Recognition Kin Selection, Nepotism and the Genetic Seeds of Warfare Shaw & Wong (1989) present an elaborate theory of kin selection, ethnocentrism, and the evolution of human warfare. They propose that inclusive fitness considerations have combined with competition over scarce resources, intergroup conflict, and weapon development, to Van den Berghe (1997) posed the question: "ethnocentrism: in our genes or in our memes?". It may now be understood that the answer must inevitably be: in both. This paper is based on the chapter "Of badges, bonds and boundaries: ethnocentrism, xenophobia, and war" in: J.M.G. van der Dennen (1995) The Origin of War. Groningen: Origin Press.It was published in: K. Thienpont & R, Cliquet (Eds.) In-group/Out-group Behaviour in Modern Societies: An Evolutionary Perspective Brussels: NIDI GBGS Publications, 1999, pp. 37-74. Bibliography Abrams, D. & M.A. Hogg (1993) Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances. New York: Springer Verlag. Is it common for people to feel anxiety when engaged in intercultural communication?It is common for people to feel anxiety when engaged in intercultural communication.
Which theory holds that we each have a sense of ourselves as a unique individual but also define ourselves based on our group memberships?Social identity theory proposed by Tajfel and Turner (1986) suggests that individuals experience collective identity based on their membership in a group, such as racial/ethnic and gender identities.
Which of the following is an example of intercultural communication?Examples on Intercultural communication
A Christian converses with a Muslim. A woman receives an order from a man. An American and African share their views. A Chinese politician's discussion with an American leader.
Is the process of taking in and assigning meaning to messages that you receive in a communication interaction?Decoding is the process of receiving a message by interpreting and assigning mean- ing to it. Communication is linked to culture, or the shared beliefs, values, and practices of a group of people.
|