Social Psychology - Essay Example

?‘Social policies aimed at reducing prejudice and intergroup conflict would do well to take account of social psychological research in this area.’ Discuss this statement, making reference to relevant research in your answer. Introduction Social policies which seek to reduce prejudice as well as intergroup conflicts would benefit well from the application of social psychological research in this area. Social psychological research mostly seeks to establish answers which relate to human behaviour, testing hypotheses under controlled or non-controlled settings in the field. Much attention is often diverted to sampling, design, and statistical research because these elements help provide structure to the data gathered, ensuring fair and equitable analysis. Various methods of social psychological research are often being applied including experimental methods, correlational methods, and observational methods. All in all, these methods of research are meant to help guide the establishment of policies which can support human behaviour and actions. Prejudice is one of the unavoidable realities of human life, and intergroup conflicts are one of the inevitable consequences of such prejudice. However issues on the use of social psychological research as a means of explaining prejudice or intergroup conflict has not been met with much favour by other theorists, especially those who argue that research and the academe cannot be used to justify prejudice or even explain it as a psychological issue. Under these considerations, this study is being carried out in order to establish details on the statement: Social policies aimed at reducing prejudice and intergroup conflict would do well to take account of social psychological research in this area. This paper will seek to evaluate the above statement and provide a balanced assessment of its conceptualization. Body Prejudice has long been considered by various psychologists as a psychological issue which is based on illogical evaluations (Dixon, 2007). Other studies also supported this notion, however, cognitive social psychology opposed the abnormality label on prejudice. Instead, suggestions placed prejudice within a normal parameter (Taylor, 1991). Under such normal conditions, prejudice was viewed in terms of errors in perception which may be inherent in individuals within certain categories of processing. This understanding of perception was however also considered limited because it did not use the context of society, or of shared prejudice in groups and conflicts arising from such prejudice. The Realistic Conflict Theory did not support the idea that prejudice is based on unfounded biases (Sheriff, 1996). Instead, it declared that by managing relationships among groups and by reducing competition, intergroup conflict can be reduced, even eliminated. Other arguments also indicate that competition is not always needed in order for discrimination to manifest. But a person’s identity seems to be means of understanding how an individual would be identified individually and in relation to other groups. Such notion was supported by group research which indicated that membership in a particular group was not sufficient to explain and understand prejudice (Sheriff, 1996). In a study by Tajfel and Turner (1979), their study also covered the social identity theory in order to understand the role of identity, ideology and conflict. Their study indicated that individuals seeking to view themselves in a favourable light were guided by their intergroup relations. Tajfel (2010) further understood that if individuals in a group could not establish a favourable social identity, they would then desire to either re-think positively the conceptions of their own group or to consider other groups which they believe to be more socially acceptable or favourable to them. In other words, where groups believe that other worlds or perceptions are possible and when they become critical of the injustices between groups, then resistance and conflict would likely arise. Tajfel and Turner (1979) agreed that discrimination and prejudice is a strong driver for social change. The establishment of the social cognition above individual cognition was viewed as a valuable theoretical evolution in understanding discrimination (Wetherell and Potter, 1992). However, this understanding did not necessarily mean that the social identity theory did not need some form of development. Based on a more complicated and sometimes confusing approach, Tajfel’s cultural and social analysis (2002) were used to point out issues and limitations on the cognitive approach to prejudice. One of the theorists which have been passionate in discussing the issue of prejudice and the social identity theory is renowned psychiatrist Billig. Billig (2002a) reviewed Tajfel’s cultural and social analysis and points out that Tajfel uses a moral outlook in explaining prejudice as an inevitable product of unreasonable aggression. Instead, Billig (2002a) argues that based on the cognitive approach, Tajfel’s assessment is very much limited. He points out that using Tajfel’s arguments, the motivations of prejudice were not addressed, instead, sweeping generalizations were used to explain bigotry. Billig (2002a) also argues that Tajfel did not even address the events surrounding the Holocaust, as Billig declares that such event includes details which cannot be easily justified based on Tajfel’s theories. Billig (2002a) declares that society’s, including Tajfel’s obeisance, may be based on humanity’s need to succumb to social pressures. Billig (2002a) also points out that such understanding may emphasize the failure of general realizations which would account for cultural and historical complications related to prejudice. The interrogative themes within social psychology provide ideas on social research and policy, primarily emphasizing situated knowledge which also supports various elements which play an important role in such knowledge. There is always value attached to any knowledge and such value may be based on distinct qualities (Hollway, Lucey and Phoenix, 2006). In relation to power relations, this is also almost always present in any relationship, sometimes on an unconscious level and where prejudice is concerned, such power relations may bring about more support to existing and habitual relations (Hollway, et.al., 2006). In terms of individualism/dualism, there is an understanding in the concept that an individual has distinct actions, but his actions are also influenced by the reaction of other people. In effect, although he may not be prejudiced to other people or other groups, society may influence his actions (Hollway, et.al., 2006). Based on these interrogative themes, social psychology has some form of impact on the manifestation of prejudice, and by analogy, its themes may be used to inform social policy. Theorists like Brown (2002) sought a more realistic opinion on prejudice when they suggested that independent groups can actually be clearly defined; moreover, they also declare that there may be more practical explanations for racism and prejudice. Billig (2002b) discounts such argument, stating that prejudice cannot easily be understood using generalizations because prejudice is not a usual occurrence or action; and that prejudice can only be explained more accurately through more specific analysis. Brown points (2002b) out that mainstream psychology can be used to satisfy Billig’s arguments, however the latter (Billig, 2002b) further declares that without a specific assessment of prejudice, its understanding would likely remain limited. Moreover, such constrained conceptualizations on prejudice would not likely ever be understood using non-discursive justifications. Based on a social policy angle, the issues of how or who to focus attention on is not always apparent. Much caution is laid out against assuming participants in intergroup relations already identify or understand the group dynamics. Cuhadar and Dayton (2011) point out that some even for identified target groups, actions intended to change behaviour may sometimes be rejected (Gergen, 1973). The more significantly powerful the support for an idea or an action, more often than not, the probability and potential for resistance is also more significant. However, such barriers or resistance may sometimes be more compelling. Moreover, while the social psychological research on prejudice may prove to be detailed and extensive, discrimination and inequality are still persistent (Frosch, 2002). The use of the research and the academe cannot always explain or even reduce prejudice. Theorists like Frosch (2002) point out that they would indeed welcome various articles on interpersonal relations if only it would help explain racism and what is to be done about it. Other analysts like Gergen (1973) also underscore the fact that psychological research has abused its power to create knowledge by spreading false information and an unsupported treatise. Gergen (1973) abhorred the propaganda which has been attached to social psychological research materials which have been promoted by various psychologists. Brown (2002b) on the other hand, cites the creation of the authoritarian J-type personality, one which the Germans, especially those sympathetic to the Nazis and to Hitler strongly supported. Other psychologists have also criticized the use of scientific explanations for apartheid, especially when such explanations argued that apartheid is part of the true cultural identity of the African people (Gergen, 1973). Under these conditions, using social psychology research and theories to explain or sometimes justify prejudice seems to make the act less abhorrent or more palatable in some way. Even with these limitations however, social psychology is in a perfect position to provide some form of scientific explanation for oppression and prejudice. Social psychology research can provide concepts and explanations which can significantly inform individuals about various happenings and events, thereby increasing their sensitivity to these events, and preparing them for possible environmental changes (Gergen, 1973). Among social policy makers, the social identity theory argues that in decreasing prejudice and conflict, the focus of research could veer away from the limited view which contextualizes discrimination within individuals (Tajfel, 2002). Under those conditions, a greater social consideration may focus on the construction and persistent creation of a stable and inclusive society which emphasizes cooperation and the establishment of common and favourable social identities while still downplaying the competition for necessary resources (Tajfel, 2002). However, the possibility of establishing psychological theories which may be used to diminish discrimination and eliminate conflict without facing the social dynamics of power is very much a significant concern. In essence, if a psychological tool or theory can be used to minimize prejudice then it may be used also to reduce anti-discrimination (Tajfel, 2002). Prejudice can be understood from both angles, and what may work to support it, may also be used to deter it. At present, the dominant culture in progressive societies is to perpetuate discrimination against racists or sexists and to support human rights (Tajfel, 2002). However, this trend has already met with much resistance, further implying that the greater reality is based on the fact that society needs a major transformation, and the social psychological theory cannot always be used to explain or understand the manifestation of prejudice and intergroup conflict. Conclusion It is difficult to understand the nature of individuals and institutions in relation to prejudice. Social policy which supports the more reflexive style and the critical assessment of structures within society may be the more prudent and fruitful option. However, seeking to understand prejudice under academic or research settings with government institutions exercising their fraternal authority over the population does not seem to be the prudent or logical option. Prejudice is not the right of an individual or of groups. It lies within the complicated, detailed and often circuitous arena and mindset, where most individuals operate. The opportunity therefore for social change lies in all individuals and even as prejudice may continue to threaten, the more constructive discussions will likely persist. References Brown, R. (2002). Commentary: Henri Tajfel’s “Cognitive aspects of prejudice” and the psychology of bigotry. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 195-198 Billig, M. (2002a). Henri Tajfel’s “Cognitive aspects of prejudice” and the psychology of bigotry. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 171–88. Billig, M. (2002b). A response to Brown and Frosh. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 199–202. Cuhadar, E. & Dayton, B. (2011). The social psychology of identity and inter-group conflict: from theory to practice. International Studies Perspectives, 12, 273–293. Dixon, J. (2007). Prejudice, conflict and conflict reduction. In W. Hollway, H. Lucey & A. Phoenix, (Eds.). Social Psychology Matters. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Frosch, S. (2002). Enjoyment, bigotry, discourse and cognition. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 189–193 Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(2), 309-320 Hollway, W., Lucey, H., & Phoenix, A. (2006). Social psychology matters. London: McGraw- Hill. Sheriff, M. (1996). In common predicament: social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict, In D. Langdridge & S. Taylor, (Eds.) (2007) Critical Readings in Social Psychology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press Tajfel, H. (2002). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wetherell, M. & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Read More