Social scholars suggest that the characteristics of the political reality as well as historical forces influence the individual’s psychology¹. In the context of conflict, Louie Zamperini et al. aptly state that enmification processes can significantly contribute to the understanding of how unrelenting mutual enmity in inter-group conflicts become so tenaciously engrained within individual identities².
Notwithstanding, some scholars argue that, at least to some extent, “individual theories cannot explain why an entire community blindly endorses enemy images beliefs”³.
Reverberating similar thoughts, conflict intervention scholar Ronald Fisher advises to be cautious for explaining inter-group behaviour using individual theories⁴.
Nevertheless, I would argue that an opportunity window for crossing that bridge does exist, especially when psychosocial scholar John Turner’s self-categorization theory and Henri Tajfel’s social identity theory⁵ are hitched on psychoanalyst Vamik Volkan’s notion of large-group identity.
A Closer Look at Social Identity
According to humanistic psychology, social identity forms part of the notion of self-concept⁶.
Interestingly, in terms of social identity formation, psychologist Erin Halperin points out that persistent, long-term sentiments influence attitude and behavior. This happens because “psychological conditions such as enduring feelings of threat, danger, stress, and uncertainty […] trigger perceptions, thoughts, ideas, and emotions that construct a highly dominant social identity coupled with collective memories and narratives that achieve a hegemonic status in society”⁷.
As a result, to further examine group enemy imagery formation, it makes sense to refer to Tajfel’s social identity theory⁸.
His theory suggests that a mere sense of belonging, thus group membership, without a real conflict of interests can explain for in-group favoritism in the context of inter-group discrimination⁹.
As a matter of fact, to understand the role of stereotyping and attitudes in inter-group conflict, Tajfel underscores the importance of studying cognitive processes¹⁰.
Even more interesting is his claim that “[c]onceptions of outgroups are generated in their social and historical contexts and then transmitted to individual members of groups and widely shared through a variety of channels of social influence”¹¹.
Perception Is Key in Inter-Group Conflict
Psychology scholar Robert Bornstein recognizes these considerations. He furthermore adds that the process of group identification enhances cooperation, particularly when intra-group and inter-group levels are simultaneously examined¹².
Bornstein pronounces that, “in-group-out-group bias is not merely a result of group categorization, nor is it a simple consequence of mixed-motive relations between the groups. Rather, in-group-out-group perceptions play a major role in upholding collective group action”¹³.
In this context, but more relevantly, Bornstein corroborates my hypothesis when he says that one must look at “the inherent tension between group interests and individual interest”¹⁴.
Self-Categorization Theory Explained
Moving on to the self-categorization theory.
Turner’s theory “explicitly discusses the interaction between the interpersonal and intergroup level of analysis”¹⁵, which is why it “provides a theoretical link between self-concept and group identity”¹⁶.
Overall, the theory envisages the notions of self-concept, social identity and social comparison.
In particular, the theory explains that the phenomenon of inter-group discrimination leading to in-group bias stems from “individuals enhanc[ing] and protect[ing] their self-esteem by identifying with social categories that reflect positively on themselves”¹⁷.
While referring to concepts, such as social comparison, group membership, ethnocentrism, stereotyping and self-concept, it becomes apparent that the “social identity theory is a special case of [Turner’s] self-categorization theory”¹⁸.
Crossing the Bridge
The linkage between these social identity theories and individual theories finds firm anchorage especially when contemplating Volkan’s notion of large-group identity.
The Large-Group Identity
Volkan defines a large-group identity as “the subjective experience of thousands or millions of people who are linked by a persistent sense of sameness, even while also sharing some characteristics with people who belong to foreign large groups”¹⁹.
He goes on by positing that a large-group identity connects people emotionally regardless of their physical location. Such identity is based upon “the need to maintain a psychological border”²⁰.
Volkan then introduces the concepts of chosen glories and chosen traumas to explain for shared mental representations of a large-group’s glorifying or humiliating historical events, respectively²¹.
Constructing the Bridge
When referring to large-group identities, Volkan points out that “[l]arge groups are made of individuals; therefore, large-group processes reflect individual psychology.
Once members of a large group start utilising the same mental mechanism, it establishes a life of its own, and appears as a societal, and often a political, process”²².
Yet most tellingly for my argument, one of his most important claims holds that “psychoanalysis needs to examine the psychology of large groups in its own right”²³.
Fortifying the Bridge
To further strengthen the interconnection between group psychology and individual theories, Fisher explicitly argues that, “one’s self-concept, or individual identity, becomes in part defined by the group memberships.
Thus, self-concept is intertwined with group identity”²⁴.
Actually, Fisher establishes a clear link between the self-categorization theory and individual psychodynamics when putting forward that “[w]hen group members define themselves in terms of a social self-categorization, a threat to the group is a threat to the person’s self-concept. This is a powerful motivational drive that could lead to intergroup conflict”²⁵.
Such social-psychological approach, Fisher argues, implies that “perceptions, motivations, and actions of individuals influence, and in turn are affected by, the interaction between groups”²⁶.
Supportive Voices from the Psychoanalytic Corner
Such ideas are staunchly supported by psychoanalytical scholar Stephen Frosh when speaking of Sigmund Freud’s concept of das Ding, when referring to the need for an outgroup enemy as essential part of construing an individual identity²⁷.
When experiencing perceived threats to the core sense of identity, such as the notion of (perceived) loss, social conflict scholar Louis Kriesberg maintains that defensive mechanisms are then triggered as an attempt to minimize psychic damage²⁸.
Indeed, psychoanalysis ascertains that, when facing threats, defence mechanisms are activated. They emerge from a conflict between the unconscious mind and the ego, which is considered the conscious part of the mind²⁹.
A Useful Theoretical Platform for Conflict Resolution
If the above musings account for the minimal required theoretical explanatory power to conjointly use individual- and group-related psychodynamic processes, then such a bridge may prove eventually useful for building more lasting conflict resolution strategies.
After all, introducing a deeper understanding of the human mind into such practical strategies has the potential to diffuse a greater sense of compassion, which many conflicts may benefit from.
[1] Halperin, E. and Pliskin, R. (2015). Emotions and Emotion Regulation in Intractable Conflict: Studying Emotional Processes Within a Unique Context. Advances in Political Psychology, 36(1), p.120 & Berman, E. (2015). In the Eye of the Storm: Israeli Psychoanalysis and its Political Surroundings. Psychotherapy and Politics International, 13(2), p.84.
[2] Zamperini, A., Andrighetto, L and Menegatto, M. (2012). The Deconstruction of Enemy Images for a Nonkilling Society. In: Nonkilling Pyschology, eds. D.Christie and Pim, J.E., Honolulu, HI: Creative Commons, Center for Global Nonkilling, pp.326.
[3] Zamperini (2012), pp.329.
[4] Fisher, R.J. (1990). The Social Psychology of Intergroup and International Conflict Resolution, Springer-Verlag, pp.11.
[5] Zamperini (2012), idem and Fisher (1990), pp.29 and pp.46.
[6] See http://psychology.about.com/od/sindex/f/self-concept.htm
[7] See Halperin (2015), p.131–132.
[8] Zamperini (2012), pp.329.
[9] Kriesberg, L, Northrup, T. and Thorson, S. (1989). Intractable Conflicts and their Transformation, Syracuse University Press.
[10] Tajfel, H. (1982). Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Ann. Rev. Psychol., 33(1), p.6.
[11] Tajfel (1982), p.22.
[12] Bornstein, G. (2003). Intergroup Conflict: Individual, Group, and Collective Interests. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(2), p.138.
[13] Bornstein (2003), p.135.
[14] Bornstein (2003), p.130.
[15] Fisher (1990), idem.
[16] Fisher (1990), pp.48.
[17] Fisher (1990), pp.47. And see also Bornstein (2003), idem.
[18] Fisher (1990), pp.47.
[19] Volkan (2009). Large-Group identity, international relations and psychoanalysis. International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 18(4), p.208.
[20] Volkan (2009), p.210.
[21] Volkan (2009), p.211.
[22] Volkan (2009), idem.
[23] Volkan (2009), p.207.
[24] Fisher (1990), pp.60.
[25] Fisher (1990), pp.53.
[26] Fisher (1990), pp.6.
[27] Frosh, S. (2008). Desire, Demand and Psychotherapy: On Large Groups and Neighbours. Psychotherapy and Politics International, 6(3), p.194.
[28] Kriesberg (1989), pp.64.
[29] Bader, E.E. (2010). The Psychology of Mediation: Issues of Self and Identity and the IDR Cycle. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 10(2), 183–215 and see also Bettcher, D.W. (1997). A Psychoanalytic Approach to the Study of International Relations (Doctoral Dissertation, London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London).
Leave a Reply