Inter-individual and Intergroup Interactions - Coursework Example

Exercise #2: Inter-individual and Intergroup Interactions The 2-dimensional version of the Tajfel-Turner continuum shows the differences between inter-individual and intergroup interactions through the salience of interpersonal and intergroup characteristics (Dragojevic & Giles, 2012, p. 31). The paper discusses and analyzes three interactions that fit each of the following quadrants: (1) high inter-individual and low intergroup; (2) low inter-individual and high intergroup; and (3) high inter-individual and high intergroup. I learned that intergroup and inter-individual interactions can result to different kinds of conflicts, interactions may shift across inter-individual and intergroup interactions, and not all interactions neatly fit one quadrant. The first interaction shows high inter-individual and low intergroup characteristics because my cousin and I have the same group, which is our family, as well as the same cultural group (Chinese). My cousin is the same age as I am too, so we have the same age group. We talked about our favorite TV shows a week ago in a face-to-face encounter during lunch. We were at a fast food restaurant. Though it was a bit noisy, we were able to talk without having to shout at each other. I could say that our interaction was highly inter-individual because we did not talk about group differences, since we enjoyed the same show, Game of Thrones. We used the same language used in the TV show (e.g. “demand trial by combat”), which manifests “community solidarity” (Giles, 2012, p. 8). Using belief dissimilarity theory, we are members of the same ingroup because we have the same beliefs regarding the entertainment and plot complexity value of the show. However, we have dissimilarities that account for inter-individual differences. For instance, when we talked about our least favorite characters in the show, I emphasized that Cersei Lannister (Lena Headey) is evil and should be eliminated, while my cousin empathized with her. She said that Cersei is who she is because her father kept on undermining her because she is a woman. I was shocked that she defended Cersei because I find her egoistic and manipulative. We had a debate on whether Cersei’s gender is enough rationalization for her selfishness. All in all, this interaction remains inter-individual because we see each other as being in the same ingroup of Game of Thrones fans, but we have differences in our assessment of the personality of its characters. I also think that we did not see each other as part of an outgroup, and instead, we enjoyed these inter-individual differences as a way of appreciating our favorite TV show. The second interaction demonstrates low inter-individual and high intergroup characteristics because of its emphasis on social identity salience. I was watching the violent riots in Baltimore on TV with my friend, Mark, in a restaurant. I could say that the atmosphere was intimate in the sense that he is a close friend and we can talk about personal matters without fearing each other’s judgment. Mark is African American. I told him that the rioters are wrong for using violence to express their disgust against the system. Mark, apparently offended, told me: “Whadya know about violence in America? About slavery and persistent racial discrimination in your own country?” I was surprised because he highlighted racial group differences. He made his race accessible to him through differentiating me as an outgroup because I am Chinese and not African American (Dragojevic & Giles, 2012, p. 32). I replied to him that “violence is never a long-term moral answer to violence.” He scrunched his face and said: “I’m not justifying violence. But my people have been through hell trying to stop white people from killin’ us. We’re not the bad people here- these white cops and white system are!” I told him that I never assumed that this or that person is worse than the other and that I was sorry if I offended him. I reminded him that, as a woman from a conservative society, I know what oppression means, and that my race has also experienced racial discrimination from other racial groups, including Americans. Mark apologized and said he did not mean to be antagonistic, and that we had more in common as marginalized groups. The interaction was generally intergroup, but it soon became inter-individual, as Mark realized that we have personal differences on similar racial issues. The third interaction is characterized as high inter-individual and high intergroup because of the conflict that came from individual and intergroup differences. My two black friends talked about the Baltimore riots. They showed high intergroup conflict because Mark identified more with the rioters, while Alisha identified more with the government. The intergroup differences came from divergence in beliefs, where Alisha said that the rioters are only disserving their fellow black people for burning shops and vehicles and that the state government is right to control violence, while Mark rationalized violence as an expression of long-term tension against the racist white society. Their divergence is in preserving their different intergroup beliefs (Dragojevic & Giles, 2012, p. 32). Alisha stressed that she is black too, but she would never riot for racial equality and social justice. She shows inter-individual difference when it comes to discussing violence. Mark replied that he will not riot too, but he might if his brother died the way Freddie Gray did. He exhibits inter-individual difference because of his personal beliefs about social issues regarding race in America. High intergroup and high inter-individual conflicts can arise when issues impact group and personal beliefs and attitudes. Furthermore, the intergroup and inter-individual dynamics greatly shift from each other across this discussion. I can see that Mark and Alisha both understand that they have high inter-individual and high intergroup differences. From these three situations, I can conclude that the Tajfel-Turner continua worked in understanding the difference between inter-individual and intergroup differences. However, I find it hard to separate individual from group differences because our identities are social products too. Those who grow in collectivistic societies may have problems seeing the difference between inter-individual and intergroup dimensions of communication. They may see one quadrant as overlapping others, especially as people talk about individual differences, despite agreeing on ingroup similarities. The Tajfel-Turner continua, nevertheless, can help people understand conflicts that develop from individual and intergroup differences. References Giles, H. (2012). Principles of intergroup communication. In H Giles (Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp.3-16). New York: Routledge. Dragojevic, M., & Giles, H. (2012). Language and interpersonal communication: Their intergroup dynamics. In C.R. Berger (Ed.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 29-51). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 2. Provide ( a) and example of an intergroup context YOU have been close to that involves a dominant and subordinate group(s) (2pts) and (b) why is one group dominate over another and how do you know this to be the case? (4 pts) An intergroup context that I have been close to that involves dominant and subordinate groups is between the older and younger groups. The older Chinese dominate the younger ones because of the cultural belief that they are right and must be respected more than younger people. Younger Chinese are expected to stay quiet and follow their elders, or else, they will be judged negatively by their families and community. 3. What is the role of communication in the maintenance AND spread of stereotypes? (8pts) Communication can maintain and spread stereotypes through verbally talking about it and using non-verbal behaviors that show belief in these stereotypes. An example is when an Australian becomes visibly upset when someone calls him American because he has negative perceptions of American people. His negative speech and non-verbal behavior maintain and spread stereotype against another racial group (Dragojevic & Giles, 2012, p. 35). 4. The study introducing the minimal categorization paradigm has been considered seminal & so has Lamberts matched-guise study in Quebec. Very briefly, (a) describe/ list the main findings of one of these ( 4 pts) and (b) what do you feel is socially important about them? (4pts) One of the main findings of minimal categorization paradigm is that people favored their ingroup and discriminated against outgroups. I feel that this experiment is socially important because it shows how racial discrimination is formed through lack of social intergroup interactions. 5. The reading on persons-w/disabilities/ Evaluate as a 128-er what an intergroup approach gives to our understanding of interability communication ( 8 pts). What do you think can be drawn from research in this domain- and the models invoked to account for its dynamics- for understanding another, different intergroup setting. An intergroup approach that gives understanding of interability communication is the communication predicament of disability model (CPDM). It indicates negative consequences that come from marginalizing interactions (Ryan et al., 2005, as cited in Duggan, Robinson, & Thompson, 2012, p. 256). We can learn from this model that projecting negative stereotypes on people with disabilities may lead to them feeling less self-worth and life satisfaction. 6. Each of the following examples was used in lecture to illustrate a particular set of ideas: rich labeling in East Asia; and Marine boot-camp segment, and others that could be named Chose one of these, and briefly describe it (3 pts). Rich labels in East Asia can refer to using saris as a form of cultural and fashion statement. How does this illustrate 128 idea/concept/theory? this question above, that you found interesting as 128-et, and why? (4pts) Read More