The Political Psychology of Conflicts - Literature review Example

The Political Psychology of Conflicts Introduction The Islamic Chechens in Russia first banded together and took up violence to dramatize their simple demand for self-determination based on their ethnic, national, linguistic, religious and regional identity. When Kremlin obstinately ignored this protest action, as had been the touchstone of its policy since the post-World War II period, the Chechnya crisis deteriorated into an Islamic extremist movement that threatens to explode into a civil war with worrisome international ramifications. Kremlin’s decision to meet Chechens’ use of force with force characterizes Russia’s basic Chechnya policy dating back to Stalin, which looks at Chechens as undeserving of political latitude because of their long history of banditry, among other reasons. This means political alienation for the Chechens, a condition that makes it a perfect breeding ground for violence (Hewitt, C., 2002). Hewitt posits that violence is a response to being excluded from the political arena, such that people will resort to violence if they see the political system as unresponsive to their needs. So when Chechen rebel bands intensified attacks on Russian troops and civilian targets, the Russian federation responded in kind and, in some cases, with even greater force. The group instinct of the Chechens perceived this as a threat. Based on Evan Harrington’s (2004) theory of inter-group hostility, the situation is rife for violence when a “group senses a threat from its government, from another group in the same country, or another government.” All the known political and psychological theories on inter-group hatred, prejudice, realistic conflict, ethnocentrism and authoritarianism may have come into play to hasten the plunge of the Russia-Chechen conflict into the pit of violence and hostility. Inter-Group Hostility Russia is a melting pot of races, cultures and religions, making the federation a stratified society. This condition breeds inter-group hatred, in which there will always be unequal power relations and even discrimination between social groups. (Amiot, C. & Bourhis, R., 2005) The Russians who comprise the social and political majority in the federation may thus look down on the smaller Muslim segment of the population who are then reduced to a minority or low-status group. Amiot & Bourhis (2005) observe that the dominant group members in such a situation tend to initiate “overt” or “covert” acts of discrimination against the low-power groups. This portends certain trouble because at a later stage, the members of the low power group may become aware that their precarious power position could be compensated by their numerical strength. In other words, the minority group may eventually decide to challenge the majority, especially when the former perceive that the latter represents a serious threat to their well-being. In the Chechen conflict, it is possible that the dominant or high-status group is reacting to the same threat being felt by the Muslim minority or low-status group. But what the dominant group may be protecting is its legitimacy and stability, while the minority group feels that the threat is directed at their ethnic and religious integrity, among other parochial interests. Members of a minority group also harbor discontent with the larger society they belong to when they perceive that society to be decadent and the values it enshrines run counter to the values held dear by their smaller group (Wikipedia). Group violence erupts when the more peaceful avenues for change, such as strikes and street marches, hold no promise of success (Townshend, C., 2002). Brian Mullen (1986) points out that when such acts of violence involve larger crowds, the level of atrocity tends to be greater. “As the size of the crowd increases, the lynch mob becomes de-individualized and less attentive to self-regulatory clues.” The anonymity afforded by a crowd also emboldens people into committing of acts of violence. Watson (1973) believes that being part of a large crowd produces a state of de-individualization, in which one drops all his inner values. Silke (2003) examined 500 violent IRA attacks in Northern Ireland and found that more than half of the incidents were carried out by offenders wearing masks or had their faces covered. Anonymity in a crowd or group is thus associated with higher levels of violence or vandalism. Prejudice Prejudice is considered a factor in the Chechen conflict perhaps not only for reasons of skin color but also because of the traditional Western view of Muslims as a warlike people closely identified with international terrorism. Evan Harrington (2004) in fact puts prejudice high on the list of probable causes of violence. Correll & Park, et al. (2002) tested this theory by conducting a simulation experiment in which white Caucasian subjects were asked to view life-size photographs of white and non-white persons holding either handguns or innocent items like wallets and cell phones. The subjects had to shoot the armed suspects by pressing a button before the suspects shot at them. After four different experimental conditions, the results showed that when faced with an armed suspect, the subjects were more likely to shoot at African-Americans than whites. The subjects were also quick to shoot at unarmed African-Americans and slow at unarmed whites. Another experiment in the same vein was earlier conducted by Kenneth & Clark (1997), which demonstrated that even African-American children preferred to play with white dolls than black dolls, considering white dolls superior. In their later years, these children are expected to harbor hatred against colored people. When a group of people hates other groups of people for the simple reason of skin color, this is a situation fraught with possibilities of violence. Realistic Conflict Theory When social groups engage in tasks that run counter to each other, this widens the gap and increases the level of hostility between these groups. Conversely, hostility is reduced and friendship develops between two or more clashing groups if they find themselves working on the same task. This is the essence of the “realistic conflict theory” propounded by Sherif & Sherif (1953), which later acquired empirical support in the events that led to the independence of the once Soviet-controlled Hungary. From the start, Hungary has contended with a plethora of political parties that by their very appellations work at cross-purposes. There is over a dozen of these political groups, which include the Christian Democratic Party, Social Democratic Party, Democratic People’s Party, Alliance of Free Democrats, National Democratic Party, Workers Party, Alliance of Young Democrats, Socialist Party, Humanist Party, Hungarian Civic Union, Hungarian Democratic Forum, Justice and Life Party, Independent Smallholders Party. All operated on different ideologies and looked impossible to unite, but unite they did when the body politic of Hungary launched an anti-communist uprising in 1956. Thrown together on the same side of the political fence, the erstwhile ideological and political foes became friends under the realistic conflict theory. Two weeks later, the Soviet Union quelled the insurrection in a massive show of force that left hundreds of Hungarians dead, but the revolution went on for 33 years, during which some 2,500 people died and hundreds of other fled for safety to the US and other countries in Europe. Eventually, the Soviet Union granted Hungary its independence in 1989. (Hungary) Hungary is now a case study of the successful post-communist transition from a centralized to an open market economy. The political groups that joined forces during the struggle for independence are at loggerheads again, but they are fighting it out in the marketplace of ideas, which is what democracy is all about. Ethnocentrism Another psychological theory that keeps coming up in political conflicts is ethnocentrism, which in pluralistic societies like Russia is “destructive to patriotism and good citizenship, often leading to exaggerated demands for cultural and political autonomy.” (Culbertson, H., 2001) Ethnocentrism is commonly defined as a group of people’s excessive pride in their culture such that this clouds their understanding and appreciation of other cultures. The tendency for ethnocentric people is to look down on other groups as inferior. Precisely because of ethnocentrism, the Islamic societies see capitalism represented by the US as a flawed, decadent system while the latter looks at the former as warmongers and terrorists. (Barger, K., 2004) For the same reason, the US goes about intervening in the internal affairs of Muslim countries in the ethnocentric belief that these societies do not know what is good for them. This mutual ethnocentric attitude now threatens to divide the planet between the capitalist and Islamic societies. Culbertson, H. (2001) believes that conflicts around the world would be diminished if people go out of their way to know and understand the other cultures and try to live with that knowledge. Evan Harrington (2004) reports a series of ethnocentrism tests in which the highest scores were achieved by people categorized by psychologists as having the authoritarian-social dominant types of personality. These types are said to be the most dangerous insofar as responding to civil disturbances is concerned. Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Bob Altemeyer’s (2004) description of the authoritarian personality fits many heads of state beset by revolts of minority groups that seem hard to suppress. This personality is described as more obedient to authority and more tolerant of illegal acts by government officials such as wiretapping and searches without warrants. The authoritarians are said to be the most ethnocentric and prejudiced of them all, showing greater antipathy towards ethnic groups to which they don’t belong. In mock jury experiments, Altemeyer noted that people with an authoritarian personality mete out the harsher punishment and derive much personal satisfaction from penalizing offenders. They love to punish the unconventional types such as vagrants and hippies, but lenient on the “establishment-type” offenders like businessmen and policemen. Their hostility is therefore directed at the out-groups or the lower-status minorities. The authoritarian sometimes exhibit the orientation of the social dominator but these are two distinct types of personalities. For example, the authoritarians are religious, highly dogmatic, self-centered and aware that they are prejudiced against the minority groups, which are the exact opposite of the social dominant types. The authoritarians are also submissive to authority figures, while the social dominators seek to dominate others. But when the authoritarian shows the same attributes as the social dominator, woe unto the minority groups that challenge their authority. This is so because the authoritarians with social dominance orientation think of the world as a competitive jungle in which only the strong reaches the top and the concentration of power in one group is the fault of the disadvantaged groups themselves, not the result of any institutional factors (Harrington, E., 2004). For this reason, the authoritarian-social dominators are opposed to social welfare programs and civil rights, including rights for gays and lesbians who are considered social outcasts. Stellmacher, J. & Petzel, T. (2005) postulate that the authoritarian behavior in people heightens during threatening times. This means that such behavior develops in both members of the majority and minority groups. In both cases, the authoritarian beliefs come into the fore when people who strongly identify with a specific group feel that their group is facing threat of annihilation or destruction. References Harrington, Evan (2004). “The Social Psychology of Hatred.” John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Spokane, WA; March 2004, Amiot, Catherine & Bourhis, Richard (2005). “Discrimination Between Dominant and Subordinate Groups: The Positive-Negative Asymmetry Effect and Normative Processes.” British Journal of Social Psychology, 44; pp. 289-308, 2005. Stellmacher, Jost & Petzel, Thomas (2005). “Authoritarianism as a Group Phenomenon.” Political Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2005. Russell, John (2005). “Terrorists, Bandits, Spooks and Thieves: Russian Demonization of the Chechens Before and Since 9/11.” Third World Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1; pp. 101-116, 2005. Hewitt, Christopher (2002). “Understanding Terrorism in America: From the Klan to Al Qaeda.” Routledge, New York; 2002. Townshend, Charles (2002). “Terrorism.” Oxford University Press, England; 2002. Wikipedia. “Terrorism.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism Hungary. “Government and Politics.” http://reference.allrefer.com/ country-guide-study/hungary/hungary140.html/ Barger, Ken (2004). “Ethnocentrism.” Department of Anthropology, UPU, Indianapolis, Indiana; 2004. Culbertson, H. (2001). “Why is Ethnocentrism Bad?” Southern Nazarene University, Bethany, Oklahoma, 2001. Read More