By DAVID MYERS July 06, 2014
More than a decade after the Iraq war began, it still boggles our minds: Sunni and Shia—both revering the Quran, following Muhammad and praying to Allah—killing one another. It brings to mind the 3,500-plus dead from the clashes between Northern Ireland’s Protestants and Catholics—all, at least nominally, following the same Prince of Peace.
One wonders: Why such animosity among those so ethnically and religiously similar? Certainly, Sunni-Shia violence has deep historical-political roots. Ditto the Protestant-Catholic clashes. As the late Ed Cairns, leader of the University of Ulster’s Peace and Conflict Research Group, once explained to me, religious labels can sometimes be markers for just those kinds of deep cultural divisions. “If anything, the more [Northern Irelanders] believed or went to church, the less prejudice they showed,” he said.
But another factor—perhaps as fundamental, though less often explored—is at work and can help explain why seemingly marginal differences can seem so stark: group psychology. To better understand the puzzling intensity of clashes among kindred folk, consider four principles derived from psychological research on group identities.
1) No matter our similarities with others, our attention focuses on differences.
In the 1970s when the Yale psychologist William McGuire invited children to “tell us about yourself,” they zeroed in on their distinctiveness. Those who were foreign-born often mentioned their birthplaces. Redheads volunteered their hair color. Minority children mentioned their race. “If I am a Black woman in a group of White women, I tend to think of myself as a Black,” McGuire and his colleagues observed. “If I move to a group of Black men, my blackness loses salience and I become more conscious of being a woman.” Straight folks sometimes wonder why gay folks are so conscious of their sexual identity, though in a predominantly gay culture the sexual identity self-consciousness would be reversed.
So when people of two subcultures are nearly identical, they often overlook their kinship and become laser-focused on their small differences. Freud recognized this phenomenon: “Of two neighboring towns, each is the other’s most jealous rival; every little canton looks down upon the others with contempt. Closely related races keep one another at arm’s length; the South German cannot endure the North German, the Englishman casts every kind of aspersion upon the Scot, the Spaniard despises the Portuguese.”
2) We naturally divide our worlds into “us” and “them,” ingroup and outgroup.
We inherited our Stone Age ancestors’ need to belong, to live in groups. There was safety in solidarity. Whether hunting, defending or attacking, 10 hands were better than two. Like them, we form social identities.
But the benefits come at a cost. Mentally drawing a circle that defines “us” also defines “them.” Moreover, an “ingroup bias”—a preference for one’s own community—soon follows. In experiments,even those in arbitrarily created groups tend to favor their own group. In studies by Henri Tajfel, Michael Billig and others,people grouped together by something as random as a coin toss or the last digit of their driver’s licenses felt a twinge of kinship with their number-mates, and favored their own group when dividing rewards.
3) Discussion among those of like mind often produces “group polarization.”
In one of my own early experiments, George Bishop and I discovered that when highly prejudiced students discussed racial issues, they became more prejudiced. When less prejudiced students talked among themselves, they became even more accepting. In other words, ideological separation plus conversation equaled greater polarization between the two groups.
So it goes in real life too. Analysis of terrorist organizations, for instance, has revealed that the terrorist mentality does not erupt suddenly, on a whim. It begins slowly, among people who share a grievance. As they interact in isolation, their views grow more and more extreme.
By connecting like-minded people, the Internet’s virtual groups often harness group polarization for good purposes, as when connecting and strengthening fellow peacemakers, cancer survivors and rights advocates. But the Internet echo chamber also enables climate-change skeptics and conspiracy theorists to amplify their shared ideas and suspicions. White supremacists become more racist. Militia members become more hostile. For good or ill, socially networked birds of a feather gain support for their shared beliefs, suspicions and inclinations.
4) Group solidarity soars when facing a common enemy.
From laboratory experiments to America immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, shared threats foster unity. During conflict, we-feeling rises. During wars, patriotism surges.
In one of psychology’s famous experiments, the psychologist Muzafer Sherif, in 1954, randomly split Oklahoma City boy campers into two groups for a series of competitive activities, with prizes for the victors. Over the ensuing two weeks, ingroup pride and outgroup hostility increased—marked by food wars, fistfights and ransacked cabins. Intergroup contacts yielded more threats—and stronger feelings of ingroup unity—until Sherif engaged the boys in cooperative efforts toward shared goals, such as moving a stuck truck or restoring the camp water supply.
In more playful ways, these group dynamics also fuel sports rivalries. Think Yankees–Red Sox, March Madness and World Cup soccer. For an ardent Cubs fan, it’s a good day if the Cubs win—or the White Sox lose. Here in West Michigan, America’s biggest small-college sports rivalry plays out whenever my school, Hope College, plays Calvin College, pitting the Dutch-heritage Reformed Church in America tradition against the Dutch-heritage Christian Reformed Church tradition—extending the two churches’ 1857 split over what now seem like minor matters. It’s all in good fun, an intense competition with no fundamental hate.
But when the social dynamics are writ large, people will not only cheer for their groups—they may also kill and die for them. Turning today’s closed fists into tomorrow’s open arms requires recognizing the relative modesty of our differences, finding our deeper commonalities, defining a larger “us,” communicating across group lines and discovering transcendent goals.
Such conflict resolution is most needed, yet most difficult, in times of crisis. When conflicts intensify, images become more stereotyped, judgments more rigid, communication more difficult. Both sides are prone to threaten, coerce or retaliate.
The challenge is for cultures to discover what social psychologist Fathali Moghaddam calls an “omnicultural” perspective that both recognizes commonalities and respects differences. From Iraq to Northern Ireland, the Koreas to the Sudans, this is the great challenge in times of conflict—to embrace “diversity within unity.” E pluribus unum.
