词条 | Group conflict |
释义 |
Group conflict can be separated into two sub-categories of conflict: inter-group conflict (in which distinct groups of individuals are at odds with one another), and intra-group conflict (in which select individuals that are part of the same group clash with one another). Although both forms of conflict have the ability to spiral upward in severity, it has been noted{{by whom|date=May 2015}} that conflict present at the group level (i.e., inter-group rivalries) is generally considered to be more powerful than conflict present at an individual level – a phenomenon known as the discontinuity effect.[6] Intergroup conflictSourcesSocial psychology, specifically the discontinuity effect of inter-group conflict, suggests that "groups are generally even more competitive and aggressive than individuals".[7] Two main sources of intergroup conflict have been identified: "competition for valued material resources, according to realistic conflict theory, or for social rewards like respect and esteem...as described by relative deprivation theory"[8]Group conflict can easily enter an escalating spiral of hostility marked by polarisation of views into black and white, with comparable actions viewed in diametrically opposite ways: "we offer concessions, but they attempt to lure us with ploys. We are steadfast and courageous, but they are unyielding, irrational, stubborn, and blinded by ideology".[9] It is widely believed that intergroup and intragroup hostility are (at least to some degree) inversely related: that "there is, unhappily, an inverse relationship between external wars and internal strife".[10] Thus "in politics, for example, everyone can get an extraordinarily comforting feeling of mutual support from their group by focussing on an enemy".[11] Freud described a similarly quasi-benign version, whereby "it is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and related to each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and ridiculing each other{{spaced ndash}} like the Spaniards and Portuguese, for instance...[as] a convenient and relatively harmless satisfaction of the inclination to aggression, by means of which cohesion between the members of the community is made easier".[12] The harder version of the theory would suggest that "pent-up sub-group aggression, if it cannot combine with the pent-up aggression of other sub-groups to attack a common, foreign enemy, will vent itself in the form of riots, persecutions and rebellions".[13] Belief domains that contributeThrough an extensive literature review, Roy J. Eidelson and Judy I. Eidelson, identified parallels between individuals and the collective world views of groups on the basis of five key belief domains.[14]
Donald Horowitz also argues that the belief, regardless of its accuracy, that ones group is behind another group can also contribute to conflict and that such groups often face severe anxiety about threats emanating from other groups. The backwards group fears it will be ultimately dominated by more advanced groups. Backwards groups tend to view their individual members with negative qualities, such as laziness and lack of intelligence, while collectively they view themselves as unorganized and lacking unity, with members looking out only for themselves and not their group. In contrast, advanced groups' members are perceived as possessing positive qualities, such as conscientiousness, intelligence and industriousness, while collectively they are perceived as well-organized, cohesive and committed to advancing their group interests. Thus advanced groups are perceived as possessing superior attributes on both individual and collective levels. The resultant anxiety felt by backwards groups can cause them to believe their very survival as a group is a stake and that they risk disappearing, replaced by more advanced groups. Horowitz argues this means backwards groups are more likely to initiate violence.[23] Intragroup conflict (infighting){{anchor|Intragroup conflict}}{{main|Intragroup conflict}}Sources
PoliticalOpinion is divided about the merits of infighting in political movements. Whereas "the majority of scholars view infighting as sapping political potency", others argue that "infighting's value lay in its potential to generate strategic possibilities and promote...accountability", and that (at least with respect to identity politics) "infighting is a key site for culture...concretizes cultural conversations".[26] Among extremists "threatened by the existence of anyone else, unless that other person's views seem identical to his own", however, infighting and group fissions become the destructive norm: "they're all splitting up so fast...they seem to attack each other more than they attack their real enemies on the other side of the political spectrum".[27] Small groupWithin small groups, the same dichotomy exists. Granted that both constructive and destructive conflict occurs in most small groups, it is very important to accentuate the constructive conflict and minimize the destructive conflict. Conflict is bound to happen, but if used constructively need not be a bad thing. Using constructive conflict within small groups by bringing up problems and alternative solutions (while still valuing others) allows the group to work forward.[28] While "conflict may involve interpersonal as well as task issues", keeping a window open for dissent can prove very advantageous, as where a company "reaped big benefits because it did not simply try to suppress conflict, but allowed minority influence to prevail".[29] On the other hand, there is evidence that an organizational culture of disrespect unproductively "generates a morass of status games and infighting...'it's made people turn against each other'" - so that for example "sexual harassment becomes a chronic accompaniment to broader patterns of infighting".[30] PerspectivesPsychoanalysisLacan saw the roots of intra-group aggression in a regression to the "narcissistic moment in the subject", highlighting "the aggressivity involved in the effects of all regression, all arrested development, all rejection of typical development in the subject".[31] Neville Symington also saw narcissism as a key element in group conflict, singling out "organizations so riven by narcissistic currents that...little creative work was done".[32] Such settings provide an opening for "many egoistic instinct-feelings - as the desire to dominate and humiliate your fellow, the love of conflict - your courage and power against mine - the satisfaction of being the object of jealousy, the pleasures derived from the exercise of cunning, deceit and concealment".[33] [https://oxford.academia.edu/MichaelFischer Fischer] (2012) distinguished between two forms of intragroup conflict in organizations. In a "restorative" form, paranoid-schizoid "splitting" can be transformed through scapegoating dynamics to produce reparative ("depressive") intragroup relations. In a contrasting "perverse" form, intragroup trauma causes paranoid-schizoid functioning to fragment, resulting in an intersubjective "entanglement" with sadomasochistic dynamics.[34]Nevertheless, psychoanalysts have not been able to evade the constraints of group conflict themselves: "Envy, rivalry, power conflicts, the formation of small groups, resulting in discord and intrigue, are a matter of course" in the psychoanalytic world, for example, with institutions being "caught up in the factionalism of the ...struggle between the ins and the outs".[35] ===Girard=== René Girard saw "collective violence as sacred...[as] the great remedy for communal life".[36] He saw the violence directed at the group scapegoat as "absorbing all the internal tensions, feuds, and rivalries pent up within the community...a deliberate act of collective substitution".[37]His view parallels the Freudian approach, rooted in Totem and Taboo, which considers that "transgression... is at the origin of a higher complexity, something to which the realm of civilization owes its development".[38] Freud saw violence as standing at the root of the social bond{{spaced ndash}} "what prevails is no longer the violence of an individual but that of a community"[39]{{spaced ndash}} and thus "politics made out of delinquency...the social contract establishes corporate virtue as an asylum for individual sin".[40] Girard concluded therefore that regression and 'the dissolution of differences encourages the proliferation of the double bind...spells the disintegration of social institutions',[41] to reveal the group conflict latent at their core. Literary examples
See also{{portal|Psychology|Sociology}}{{div col|colwidth=30em}}
References1. ^Sigmund Freud, Civilization, Society and Religion (PFL 12) p. 353 2. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.jebo.2017.05.004 |title=The logic of animal intergroup conflict: A review |journal=Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization |year=2017 |last1=Rusch |first1=H. |last2=Gavrilets |first2=S.}} 3. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.jebo.2018.01.020 |title=The Psychology of Intergroup Conflict: A Review of Theories and Measures |journal=Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization |year=2018 |last1=Böhm |first1=R. |last2=Rusch |first2=H. |last3=Baron |first3=B.}} 4. ^Desmond Morris, The Naked Ape Trilogy (1994) p. 251 5. ^R. D. Laing, The Politics of Experience (1984) p. 64 6. ^Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group dynamics (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. 7. ^Eliot R. Smith/Diane M.Mackie, Social Psychology (2007) p. 515 8. ^Smith/Mackie, p. 515 9. ^Smith/Mackie, p. 498 10. ^Desmond Morris, The Naked Ape Trilogy (1994) p. 255 11. ^R. Skinner/J. Cleese, Families and how to survive them (1993) p. 135 12. ^Sigmund Freud, Civilization, Society and Religion (PFL 12) p. 305 13. ^Morris, p. 254 14. ^1 2 3 4 5 Eidelson, R. J., & Eidelson, J. I. (2003). "Dangerous Ideas: Five Beliefs That Propel Groups Toward Conflict". American Psychologist. Vol. 58. No. 3, 182–192. 15. ^{{cite book|last=Gonen|first=J. Y.|title=The roots of Nazi psychology: Hitler's utopian barbarism.|publisher=University of Kentucky Press|location=Lexington}} 16. ^Sue, D. W., Bingham, R. P., Porche-Burke, L., & Vasquez, M. (1999). The Diversification of Psychology: A Multi-Cultural Revolution. American Psychologist, 1061–1069. 17. ^Sue, D. W., Bingham, R. P., Porche-Burke, L., & Vasquez, M. (1999). "The Diversification of Psychology: A Multi-Cultural Revolution". American Psychologist. 1061–1069. 18. ^Sue, D. W., Bingham, R. P., Porche-Burke, L., & Vasquez, M. (1999). The Diversification of Psychology: A Multi-Cultural Revolution. American Psychologist. 1061–1069. 19. ^Volkan, V. D. (1999). "Psychoanalysis and Diplomacy: Part 1. Individual and Large Group Identity". Journal of Applied Psychoanlytic Studies. pp. 29–55. 20. ^{{cite book|last=Erikson|first=E. H.|title=Childhood and Society|publisher=Norton|location=New York}} 21. ^{{cite book|author1=Kramer, R. M. |author2=Messick, D. M|title=Getting by with a little help from our enemies: Collective paranoia and its role in intergroup relations. In: Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior. C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A Insko (Eds.)|year=1998|publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers|location=Mahwah, NJ|pages=233–255}} 22. ^{{cite book|last=Gamson|first=W. A.|title=Constructing social process. In H. Johnston & B. Klandermans (Eds.), Social movements and culture|year=1995|publisher=University of Minnesota Press|location=Minneapolis|pages=85–106}} 23. ^Horowitz, David, (2001). [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1nC8htP6SE4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ethnic+Groups+in+Conflict,&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix4Yn52prcAhVIPxQKHdwHDfIQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=backward%20group&f=false Ethnic Groups in Conflict, Updated Edition With a New Preface], 2nd Edition, University of California Press, pp.161-175 24. ^{{cite book|last=Houle|first=Cyril O.|title=Governing boards: Their nature and nurture|year=1989|publisher=Jossey-Bass|location=San Francisco, CA|isbn=1-55542-157-1}} 25. ^{{cite journal|last=Ilgen|first=D. R.|author2=Mitchell, T. R. |author3=Fredrickson, J. W. |title=Poor performers: Supervisors' and subordinates' responses.|journal=Organizational Behavior and Human Performance|year=1981|volume=27|issue=3|pages=386–410}} 26. ^Amin Ghaziani, The Dividends of Dissent (2008) p. 15–20 27. ^R. Skinner/J. Cleese, Families and how to survive them (1994) p. 132–3 28. ^Engleberg, Isa N.; Wynn, Dianna R. (2007) (In English). working in groups 175–193 (4th ed.). Boston New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. 29. ^Smith/Mackie, p. 448 30. ^Randy Hodson, Dignity at Work (2001) p. 215 and p. 218 31. ^Jacques Lacan, Écrits: A Selection (1997) p. 24 32. ^Neville Symington, Narcissism: A New Theory (1993) p. 10 33. ^Clemens J. France, in J. Halliday/P. Fuller eds., The Psychology of Gambling (1974) p. 151 34. ^{{cite journal|last=Fischer|first=Michael Daniel|title=Organizational Turbulence, Trouble and Trauma: Theorizing the Collapse of a Mental Health Setting|journal=Organization Studies|date=28 September 2012|volume=33|issue=9|pages=1153–1173|doi=10.1177/0170840612448155}} 35. ^Janet Malcolm, Psychoanalysis: The Impossible Profession (1988) p. 106 and p. 65 36. ^René Girard, Job (1987) p. 29 and p. 150 37. ^René Girard, Violence and the Sacred (1977) p. 7 38. ^Jacques Lacan, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis (London 1992) p. 6 39. ^Freud, p. 351 40. ^Norman Brown, in John O'Neill, Sociology as a Skin Trade (1972) p. 47 41. ^Girard, Violence and the Sacred p. 188 and p. 127 42. ^J. Boardman et al eds. The Oxford History of the Classical World (1991) p. 460 43. ^P. Alexander ed., William Shakespeare: The Complete Works (1962) p. 544 44. ^G. M. Trevelyan, The Peace and the Protestant Succession (1965) p. 306 Further reading
2 : Group processes|Interpersonal conflict |
随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识,基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识,是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。