13 votes

I can tolerate anything except the outgroup

4 comments

  1. [2]
    RNG
    Link
    I think framing social issues as matters of "ingroup vs outgroup" psychology or "tribalism" is a bit reductive and often fails to capture the sociological and economic realities of conflict. The...
    • Exemplary

    I think framing social issues as matters of "ingroup vs outgroup" psychology or "tribalism" is a bit reductive and often fails to capture the sociological and economic realities of conflict. The article frames tribalism as having primacy in conflicts between "ingroups" and "outgroups," for example:

    And this isn’t a weird exception. Freud spoke of the narcissism of small differences, saying that “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”. Nazis and German Jews. Northern Irish Protestants and Northern Irish Catholics. Hutus and Tutsis. South African whites and South African blacks. Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. Anyone in the former Yugoslavia and anyone else in the former Yugoslavia.

    So what makes an outgroup? Proximity plus small differences. If you want to know who someone in former Yugoslavia hates, don’t look at the Indonesians or the Zulus or the Tibetans or anyone else distant and exotic. Find the Yugoslavian ethnicity that lives closely intermingled with them and is most conspicuously similar to them, and chances are you’ll find the one who they have eight hundred years of seething hatred toward.

    In many of these examples, Palestinian/Israeli conflict, South African whites and blacks, Nazis and Jews, etc., the primacy of conflict isn't some sort of tribalism due to small differences or relations, but conflict that necessarily arises from the conflicting material interests of the groups. The reason South African blacks and, say, Israeli Arabs aren't in conflict isn't due to a lack of relation, but a lack of conflict born from conflicting material interests. Apartheid materially benefits South African whites, it's destruction benefitted South African blacks. This isn't the "Narcissism of small differences." These are profound differences, and contradiction in interests are primary to conflict, not the psychological tribalism that is usually a byproduct. The outgroup isn't formed from some petty squabbles from similar people (differences that, I suppose, a galaxy-brained blogger can see past.)


    It is worth discussing "Red Team" vs "Blue Team" tribalism. I think the way it is framed here, as an issue of the "Narcissism of small differences" is something that is true...for some, likely most who would read SSC. This may be controversial, but I think if one is a white, cis/het male, this essay is probably seemingly profound. You likely have no material interests that force you into one camp or the other. Friendship, love, comradery, and acceptance with and from conservatives is possible and accessible. If you are trans, queer, or undocumented, politics aren't some sort of weird hobby you engage in and enjoy. Your politics aren't borne out of small differences that you could realistically see either side of.

    These zones of "tolerance of the other" suffer from being largely white, cis/het male, and liberal. I think this is because if politics are a hobby for you (rather than woodworking or gaming,) if tolerance of outsiders makes one feel morally superior to their more tribal peers, their politics exist and develop from a completely different place than those who are oppressed.

    I recently re-read the Letter from a Birmingham Jail, one of my favorite writings of all time. Dr. King's rebuke of white moderates feels just as salient in 2021 as it did all those years ago. If it's been awhile since you've read it, give it another read. There are sides, not borne from tribalism or ingroups and outgroups, but real, intensely profound contradictions in interests. Call me ignorant, backwards-minded, or tribal, but the question that seems most important for us to ask ourselves isn't how can we come together, but rather which side are you on?

    16 votes
    1. RNG
      Link Parent
      Relevant quote from "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: There's more to this quote, but to avoid just posting the entire letter, I'd recommend reading it in it's...

      Relevant quote from "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:

      I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection

      There's more to this quote, but to avoid just posting the entire letter, I'd recommend reading it in it's entirety at the site linked.

      https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

      8 votes
  2. [2]
    scrambo
    Link
    I'm still going through the above article, and might have a response to @RNG at the end of it, but on a more off-topic thread I followed the link in the article for the Implicit Test. Took the...

    I'm still going through the above article, and might have a response to @RNG at the end of it, but on a more off-topic thread I followed the link in the article for the Implicit Test. Took the test for Weapons vs Race and fell right on the Bell-Curve with a Moderate Implicit Association of Black Americans to Weapons and White Americans to Non-Dangerous Items.

    I suspect there would be some variance in results were I to take the test again, but overall it's troubling to be shown the correlations that I'm drawing between races, unconscious or not. What can one do to fix something like this? Some things that spring to mind for me would be actively seeking out interactions with people of other races, reading more and educating myself better about topics like these? I'm open for other suggestions.

    There's also other tests that one can take on the website if you're interested in seeing what implicit biases you may or may not have.

    3 votes
    1. Micycle_the_Bichael
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      When I get off work I will find the source, but basically this. There is a study that shows even just exposure (not necessarily even interacting, just existing in the same space) over an extended...

      actively seeking out interactions with people of other races

      When I get off work I will find the source, but basically this. There is a study that shows even just exposure (not necessarily even interacting, just existing in the same space) over an extended period of time lowers tensions and gives a more positive views between separate groups. The study I'm thinking of used Spanish-speaking people at public transportation stops in Boston if you feel inclined to find it yourself before I have a chance.

      Edit: Gah! I was slightly mistaken. The source I am thinking of is the book The Space Between Us by Ryan Enos. It's a really good book, I'd strongly suggest it. However, on the site he has a links to papers and sources, as well as a landing page for for the research I mentioned initially if you're looking for something shorter.

      Edit Edit: direct link to the published paper

      5 votes