Group conflict

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 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. Social psychology, specifically the discontinuity effect of inter-group conflict, suggests that 'groups are generally even more competitive and aggressive than individuals'. 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' 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'. 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'. Thus 'in politics, for example, everyone can get an extraordinarily comforting feeling of mutual support from their group by focussing on an enemy'. 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 – like the Spaniards and Portuguese, for instance... 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'. 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'. Through 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. 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. Opinion 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'.