Both groups were sent on a hike and campout. It was noticed that within each group some sort of hierarchy was formed; hence each group had a leader and ‘lieutenants with some boys attempting to get positions a little lower than previously mentioned while others simply shifted to the bottom of the ladder. It was also noted that within each group responsibilities were divided both in work and play; nick names were also given, jargons inside jokes and special ways of performing tasks were among the things that developed within the group.
In the summer of 1954 the camp was conducted in Robbers Cave where the two groups named themselves Rattlers and Eagles. In this camp there was an exercise which took the form of a target practice right before an important baseball game. Here the board given for the boys to throw at was unmarked so that they could not exactly pinpoint a bull’s eye. The board however was wired to flashing lights so that an observer could see exactly where the balls hit. It was found from this exercise that the boys consistently overestimated the performance by those who were highly regarded and underestimated the scores of those of lower social standing.
It should be noted here that the two groups had no interactions whatsoever with each other up until this point. The working hypothesis here was: if two groups have conflicting aims i.e. when one can achieve its goal only at the expense of the other – their members will be come hostile to each other even if the groups are composed of normal well adjusted individuals. This hypothesis was proven correct. So much so that it was noted that the boys of the 1949 camp turned against buddies whom they had chosen as ‘best friends’ when they first arrived at the camp. It was also noted that as friction between both groups increased, unity within the groups also increased. Stereotypes within the group dissolved in the name of solidarity and democracy and cooperativeness within the group grew.
Now that Sherif et al had created conflict which in turn generated prejudice and discrimination they needed to find a way to dissolve the problem of prejudice and discrimination. They at this point hypothesised that harmony between groups is established and restored in the presence of supreordinate goals. To test this hypothesis they created a series of ‘emergencies’ and natural dilemmas in which neither group could fix without the help of the other. One such emergency was the ‘breakdown’ of the water supply in which water which came to the camp via pipes from a tank (about a mile away) was interrupted. The boys (from both groups) were informed of the crisis and both groups worked harmoniously and efficiently together to locate the point of the problem and to create a remedy. Another such ‘crisis’ occurred when the two groups went on an outing at a lake some distance away and a large truck was to go to town for some food. However when every on was hungry and it was time to make the trip to town the truck would not start (it had been rigged). The boys however got some rope – the same rope which ad been used for tug-of-war during the initial staged of conflict – and pulled together to start the truck. I was noted however that the joint efforts did not immediately dispel all notions of prejudice and discrimination; for as soon as the job was done both groups returned to hostile behaviours. Gradually though, the groups began to get along with each other; and by the end of the camp boys from both groups had made friendships and found new ‘best friends’ outside of their own groups. Sherif et al stated that through their limited experiment they concluded that hostility between groups gives way when groups pull together to achieve overriding goals which are real and compelling to all who were concerned.
The second voice is that of Patricia G. Devine. In her article Devine speaks to the breaking of the prejudice habit. She states that usually a person is prejudged and reacted to not as an individual bit as a member of some group, such that the general characteristics of that group are attributed to that individual. Devine calls this process stereotyping. She also points out that ones feelings and treatment of another person will then be based on the stereotypes, not the individual. According to Devine Prejudice is expressed in many forms; she gives two extremes. The first extreme is the legislative laws (example those which allowed for the discrimination of blacks). Another extreme is the prejudice shown today, the subtle form which shows itself in eye contact received, how people are addressed and even the privileges given or withheld for ‘other reasons’.
It should be noted here that Devine’s article speaks to America specifically but is applicable even outside the country. She states that prejudice in America is not declining but rather changing form by becoming more subtle and disguised. She states that non thoughtful responses are, by definition, the best or are more trust worthy than thoughtful responses when one is trying to depict whether the action is prejudiced.
In her article Devine looks at two factors. (a) How and why those who truly renounce prej8udice may continue to experience prejudiced thoughts and feelings and act on then. (b) The nature of the rather difficult challenges and obstacles that must be overcome before one can succeed in reducing the gap between thoughtful and non thoughtful responses.
According to Devine there are two types of prejudice. She states that automatic processes occur unintentionally, spontaneously and unconsciously. Both high and low prejudiced people are vulnerable to automatic stereotype creation and once the stereotype is well-learned its influence is hard to avoid because it comes easily to mind.
On the contrary, controlled processes are under the deliberate control of the individual and its initiation and use requires time and sufficient cognitive capacity. None prejudiced responses require restraining the naturally activated stereotypes and consciously initiating personal beliefs as the basis for ones actions. Without sufficient time or cognitive capacity, responses may be stereotype-based ad hence appear prejudiced. According to Devine low prejudiced people, when given enough time censor responses based on the stereotype and instead respond based on their beliefs. High prejudiced people however, embrace the stereotype and are not personally motivated to overcome its effects on their behaviour.
Knowing this Devine states that eliminating prejudice requires overcoming a lifetime of socialisation experiences which have promoted prejudice. This is a formidable task that is likely to entail a great deal of internal conflict over a prolonged period of time. By internal conflict Devine means the issues of guilt. For example low prejudiced people may feel guilty if they respond in a prejudiced manner as this conflicts with their belief that they should not behave in such a manner. This coexistence of such conflicting reactions threatens their non-prejudiced concepts. In contrast high prejudiced people do not feel guilty for showing prejudiced behaviour.
Through her study Devine also showed that in interpersonal intergroup contact situations low-prejudiced people become socially anxious and this anxiety disrupts the typically smooth, coordinated aspects of the social interaction. Their interaction styles become awkward and strained resulting in nonverbal behaviours such as reduced eye contact and awkward speech patterns.
In conclusion, Devine states that the guilt which results in these reactions along with the changing of negative attitudes is what promotes the breaking of the prejudice habit.
Through these two voices we have seen two concepts that can be used to explain the phenomenon of subtle prejudice and discrimination within the Jamaican society. These concepts are (a) prejudice and discrimination arises out of conflict, differences in personality, group affiliation and stereotypes and (b) the changing of negative attitudes, and the presence of guilt can help in the elimination of prejudice and discrimination.
Applying these concepts to our Caribbean situation is not an easy task as these concepts are based on U.S. situations. However an attempt will be made to do so.
Looking firstly at the concept (a), if those in middle and upper classes had stereotypes set up about those in the ‘lower class’ then they would automatically treat them differently. This is especially so if their stereotypes where negative stereotypes. For example if there was a belief that lower class people were illiterate and were all thieves then those form upper class and middle class would treat them differently. Another example would be a middle class man who just bought an avalanche this vehicle is associated with the drug trade and of course there would be the stereotype that all those who drive these vehicles were involved in such activities. This would lead him to constant confrontations with the police. Those coming from middle and upper class homes or backgrounds are seen as having ‘what it’ takes for certain jobs simply because of their social background while those from lower class receive discriminating treatment in regards to job attainment and promotion as a result of this type of stereotyping. Group affiliation is yet another factor of prejudice and discrimination. Those affiliated with the Rastafarian movement and JFLAG are at the receiving end of this stick (the latter receiving harsher treatment). These are just a few to whom concept (a) applies.
Looking at concept (b) if people’s attitudes towards those affiliated with JFLAG change to that of tolerance then prejudiced behaviour and discriminatory practices might decrease. The Rastafarian movement was once heavily discriminated against and now its culture is embraced by the world in general and the Caribbean in particular all as a result of changing attitudes. The presence of guilt when we as Caribbean treat others discriminatorily is another factor that-although small in effect- may help to bring an end to prejudice and discrimination as well.
In concluding, in all the investigation and research in to this phenomenon they all seem to say similar if not the same thing. Most theories point to attitudes and values or learnt behaviour- all found in social psychology. Even those who attempt to move in another direction seem to end up relating to sociological concepts. For example one explanation for prejudice and discrimination against and among blacks is the slave trade; but on deeper investigation of the matter we find that the root lay in attitudes and learnt values which allow for this type of behaviour. So one can see clearly now that this phenomenon can best be understood by using social psychological concepts as any attempt at explaining the situation leads us straight to those concepts anyway.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lesko, Wayne A. Readings in Social Psychology Marymount University Press 2000
Oxford Dictionary of Psychology Oxford University Press 2001
