- Group focused enmity
Especially after last decade the EU agreed to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. Different types of prejudices constitute a syndrome of group focused enmity. According to Allport, people who reject one out group will tend to reject other out groups. E.g. an anti-jewish person may tend likely be anti-Negro etc.. Various prejudices can be understood as components of a syndrome. We are tend to identify ourselves by differentiate us from others. Therefore developing prejudices about others/out-groups help us to confirm the normalcy of ingroup. Prejudices can also be expressed by any group even though gaining dominance is more likely for members of a majority than a minority and prejudices serve the dominant group intentions better.
It is clear that, culture offers a wide range of well-known out-groups. Prejudices may be against several groups. According to Germen, group focused enmity has some types of prejudices that are classified like:
Racism
Sexism
Xenophobia
Anti-semintism
Islamaphobia
Devaluation of homosexual persons
Disable persons
Homeless persons
Devaluation of newcomers
- Right wing extremism and racist violence in germany-explanations of heitmeyer et. al.
Mainly since 1991 violance against refugees and foreigners have increased in Germany. Broader swıng to the right has taken place sınce 1980s by the growing influence of nationalism and of exclusive concepts of ethnicity. The origin of changing climate of growing nationalism and the upsurge (hızl artış) racism do not only result from the integration of east germany into a greater federal republic. Important changes , since 1989, regarding individuals’ life plans, social relations and the political sphere, frequenty led to political disintegration and to search for scapegoats (günah keçisi). The autorıtarian heritage, the deformations in east german regime, may be the major contributions of rıghtwıng extremism. Some researchers (maas) explain violence as a logical consequence of the repressive structures of the former regime in the east. Hill sees a positive trend towards a reduction of ethnocentrism from 80s till 90s followed (e.g. demonstrations against racısm etc.) the opinion that too many foreigners are living in germany an expression of hostility have been discussed. 8% ın west 18% ın east germany accept thıs idea and told an understanding of violence directed against asylum seekers.
Some researches concentrate on the connectıon between the youth and rıghtwıng extremism. Heitmeyer is one of the most influential interpreters of recent right-wing extremism and racism in Germany. He owes this to an empirical investigation into attitudes among young Germans. He looks at long-term developments, in the process of political socialization under the influence of individualisation, dısıntegratıng mılıeus and processes of exclusion from the system of paid employment. They also explain how political attitudes develop. Central to the interpretation provided by the heitmeyer group s the concept of individualisation. Beck indicated that lifge experiences in the modern highly indutrialised societies of the present day are shaped by deterioration (bozulma) of patterns such as class and milieu, whıch in the past predetermined both working careers and value systems. Freedom as well as insecurity ıs the consequence, plurality as well as loneliness, the pressure to decide individually, to fight ones own corner. The search for power causes violence, the search for simple ideas, authorithy or friend and foe(düşman) patterns.
Bıefeld research group defend that work, employment, and economic independence, are still central to political identity and to socialisation in general. They still form the basis on which young people formulate their plans for life. Heıtmeyer et.al .reject as too simple an analysis that sees rwe and the growth of racism as rooted in unemployment and social deprivation(yoksunluk) formal ıntegratıon into the employment system alone is not enough: this is the core thesis of whole study. Of crucial (önemli) importance are work content(içerik) and the orientation of the individual towards work as ınterestıng as providing sense, satisfaction, confidence etc..meanıngful work in the 1. place then meaningful personal relationships, autonomy, confidence (güven) universal values and traditional affiliation to democracy via milieus are regarded as barriers against rwe. The focus here is solely n individuals while their political environment , media themes and predominating debates (hakim görüş) in society are almost totally absent. (alakasız)
There are too many foreigners in germany,
Their familiar environment and spaces are taken over
Heıtmeyer et. Al. present themselves as crıtıcs of current western societies. For them rwe originates in the centre of society, it is related to the failures of established politics to the logic of money and to shape modernısatıon takes. Willems defend that Not thıs capitalist society, nor biographical CRİSİS and ruptures (parcalanma) nor tradıtıonal ımages of foe, probably not even a particular famıly background style of education, nor unemployment, determine an affinity (benzerlik) wıth vıolance and extreme rıght attıtudes. Accordıng to fındıngs or the trıer researchers the political motivation of young offenders(suclu) ıs low. They are frustrated, lookıng for actıon, following a diffuse need for violence and aggression or group dynamcs. Rising numbers of immigrating etnic gemrans and asylum seekers and subsequent conflicts between this groups have generated racism. Immigration conflict seems to suggest that we are not witnessing an ethnocentric or racıst mısınterpretatıon of social conflicts but a situation in which ethnic solidarity and self defence against aperceıved threat of mass immigration are legitimate or at least natural.
According to Heitmeyer political socialization means that a considerable part of population is accepted as normal. In this concept religion does not play a big role. Competition among material and cultural resources may cause fremdenangst. Heitmeyer indicated that since January 1993, in westgermany %25 and in east germany %55 of the population believe that there are too many foreigners in germany. Another problem is the attandence of german youths to the subculture of skinheads. The problematic behaviours and orientations of such groups is widespread in different milieus. Economical perspective focuses on status changes, limited resources and competition. Political perspective focuses on political system and political changes. Societal perspective focuses on the effects of modernization, social environment and individual classification(?). finally social psychological approach analyzes on widespread processes and orientations. When we watched the film in Kreuzberg, which was about the fall of the wall and how it influenced Turks/migrants, I saw that group focused enmity is an universal issue. The film was about the racism, fremdenfeindlichkeit, fremdenhass etc. But in this film have noticed that Turks had have also racist beliefs. For example the Turkish street cleaner told that germans are very dirty, or for example in mosque the muslim schoolmaster (hodja) had also explained very racist ideas against Europeans. Therefore I want to focus on social psychological approach which explains group focused enmity from an universal perspective.
- SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF AGRESSION AND VIOLANCE
There is not any theory which is especially focuses on violence. Commonly violence has searched with the relation between terror, misuse of children, violence in media etc. According to social psychological approach, some factors can activate aggression. Social psych. focuses on interaction between individuals and the conflict between groups.
Movement against others is aggression, a form of behaviour which is usually motivated by hostility. Why groups are threatened by movements away from or against others? Competition, cohesiveness (dayanisma), reactions to danger, threat, biological tendency etc… could be the reasons. Development of aggression theories have started with the different aspects of psyc. such as cognition, developmental and social psyc.
- frustration aggression theory
According to this theory, aggressive feelings are actuated/motivated when an individual is prevented from achieving his objectives. Induviduals are tend to behave aggressively at frustration situations. The aggression which is triggered from frustration may also seen later. For example an individual who had have problems with his boss could not show his aggression to him. It would be easier for him to behave aggressively to anyone, who is less powerful than him.(For Example his son)
e.g. Yale university have studied the relation between decreasing cotton prices and increasing lynch actions. When the cotton prices decrease, southern cotton producers feel themselves frustrated, therefore they to behave more aggressively to their negro/black neighbours. -) According to an experiment it was found that, who were frustrated with their levels of crime tended more often to express hostile attitudes towards foreigners and immigrants. I think this result could be a good example to explain the conflict against immigrants after mauerfall in germany
Frustration can come from many sources; interference with sexual satisfaction, with occupational achievement, with social acceptance and so on. Experiments show that there is a positive correlation between frustration and aggression. But this theory is critisized , because other feelings also result from frustration. Therefore it cannot be assumed that frustration will always lead to aggressive behaviours. (e.g. person may give up to deal with the situation, and become apathetic-ILGISIZ.)
- katharsis
- Bandura’s social learning theory
Learning is also a factor which causes violence. According to bandura aggressive attitudes could be learned behaviours. E.g. when a child behave aggressively and rewarded the probability of behaving aggressive again woul increase. Researches show that there is a relationship between patterns of crime and patterns of child rearing. The children who have aggressive parents behave more aggressively than the children, who have less aggressive parents. We learn how to behave both from our parents and our social environment.therefore the societies also affevct our aggressive attitudes. It may be that some societies tolerate some aggressive behaviour. E.g. in east Germany anti-alien feeling, right-wing extremism is common. It may be the youth who live there, has been effected by such racist ideas despite their family/ parents don’t believe such racist ideas. Members of lower class groups express more direct physical aggression than do middle class people. Physical aggression may be a learned behaviour from society.
- instinctive and biological theories
there is a controversy among behavioral scientists about whether aggressive behaviour is natural or learned. Research with infants and young children show that tendencies to perceive and react to treat appear quite early. Children actually seem to be more interested in aggressive, violent themes that in friendly ones. Some cultures are inclined to encourage aggressive behaviour. In contrast to primitive societies, urbanized, industrialized societies appear to encourage more crimes against property (sahiplik) and fewer crimes against persons. Lower class members are more likely to engage in aggressive behaviour than are middle class members.
Some researchers assume that the basic drives in human, as well as in the lower animals, causes aggression. It is a natural motive such as need of food, water, sex etc.. Freud define the term death wish. According to this we have both death wish and life wish. Death wish causes aggressive behaviours, sometimes this head toward ourselves and causes suicide or interest to dangerous sports. If it head towards other people we tend to show verbal or physical aggressive behaviour to other individuals. Some researchers defend that aggressive behaviours exist because of the motive protecting territory and relatives. According to evolutionary theory more powerful one have more chance to maintain their descent. Therefore there is competition among humans and they tend to be more powerful by showing aggressive behaviours.
- Prejudice and intergroup hostility
The norms in a society effects how much hostility can be openly expressed. Latent (gizli) hostility is often expressed toward certain groups in the form of prejudiced actions. Mostly, the target group is different in some way such as poor, old, nonwhite, females, members of unpopular religious groups, homosexuals, foreigners etc… and members of such groups should collectively or individually appear vulnerable (savunmasiz) in some way. The stereotyped beliefs are learned, usually during childhood. The members of vulnerable group may also come across (karsilasmak) the exclusion from employment and housing. Exclusion from neighborhoods, schools, job opportunities are most commonly used methods to maintain social distance. Such isolation strategies help to perpetuate and reinforce the prejudiced behaviour, thus we will never find out whether they have similar values or not.
Sometimes people show hostile behaviors in order to accommodate the rules and roles of society. E.g. the apartment house owner tells the negro couple in an obviously apologetic and embarrassed tone that he would like to rent an apartment to them but that the other tenants would object.
When the group perceives itself as threatened by an outside source, morale and cohesiveness are valued even more highly than usual and norms become highly specific and rigidly defined. Campbell described the term real threat for the siruations in which the interests of groups ( e.g. nations) are in conflict with one another.
Various child rearing patterns may also effect aggressive attitudes. According to the theory ,which assumes ageression is a learned behaviour, the parent may play a part in their children’s learning to be prejudiced. The norms towards aggression also effect this learning patterns. Some observation and comparisons show that, aggressive behaviours tend to be restrained (kisitlanmis) in societies that have norms with reduce and restrict the overt expression of hostility and that encourage its expression symbolically, rather than directly. therefore the development of international norms against prejudiced behaviours may help to hinder them. Attendance of nationalities into these international norms are changeable. If patterns of international cooperation are strong enough, these actions should be in action.
