Journal of Social Issues 1990, 46(1), 65-81.
Causes and Consequences of Delegitimization: Models of Conflict and Ethnocentrism
Daniel Bar-Tal
School of Education
Tel Aviv University
Requests for reprints should be sent to Daniel Bar-Tal, School of Education, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, ISRAEL.
Abstract
Delegitimization, defined as a categorization of groups into extreme negative social categories which are excluded from human groups that are considered as acting within the limits of acceptable norms and/or values, is a phenomenon which occurs in intergroup relations. The paper analyzes causes and consequences of delegitimization, suggesting models of conflict and ethnocentrism. Within the situation of a conflict, there are two possibilities. Sometimes, a conflict erupts when the group perceives that the negating goal(s) of the outgroup is far-reaching and evil. Then, the threat is especially high and the ingroup uses delegitimization to explain the conflict. Subsequently, in order to prevent the danger, the group may harm the threatening outgroup and later justify the harm by delegitimization. In turn, delegitimization increases perceived threat and leads to increased harm of the other group. Not all the conflict begins with far-reaching incompatibility of goals and involve high threat. Nevertheless, even low-key conflicts may deteriorate to high violence which in turn leads to deligitimization as an explanation and later as justification. The second model indicates that groups which are perceived as very different and devalued, and arouse feelings of fear and despise are delegitimized. In turn, delegitimization leads to harm and later to increased delegitimization as a justification of the harm. The analyses of the models are accompanied by numerous illustrations. Special emphasis is given to cases of American delegitimization of Soviets, delegitimization during the Vietnam war, mutual delegitimization of Israeli Jews and Palestinians, European delegitimization of American Indians, delegitimization of Blacks in the South before the Civil War and German delegitimization of Jews during the Nazi era.
Causes and Consequences of Delegitimization: Models of Conflict and Ethnocentrism
The concept of delegitimization was presented to describe a specific case of group categorization (Bar-Tal, 1988,1980a, in press). This categorization is based on extremely negative outgroup's characterization aimed to deny humanity from this group. Specifically, delegitimization is defined as categorization of a group or groups into extreme negative social categories which are excluded from human groups that are considered as acting within the limits of acceptable norms and/or values.
Dehumanization, outcasting, negative train characterization, use of political labels, and group comparison are among the most commonly utilized contents of delegitimization.
(a) Dehumanization involves categorizing a group as inhuman either by using categories of subhuman creatures such as inferior races and animals, or by using categories of negatively valued superhuman creatures such as demons, monsters, and satans. Both categories involve characterizing the members of the delegitimized group as possessing inhuman traits different from the human race.
(b) Trait characterization is done by means of the use of traits which are evaluated as extremely negative and unacceptable to a given society. Use of labels such as aggressors, idiots, or parasites exemplifies this type of delegitimization.
(c) Outcasting consists of categorization into groups which are considered as violators of pivotal social norms. Outcasting may include such categories as murderers, thieves, psychopaths, or maniacs. The society usually excludes these violators from its system and often places them in total institutions.
(d) Use of political labels involves categorization into political groups which are considered to be totally unacceptable by the members of the delegitimizing society, as for example, Nazis, fascists, communists, or imperialists. These groups often threaten the basic values of the given society and are considered a danger to its system.
(e) Delegitimization by group comparison consists of labelling the delegitimized group with the name of another group which serves as an example of negativity in the given society. Use of such categories as "Vandals" or "Huns" is an example of this type of delegitimization. Each society has in its cultural repertoire examples of other groups or societies which serve as symbols of malice, evil, or wickedness.
Delegitimization should be viewed as a particular category of stereotyping and prejudice. But, whereas the latter concepts refer to wide range of cognitive and affective reactions, the former concept implies the following features:
(a) Delegitimization consists of extremely negative, salient, and unique contents which serve as a basis for categorization.
(b) Delegitimization has a purpose of denying humanity from the delegitimized group.
(c) Delegitimization is accompanied by intense negative emotions of rejection such as hatred, anger, despise, fear or disgust.
(d) Delegitimization implies that the delegitimized group may potentially perform a negative behavior which may endanger the delegitimizing group.
(e) Delegitimization has a behavioral implication for the delegitimizing group. It indicates that the delegitimized group does not deserve human treatment.
The purpose of the present paper is to further explore the phenomenon of delegitimization by analyzing its causes and consequences. Specifically, two models are described: The conflict model and the ethnocentric model. Each of them focuses on different set of conditions which evokes and maintains delegitimization.
Conflict Models
Every intergroup conflict begins with the perception that group's goals are incompatible with goals of another group (Bar-Tal, Kruglanski, & Klar, 1989; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). The perception of a conflict means that a group finds itself blocked, since the attainment of a goal or goals is precluded by another group. This situation is not uncommon and infrequent, but inseparable part of intergroup relations. Groups have many goals, are in relations with many groups and therefore some goals may be contradicted by goals of other groups. Conflicts are thus unavoidable. They are part of normal group life and are continuously waged.
Obviously, conflicts can be of various types and of different intensity. Not all of them resort to extreme antagonism, although it is clear that conflicts sometimes involve delegitimization. Thus, the question that should be posed is what conditions of conflict foster the excitation of this extreme negative labeling. The present paper intends to focus on two conditions in a conflict situation which are probably most frequent in evoking delegitimization. One condition derives from the perception of the outgroup's contradictory goals as being far-reaching and sinister, and the other condition is related to extreme violence. Both conditions are not mutually exclusive and can appear together. Here they will be described separately.
Threat and Delegitimization: Explanation and Derivation
Perception that the ingroup goals are contradicted by goals of another group and cannot be easily achieved incites some level of threat perception (see Figure 1), because the outgroup is perceived as preventing the achievement of the goal. But since, as indicated, groups frequently experience conflicts in the course of their intergroup relations, the crucial questions in explaining the appearance of delegitimization in the early phase of conflict are: (a) how are perceived the goals of the opponent and (b) what kind of own goals are perceived to be blocked?
The first proposition then is that when a group perceives that the negating goal(s) of the outgroup is far-reaching, especially evil, and threatens the basic goals of the ingroup, then the ingroup uses delegitimization to explain the conflict. In principle, the two conditions are complementary - when the goals of the other group are perceived as outraging, far-fetched, irrational and malevolent, they also are perceived as greatly negating the basic ingroup's goals and therefore threatening.
Insert Figure 1 about here.
Usually this type of conflict is of zero sum type. The possible achievement of the outgroup's goals is perceived often as constituting a danger to the existence of the ingroup itself. The perceived danger can be of economical nature (e.g., the group can be left without raw materials for the industry), political (e.g., the political system is challenged), or military (e.g., the country or part of it is in danger to be conquered).
The described beliefs about dangers imply a perception of severe threat - that is, an anticipation of impending serious harm. Group members believe that there is a possibility that the danger can be actualized. The basic web of the group is threatened and they feel that their group is in jeopardy. In this vein, it should be noted that it does not matter whether the beliefs are based on "reality" or "imagination". What counts is the perception - it leads to action and reaction (see Bar-Tal, Kruglanski, & Klar, 1989; Pruitt, 1965). The reality as perceived by group members influences their decisions and behavior. When a threat is perceived, it is real for them (Cohen, 1979; Knorr, 1976).
Threat perception in general, and especially serious threats of high level, are accompanied by stress, uncertainty, vulnerability, and fear (Lieberman, 1964; Milburn, 1977; Singer, 1958; Tedeschi, 1970). These feelings raise the need for structuring the situation and its quick understanding by forming knowledge, which allows an explanation and prediction (Bar-Tal, Y., 1989). Delegitimization fulfills this function. It, on the one hand, explains why another group threatens and, on the other hand, predicts what the other group will do in the future (see Figure 1). Delegitimization, thus, enables an economic - fast, unequivocal, and simple - way of understanding. It is a parsimonious knowledge which comes to mind, since the perception of high threat decreases ambiguity, narrows the range of considered alternatives, and leads to antagonism (Holsti, 1971; Hornstein, 1965; Smock, 1955; Tedeschi, 1970).
As Figure 1 shows, this is the situation in which the ingroup uses delegitimization as an explanation for the perceived outgroup's outraging aspirations and demands. Delegitimizing labels provide, for example, an answer to Poles why German Nazis decided to occupy their country, or to Americans, why the Soviet Union strive to dominate the world. Who can seriously and highly threaten, if not a group which is imperialistic, satanic, or fascistic. These labels and the other delegitimizing labels indicate that a group has extremely negative characteristics, which imply extremely negative behaviors that the group can carry on.
The latter process is based on the derivation from the used labels (see Figure 1). That is, once delegitimization was used, it increases the perception of threat as an inference from the delegitimizing category. Thus, for example, use of such labels as aggressive, ruthless, devious, or oppressive indicates that the outgroup is capable of serious destruction, violence, or brutality and, therefore, a sense of group's security is further disrupted. In this way, an explanation, together with a derivation, form the vicious cycle in which the perception of severe threat and delegitimization feed each other continuously.
The conflict between Americans and Soviets, which reached one of the its peaks during the Cold War and only recently leveled out, provides an example of delegitimization based on absolute negating goals. From the American perspective, the Soviet goals as expressed in the communism are principally contradictory to the American system. Most Americans believed, and many still continue to believe, that Soviets within the communistic system are expansionistic, seek dominance in the world threaten the American religious and moral values, oppose the American social-economic order and collide with the American political underlying ideology (e.g., Bar-Tal, 1989b; Bialer, 1985; English & Halpern, 1987; Free & Cantril, 1967; Frei, 1986; Stouffer, 1966; Welch, 1970). The Soviets have been perceived as the most threatening country to the Americans. Their acts in Poland, Finland, Baltic States, Iran, Berlin, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan and in Soviet Union itself have provided evidence regarding their contradictory goals. Moreover, the Soviets themselves continuously and constantly communicated during the decades, until recently, the thesis that the United States and the Soviet Union engage in an ideological, political, economical, scientific, and cultural competition which was often presented as zero sum conflict, indicating that only one system will survive the competition.
In this framework it is not surprising that Americans perceived the U.S.A.-U.S.S.R. conflict as struggle between good and evil, moral and immoral - as a defense against an attempt to dominate them.1 These beliefs fed the feelings of threat which penetrated and spread out in all the sectors of the American society (Smith, 1983).
On the basis of these perceptions, delegitimization evolved - and so, on the one hand, it served as explanation to the existing threat and, on the other hand, it strengthened the perception of threat. President Reagan expressed the delegitimizing beliefs in a direct way on March 8, 1983 - saying "They are the focus of evil in the modern world.[It is a mistake] to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong, good and evil."
The delegitimizing labels have been directed especially towards the Soviet communists, but often the reference was made to Russians, or Soviets, in general. The label, a "communist" has become itself a delegitimizing label in United States, since it implied that the person tries to overturn the acceptable norms and values of the American society. In addition, the Russians were delegitimized with labels describing them as brutal, primitive, aggressive, sadistic, cold-blooded, ruthless, cruel, and devious. The Soviet Union was delegitimized as oppressive, trouble maker, without respect for human life or human rights, totalitarian, militaristic, deceptive, adventuresses, and offensive - striving for dominance in all parts of world with the commitment to destroy capitalism and the democratic political institutions (Bialer, 1985; Bronfenbrenner, 1961; Cohen, 1986; Dallin, 1973; English & Halpern, 1987; Frei, 1986; Stein, 1985; White, 1985; Ugolnik, 1983).
Although serious conflicts involving far-reaching incompatibility usually end with direct violent confrontation or war, this is not a necessary phase. In spite of the described conflict between the Americans and Soviets, the two superpowers have not yet engaged in a direct warfare between them. Nevertheless, violent confrontation is more prevalent outcome of a serious conflict which leads to delegitimization through a perception of high threat (see Figure 1). In serious conflict situation, violent confrontation (harm) erupts when as a result of perceived high threat and delegitimization the ingroup tries to avert the danger by preventive actions or the outgroup attempts to realize the goals and the ingroup actively opposes these acts.