Arbitrary out-group traits are attributed to that groups values and beliefs
People will make out-group distinctions based on very minimal and arbitrary criteria, and what helps define a particular culture? Values, beliefs, attributions, ideologies. This is all invisible until they are yoked with arbitrary markers such as dress, ornamentation, or regional accent. Consider two value-laden approaches to what to do to a cow: (A) eat it; (B) worship it. Two As or two Bs would be more peaceful when sorting out cow options than an A and B together. What might reliably mark someone who uses approach A? Maybe a Stetson and cowboy boots. And a B person? Perhaps a sari or a Nehru jacket. Those markers were initially arbitrary—nothing about the object called a sari intrinsically suggests a belief that cows are sacred because a god tends them. And there’s no inevitable link between carnivory and a Stetson’s shape—it keeps the sun out of your eyes and off your neck, useful whether you tend cows because you love steak or because Lord Krishna tended cows. Minimal group studies show our propensity for generating biased Us/Thems from arbitrary differences. What we then do is link arbitrary markers to meaningful differences in values and beliefs.
And then something happens with those arbitrary markers. Through classical conditioning, an arbitrary symbol of an in-group core value gradually takes on a life and power of its own, becoming the signified instead of the signifier. Thus, for example, the scattering of colors and patterns on cloth that constitutes a nation’s flag becomes something that people will kill and die for.
References
- Sapolsky, Robert. (2017). Behave Chapter 11. Us Versus Them (p. 444). New York, NY: Penguin Random House.
Metadata
Type:🔴 Tags: Psychology / Social Psychology / Sociology Status:☀️