c The late British psychologist Henry Tajfel and his associates made significant contributions to the understanding of group relations. Social categorization, the classification of individuals into different categories (even if arbitrary), results in the perception of similarity among members of one’s category (group) and difference from members of other categories. It leads to stereotyping people in categories other than one’s own and to discriminating against them. The desire for favorable social comparison is strong. People are motivated to positively evaluate not only themselves but also their group and to compare it favorably to other groups. Even when they are arbitrarily assigned to a group, people’s self-esteem increases when they are allowed to discriminate against outgroup members. Tajfel and others also stressed the importance of social identity, which is the tendency of individuals to perceive and define themselves in terms of broad, “superimposed” social categories.28 (com. p. 43)
I use in this book the concept of societal (or cultural or group) self-concept. I stress both its importance for individual identity and that the content or nature of societal self-concept strongly affects individual and group behavior and responses to life problems. In difficult times both individual and group self-concepts may no longer provide positive self-evaluation and guidance. They may be intensely defended, or they may become disorganized and weakened, creating an intense need for a new self-definition and a new social identity.
d Many of the factors contributing to posttraumatic stress disorder are situational. One is poor leadership. Another is uncertainty – in Vietnam, uncertainty whether the Vietnamese were friends or enemies and uncertainty about the aims and strategy of combat missions (see endnote 39). Situational factors seem most important, but personality characteristics associated with posttraumatic stress disorder have also been identified. In a prospective study, low self-esteem in ninth grade was positively related to posttraumatic stress syndrome at the ages of thirty-six to thirty-seven.41 In another study veterans who were exposed to traumatic events (e.g., in combat) but showed no later symptoms were compared with veterans who suffered from posttraumatic stress.42 Characteristics of the former group were striving for understanding, consistent attempts to make their experience meaningful, a trust in their own values and judgment, acceptance of fear, and lack of excessive violence. These men were willing to disobey the order of a superior if they felt this was essential for survival.
4 Cultural and individual characteristics
The influence of culture
A primary determinant of the response to difficult life conditions is culture and its institutions. Culture helps to determine what motives arise and whether they are fulfilled by turning against subgroups or external enemies.
Culture provides shared explanations and images of the world, shared values and goals, a shared symbolic environment. Through such institutions as the military, schools, and child rearing, it shapes individual personality. Many aspects of culture are processes that occur among individuals – such as the relative influence of peers versus adults on children.
The correspondence in values between individual and culture is most obvious in simple societies with a single set of dominant values and rules; it is less clear in pluralistic cultures. Moreover, cultural characteristics modify each other. For example, authoritarian child rearing teaches children to be submissive to authority, but also to raise their own children in an authoritarian manner. Depending on other aspects of the culture, this practice can be highly effective or lead to rebelliousness.
Different psychological tendencies predisposing humans to mistreatment of others or prosocial action are present in different cultures and social institutions to different degrees. Unproductive research approaches and excessive initial expectations have reduced interest in the notion of national character. But research has found cultural differences in many domains. For example, Milgram found that individuals conform to a group more in some cultures than in others when they are asked to compare the length of lines in an experiment.1 The relative influence of peers (as opposed to adults) on children is greater in the United States than it is in the Soviet Union.2 Abraham Maslow suggested cultural differences in “synergy,” the extent to which people fulfill themselves by contributing to the common good as opposed to competitively advancing their own interests.3 Beatrice Whiting and John Whiting’s studies show that cultural differences in child rearing are related to differences in children’s altruism and egoism.4 David McClelland demonstrated differences in achievement imagery in children’s stories in different societies and that related differences exist in actual achievement.5
Cultural characteristics that contribute to group violence can be surmised from historical and anthropological data, from art and literature, and so on. All cultures possess some of these characteristics. The likelihood of group violence is greatest if a group possesses a constellation of the most essential ones.
Aggressiveness as a persistent behavioral mode
While aggression is an outcome of cultural characteristics and life conditions, aggressiveness can become a habitual way of behaving and even a value. Some people see challenge and provocation everywhere and try to fulfill their goals by aggression.6 Others will not behave aggressively even under extreme provocation.
It is the same at the group level. For example, among the Mundurucú headhunters of Brazil aggression against other tribes was part of the culture, constantly promoted and reinforced. Potential victims were seen as nonhuman: the very word for a non-Mundurucú means enemy, and warriors spoke of the non-Mundurucú as dangerous animals. Human trophies (heads) conferred high status on a warrior. Males were trained in special skills for hunting enemy tribes. Raids on enemy villages were carefully planned and executed according to well-established patterns.7 The world was seen as hostile and fighting as necessary for survival.
Sociobiologists argue that there is a genetic disposition to respond with aggression to conditions that threaten survival. Wilson believes that Mundurucú culture itself developed in response to physical conditions that made aggression enhance group survival. “Although solid demographic proof is absent, indirect evidence suggests that numbers of the Mundurucú were (and still are, in a pacified state) limited by the shortage of high quality protein.... When these competitors (e.g., other tribes hunting for game) were decimated by
