COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY

What Is Community Psychology?

A BRIEF NOTES BY Dr.B.Ravi Babu

Community psychology represents a new way of thinking about people

behavior and well-being in the context of all the community environments
and social systems in which they live their lives.

Although community psychology shares its historical roots with clinical

psychology, it is very different from the traditional, one-on-one counselling model
that comes to mind when one thinks of the field of clinical psychology.
Community psychology aims to go beyond the individual, focusing instead on the
community, environment, and larger influencing factors that affect people’s daily
lives (culture, politics, economics, health-care, etc.).

The field of community psychology is devoted to advancing theory, research, and

collaborative social action (at neighbourhood, organizational, state, national, and
international levels) to promote positive well-being, increase empowerment,
advance social justice, encourage understanding of each other and of issues that
society faces, and to prevent the development of problems.

One of the most exciting aspects of community psychology is that the field is
still developing and defining itself.

First, community psychologists simultaneously emphasize both applied

service delivery to the community and theory-based research.

Second, they focus, not just on individual psychological makeup, but on

multiple levels of analysis, from individuals and groups to specific programs
to organizations and, finally, to whole communities.

Third, community psychology covers a broad range of settings and

substantive areas. A community psychologist might find herself or himself
conducting research in a mental health centre on Monday, appearing as an
expert witness in a courtroom on Tuesday, evaluating a hospital program on
Wednesday, implementing a school-based program on Thursday, and
organizing a neighbourhood association meeting on Friday. For all the above
reasons, there is a sense of vibrant urgency and uniqueness among
community psychologists—as if they are as much a part of a social
movement as of a professional or scientific discipline. The new and disparate
areas of community psychology are thus bound together by a singular
vision: that of helping the relatively powerless, in and out of
institutions, take control over their environment and their lives.
Community psychologists must, however, “wear many hats” in working
toward the creation of social systems which:

(1) Promote individual growth and prevent social and mental health
problems before they start;

(2) Provide immediate and appropriate forms of intervention when and

where they are most needed; and

(3) Enable those who have been labeled as “deviant” to live as dignified,
supported, and empowered lives as possible, preferably as contributing
members of the community.

For example, a community psychologist might

(1) Create and evaluate an array of programs and policies which help people
control the stressful aspects of community and organizational environments;

(2) assess the needs of a community and teach its members how to
recognize an incipient problem and deal with it before it becomes
intractable; or

(3) Study and implement more humane and effective ways for formerly
institutionalized populations to live productively in society’s mainstream.

Principles of Community Psychology

Community psychology is not only a professional and scientific discipline.

It is also a philosophical or value orientation that is applicable to virtually
any field or profession. The community perspective challenges traditional
modes of thought. It avoids “blaming the victim” for problems or labelling
people as “deviant” and looks at whole ecological systems, including
political, cultural, and environmental influences, as well as focusing on
institutional and organizational factors. Acknowledging that many groups
and individuals are suspicious of, or intimidated by, professionals, the
community approach encourages client/citizen participation and recognizes
the demand for local empowerment, bureaucratic decentralization, and self-
help/mutual aid. It simultaneously stresses the utility of research, not only
for theory development, but for program evaluation and policy analysis—and
the omnipresence of values (implicitly or explicitly) throughout society and
even science. An important aspect of the community orientation is its
appreciation of the authority of historical and structural contexts.
Community psychology values and celebrates cultural diversity.
Community psychology emphasizes community and personal strengths and
competency, as opposed to weaknesses and pathology.

Some of the viewpoints or theories in the community perspective have been

more thoroughly elaborated than others. One important area of theory and
research is the human stress process, its environmental causes (and how
they can be prevented), how individuals and groups vary in how they cope
with it (including the use of family, friends, and others for social support),
and what kinds of negative, and even positive, outcomes can occur.

Community psychology also emphasizes ecological thinking, which leads us

beyond trying to change individuals to consider ways to improve the fit, or
interaction, between persons and environments, which can have as
important an effect on behaviour and well-being as each factor has
separately. The ecological viewpoint requires “a concern with the
relationships of individuals to each other as a community; as a
differentiated social grouping with elaborate systems of formal and informal
relationships”. The community perspective includes a “focus on broader
ecological levels than the level of the exclusive treatment of the individual”.

To make human service organizations more effective and more humane,

community-oriented psychologists are interested in creating new settings
and services consistent with the ecological perspective. That perspective,
and the actions that flow from it, differ from the medical model in which
the person in need defines his or her own problem and then seeks out help
from a professional helper, most often on a fee-for-service basis. The
medical model is useful for many people and for many problems.
However, the medical model with its emphasis on highly trained
professionals is unable to provide for all in need. Moreover certain forms
of care may contribute to the perpetuation of problems because of the way
problems are defined in the medical model as residing exclusively within
the boundaries of an individual.

In the ecological perspective, human behavior is viewed in terms of the

person’s adaptation to resources and circumstances. From this perspective,
one may correct unsuccessful adaptations by altering the availability of
resources. Thus new services may be created, or existing strengths in
social networks may be discovered and conditions changed to enhance the
use of resources.

A good example is the way legal and cultural barriers to resources were
eliminated as a result of antidiscrimination and voting rights legislation
starting in the 1950s. The increased number of African Americans in
professional, managerial, and technical occupations, the increase in
income among middle- and upper-class African Americans, and the
increased number of African American students in colleges and
professional schools can be attributed to the civil rights movement. The
increasing number of young, unemployed African American males, the
correlated increase in single-mother families, and the concentration of
social problems such as crime in certain urban areas can be attributed at
least in part to a changing job market and the loss of access to jobs, a
critical resource for favourable adaptation. From this perspective, solutions
to problems in living do not require more professional therapists; instead
community psychologists try to work through a variety of institutions and
with people who may not have advanced training in the mental health
professions to improve and develop resources.

The ecological perspective encourages a search for resources instead of a

search for psychopathology. It encourages us to view others as having
strengths that may be put to good use in the service of their own
development if resources are available. It may not be necessary to undo
psychopathology first.

Community psychologists have also rallied around the theme of

prevention. The concept of prevention comes from the field of public
health. Public health professionals argue that the greatest advances result
from preventing diseases instead of treating them after they occur. Deadly
scourges have been all but wiped out by inoculations and modern sanitary
methods. Our increased average length of life, and our better health
throughout a longer fraction of that life span, are both more attributable to
preventive than to therapeutic measures.

The public health model leads us to seek out the causes of pathology and
to act to prevent them by either modifying environmental conditions or
strengthening the person. It is not clear that the public health model can be
adopted wholly when we deal with social and mental health problems.
However, it does provide a set of goals and a way of thinking that direct
our attention to issues other than individual psychopathology and its
treatment.

The concept of prevention offers different times and places for

intervention. It asks us to think about whether it might be possible to take
action before the undesirable behaviour actually appears, or in the
alternative, learn to position assistance—resources—so that problem
resolution can occur very early in the history of a problem. As clinicians
we are generally called in after an intolerable situation has developed for
an individual or a family. In the preventive perspective, we are encouraged
to think systematically about the beginnings of the process that results in a
person defining him or her, or being defined by others, as a “case.”

Preventive approaches also require us to function in new organizational

settings. Historically, the setting for mental health professionals was the
clinic, the hospital, or the private practice office. In preventive work using
the community perspective, it becomes necessary to leave familiar settings
and learn to live, work, and adapt in environments that are at best
unfamiliar or uncongenial, and at worst may be actively hostile to
strangers and to change efforts, no matter how benignly intended. It is
necessary to work with and through schools, welfare departments,
recreation facilities, the mass media, the legislative and the political
process, and people representing many varied interests and values.

SOCIAL ISSUES

SOCIAL INTEGRATION

Constant changes in contemporary societies challenge their members to be

ready to adjust. Social actors are in constant search for new strategies of
integration and often have to concentrate all their skills in order to take
advantages of available opportunities.

On the theoretic level, social integration indicates principles by which

individuals (actors, agents, or subjects) are bound to each other in the social
space and it refers to relations among the actors, i.e. how the actors (agents)
accept social rules. Integration of a social system means the reciprocal
interaction of segments of a certain social structure

Integration covers conceptions of conflict as well as order, so the same

concept could be applied to forms of stability of social relations and
compensation of balance among different social units and groups. In the
broadest sense, the term integration is used to define developments that
determine connections of related diverse elements into the social whole,
system, community, or other unit. The concept of integration is a
fundamental one in functionalist theories, and it de- fines a mode of
relations of the units of a system by virtue of which, on one hand, they act
to avoid disrupting the system, and, on the other hand, they co-operate to
promote its functioning as a unit.

Social integration is one of a constellation of “social” terms that is being

used widely in contemporary policy development to describe concepts
whose aim is to foster societies that are stable, safe, just and tolerant, and
respect diversity, equality of opportunity and participation of all people.
Other terms that often invoked in support of this goal are“socialinclusion”,
“social cohesion” and “social capital”.

The definition utilized in the Copenhagen Declaration on Social

Development bears some resemblance to the conceptualizations described
above:

... the process of fostering societies that are stable, safe and just and that
are based on the promotion and protection of all human rights, as well as
on non-discrimination, tolerance, respect for diversity, equality of oppor
tunity, solidarity, security and participation of all people, including
disadvantaged and vulnerable groups and persons.

Moreover, identities, attitudes, behaviour, and participation in the social

sphere of ethnic groups are influenced not only by the matters that take
place within the boundaries of ethnic groups or in relation to other
groups, but by the processes that take place in the broader society.

What matters is how ethnicity will be treated in the future, how it will
affect social mobility and participation in majority society. On the other
hand, social integration is related to an individual’s position in the social
topography and an individual’s capabilities and opportunities to apply
those capabilities.

Also, it is very important to consider the status or position in the social

topography that an individual ascribes to her/ himself, how s/he
perceives her/himself in the social context. In addition, an important
matter is what could be defined as an individual’s “visibility” in the social
topography, i.e. the symbolic significance of the position held.
Hypothetically, less educated, less organised, and less mobilised
individuals and their groups are less visible.

Social participation, social exclusion, and social capital are presented in

the context of social integration.

Social participation

The outcome of the successful adaptation and integration of the majority

of the population of different ethnic groups is social participation in
full. A multidimensional concept of social participation is used here in
the broadest sense and covers a lot of issues, e.g. ethnically indivisible
civic and political participation; involvement in the economic, political,
and cultural life of society; representation at different levels of
governance, participation in groups of fellow citizens; etc. Such a
conception of social participation enables maintaining that it ensures
stability and irreversibility of integration (of course at different levels of
intensity and activity). Also, since participation is considered a process
and a flexible concept, it can mean various things under different
circumstances for different individuals, groups, or institutions.

Social participation could be described as one of the dimensions of social

integration, i.e. participation in the construction and reconstruction of
social reality or in the production and reproduction of social life.

Another dimension could be based on exercising and having a sense of

belonging and satisfaction. When participating in social life, individuals
get involved in social relations that comprise grounds for successful
strategies and satisfaction (for example, being a teacher is not just giving
lectures and participating in daily activities in educational centres, but
also participating in the reproduction of society through transferring
human capital. It also means accepting the very basis of the educational
system.

This acceptance of the system is not, however, based on the belief in pre-
existing ‘rules’ or ‘truths’; it depends on a process of incorporation of
characteristics that determines how one acts, thinks, understands, and
evaluates one’s own and others’ actions.

Participation in social life encompasses abilities and opportunities to

recognise social reality and at the same time to be recognised by
members of other community groups.

Relations between an individual and social reality develop through the

individual’s skills and competencies that enable acting according to
structural rules of social reality.

In general, participation is qualified and rated depending on membership

and activity in social bodies or organisations. When considering political
or civic participation in particular, ways of conventional (e.g., voting,
petition writing, participation in meetings) and non-conventional (e.g.,
protests, pickets) participation are distinguished. If the tendencies of
participation between the majority and minority groups are similar, to a
certain extent they could be treated as an index of integration.
Generally speaking, more or less active participation in social life can
take different shapes and natures and is one of the most important
factors of social integration. On the other hand, insufficient participation
by the members of ethnic groups in different levels of the social sphere
may be one of the factors forming ethnic cleavages or social exclusion.

Social exclusion

The concept social exclusion has recently taken root in sociology. It

indicates marginalisation in the broadest sense of the term, i.e. it covers
the outcomes and results of processes that determine and define certain
groups as being not a constituent part of “normal” society.

Different authors present different definitions of social exclusion, but on

the whole it is agreed that this phenomenon is related to the scarcity of
material and social opportunities and the lack of skills to participate in
economic, social, political, and cultural life in an effective way and is
related to alienation or estrangement from the main part of society.

On the other hand, the term also covers the denial and non-realisation
of the civic, political, and social rights of citizenship, i.e. it can be treated
as an expression of the unequal distribution of various rights. In this way
social exclusion is a universal category that includes economic, political,
cultural, religious, and social aspects and discusses multidimensional
mechanisms that exclude individuals or groups from participation in
social exchanges and rights for social integration.

Once again, exclusion prompts several kinds of reactions. The first one
is of powerlessness and alienation in which the individual internalises
the failure and descends into apathy because she/he feels that it has
been pre-ordained by fate.

The second, on the contrary, leads to what is often delinquent behaviour

aimed at overturning the barriers to participation and integration.

On the other hand, an individual has certain resources that can be

applied to overcome social exclusion. At the centre of these resources is
“relational” capital or integration into social relations. The different
spheres in which an individual participates or to which she/he belongs
could be ranked according to the level of their integration or inclusion of
other individuals in separate or common spheres of interests and to the
level of their exclusion. Thus, social exclusion, as an opposition to
inclusion, could be analysed as an outcome of disintegration or as an
alternative to integration.
Social capital
The concept of social capital has become one of the most popular in
sociological discourse of late years and lots of literature on this topic
have appeared.

The empirical aspect is rather problematic: how social capital should be

measured, what measures or indicators should be used, etc.
Summarising the works of different authors, it is possible to state that
social capital is usually discussed as being present or absent. It is
obvious that it is quite complicated to distinguish certain levels of this
phenomenon.

Generally speaking, social capital is an outcome of participation in the

social context. It could be defined by horizontal interrelations of social
agents (both individuals and groups) based on trust, communication, and
activities that comprise the grounds for material or symbolic exchanges
or deals, as well as for different associations. The perspective of social
capital is relevant to discussing the social empowerment of individuals or
social groups and defining the level of individuals’ participation in the
social sphere. On the other hand, social capital indicates characteristics
of a social organisation in the broadest sense: relations, principles,
norms, social trust, and structures increasing the effectiveness of social
agents and inducing mutual communication and co-operation.

The functional perspective of social capital is also related to the problems

of social integration discussed above. There are three main functions of
social capital: social control (based on closed relations, mutual
obligations), support (usually attributed to the roles of family), and
social network. The third function of social capital is usually used in the
field of social stratification. In this sense the concept of social capital is
explained as the possibilities or skills to find a job, issues of social
mobility, and the success of different social (and economic) transactions.
Social capital places an emphasis on the significance of the
infrastructure, the importance of the systems of education, health,
transport, and communication in the context of the processes of social
integration.

CASTE, CLASS, RELIGION AND LANGUAGE CONFLICTS

In the academic world, in the field of international and even intra- national
conflicts, we operate with a definition that includes, invariably, the existence
of two or more parts that want, at the same time, an element of power—
authority, resources, or prestige/status, that have the resources and are
willing to spend them and even decide to spend them with a view to obtain
the element that they want.

The definition captures, simultaneously, the three fundamental elements of

power: authority — political power, resources — economic power and
symbolic power — prestige, recognized status (power issues note).
Obviously, there are variations that emphasize more on interests — political,
economic, status — or on authority (instead of power) — political, economic
or symbolic, but the essence and substance of the three dimensions are
found or re- produced in any formula.

Ethnic conflict is said to be ‘everywhere on the rise‘. Criteria of ethnics

are specified according to Anthony D. Smith’s definition, which is composed
by six components. Ethnic group is a named population sharing common
myths about its origins, historical memories, and cultural features and
is associated with a certain territory and has a sense of solidarity.

Ethnic appeals may lead to violent escalation only if a group fears that its
existence threatened. What matters is the ability to evoke vertical escalation
“our group is in danger”. The next condition, which has to be present in
order for ethnic conflict to occur, is political opportunity. This consist of
two elements, first, there must be sufficient political space (weakening or
state breakdown, or support from external power) and secondly, a territorial
base (for successful mobilization, ethnic groups are either territorially
concentrated in some region or they have a territorial base in neighbouring
country).

Each society is endowed with a set of wealth-creating assets, such as land

and mineral resources, or wealth-redistributing assets, such as control of
the state. There is therefore an incentive for a subset of agents to form a
group to wrest control of these assets from the rest of the population, so as
to share the “pie” among fewer claimants. Once a group has won control
over the country’s riches, however, it faces the task of enforcing the
exclusion of non-members. Agents not belonging to the winning group will
attempt to infiltrate it, so as to participate in the distribution of the spoils.

Ethnic discrimination, exploitation, and conflict are frequently in the news,

and pervasive throughout history. In many countries ethnic groups are or
have been visiting violence on each other, sometimes on a horrific scale.

CASTE
Rise of low castes, religious identities, linguistic groups and ethnic conflicts
have contributed to the significance of identity politics. Craig Calhoun aptly
describes the situation when he argues that it is in the modern times we
encounter intensified efforts at consolidating individual and categorical
identities and reinforce self-sameness. This is primarily a modern
phenomenon because some scholars feel that emphasis on identity based on
a central organising principle of ethnicity, religion, language, gender, sexual
preferences, or caste positions, etc, are a sort of “compelling remedy for
anonymity” in an otherwise impersonal modern world. It is thus said to be a
“pattern of belonging, a search for comfort, an approach to community.”

"Caste" is the term used to describe the complex system of social divisions
that pervades life in India. Caste is an ancient hereditary system that
developed alongside and became intertwined with Hinduism. Caste
determines whom a person can marry, specifies what kind of work he can
do, and even controls what he can eat or touch.

Since the great majority of Indians are Hindu, the caste system has played
an enormous role in the history of India, and it continues to exert
tremendous influence on modern Indian culture and politics.

Where does this system come from?

The most widely accepted theory is that the four basic divisions of the
Hindu caste system—the varna—developed in the period 1500-1000 B.C.

The earliest known mention of caste is found in the Aryan’s Vedic hymns,
perhaps dating from about 1000 B.C.E. In a famous passage, the metaphor
of the human body was used to describe Indian society.

The brahman, or priestly, caste represents society's head;

the kshatriya, or warrior, caste are its arms;

the vaishya caste—traders and landowners—are the legs;

and the sudra caste—the servants of the other three—are the feet.

This metaphor stresses the idea of hierarchy as well as that of

interdependence.

Caste and Dharma

In Hindu religious texts, the dharma—the law, or duty—of each varna is
described. It was thought that this dharma was an inherited, or inborn,
quality. Consequently, people thought that if intermarriages took place,
there would be much confusion as to the dharma of the next generation of
children. As a result of such concerns, marriage between different castes
was strictly prohibited. The practice of marrying only a person of "one's own
kind" is called endogamy and is still a central rule in many Hindu
communities.

Untouchables

Inevitably, there were certain people who failed to live up to their caste
dharma. Such people and their children were considered outcasts from
Hindu society. They had to live apart from other castes and were given the
jobs that no one else wanted to perform. Because of their contact with
things considered unclean or polluted, the outcasts were believed to be
deeply tainted. They came to be thought of as "untouchable" because people
believed that their touch—or even the sight of them—would compromise a
brahman’s purity. The untouchables were not admitted into Hindu temples
and instead formed religious sects of their own.

The caste system, which is based on the notions of purity and pollution,
hierarchy and difference, has despite social mobility, been oppressive
towards the Shudras and the outcastes who suffered the stigma of ritual
impurity and lived in abject poverty, illiteracy and denial of political power.
The origin of confrontational identity politics based on caste may be said to
have its origin on the issue of providing the oppressed caste groups with
state support in the form of protective discrimination. This group-identity
based on caste that has been reinforced by the emergence of political
consciousness around caste identities is institutionalised by the caste-based
political parties that profess to uphold and protect the interests of specific
identities including the castes.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, a distinguished scholar who had been born an

"untouchable," was a leading spokesman for caste. He used the term
scheduled castes when referring to this group, for he believed that the term
harijans was demeaning. The scheduled castes, he said, should withdraw
from Hinduism altogether and join another religion, such as Buddhism,
which does not recognize caste distinctions.

Why does the system persist?

Today, the caste system continues to be the main form of government in

villages throughout India. In large part, its continuity depends on two
central Hindu concepts: caste dharma and karma. In Hindu society, caste
dharma is considered to be a divine law. Many Hindus believe that this
obligation tends to enhance the spiritual development of the individual.
Because of it, each person learns from an early age to overcome selfish
desires and instead focus on group goals and ideals.

The concept of karma helps to explain differences in status that might

otherwise be considered unfair. Because one's caste membership is thought
to be a result of actions in a previous life, a person tends to accept this
status rather than complain about it. By the same token, a successful
performance of caste duty will improve one's karma and perhaps lead to
improved status in the next life.

The caste system also returns certain practical benefits to the individual.
Being a member of a jati gives each person a sense of identity and of
belonging to a well-defined group within society. The members of a jati have
much in common. They share a job specialty and abide by the same rules
concerning diet and religion. Because of the rules of endogamy, each jati is
also an extended family, for most members are related by blood.

CLASS

The Communist Manifesto asserts in its famous opening lines:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master
and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant
opposition to one another...

RELIGION

Violence and discrimination against religious groups by governments and

rival faiths have reached new highs in all regions of the world. Social
hostility such as attacks on minority faiths or pressure to conform to certain
norms was strong in one-third of the 198 countries and territories surveyed
in 2012, especially in the Middle East and North Africa.

Religion and conflict is a controversial issue. In local as well as national

contexts, religion can be seen as both the cause of conflicts and an
important tool for conflict resolution

Conflict occurs when something is contested. When we couple religion with

conflict, we might expect that what is contested is ideology or morality (i.e.,
belief) But this is not necessarily the case,  and religious conflict is best
described as a more complex phenomenon that engages a
combination of contested domains, including power, personality, space
or place, and group identity.
These contested domains should not be confused with enabling factors or
conditions, which, as mentioned above, can be political, social, economic,
cultural and psychological. When both of these aspects are taken into
consideration, we should be open to the possibility that, as a religion
develops over time and/or as different ena bling conditions come into
play, different contested domains are accorded priority.

A distinction should also be drawn between the root cause/s of the

religious conflict (what is contested) and the way in which the
conflict is discursively or narratively framed. That is, what a conflict is
said to be about may differ significantly from what is actually being
contested. We should be similarly open to the possibility that what is
contested may be reframed retrospectively, just as it is also possible
that what is not a conflict becomes viewed or framed as a conflict in
hindsight and vice versa

Our primary definition –that religious conflict is a complex

phenomenon that engages a combination of contested domains
(ideology/morality, power, personality, space/place, and group
identity), in turn enabled by a range of other conditions (political,
social, economic, cultural and psychological) – gains further clarity when
we turn to consider what religious conflict is not.

The role of religion in international relations and its relationship with

conflict and with peace building is increasingly acknowledged but remains
disputed. Secular resistance to incorporating religion in public affairs has
given way to numerous academic publications, discussion forums and
public initiatives.

It is helpful to understanding religion as responsive to historic, cultural and

geographical contexts, rather than a fixed concept. Broadly speaking,
religion is the sum of variables including: the presence of beliefs in the
existence of a supra natural entity or God(s); sacred scriptures; divine
norms and moral guidance based on scriptures and/or from the exemplary
life of a prophetic figure; symbols; rituals bringing together individuals as a
community (often under the guidance of a leader); and various sets of
practices displaying adherence to these norms and beliefs. A particularly
powerful feature of religion appears to be its ability to generate strong
worldviews, which urge individuals to translate their values and beliefs in
their daily lives.

In India, Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism are

some of the major religions practised by the people. Numerically the Hindus
are considered to be the majority, which inspires many Hindu loyalist
groups to claim that India is a Hindu State. These claims generate
homogenising myths about India and its history. These claims are countered
by other religious groups who foresee the possibility of losing autonomy of
practise of their religious and cultural life under such homogenising claims.
This initiates contestations that have often resulted in communal riots. The
generally accepted myths that process the identity divide on religious lines
centre on the ‘appeasement theory’, ‘forcible religious conversions’, general
‘anti-Hindu’ and thus ‘anti-India’ attitude of the minority religious groups,
the ‘hegemonic aspirations’ of majority groups and ‘denial of a socio-cultural
space’ to minority groups.

Identity schemes based on religion have become a major source of conflict

not only in the international context but since the early 1990s it has also
become a challenge for Indian democracy and secularism. However, like all
identity schemes the forging of a religious community glosses over internal
differences within a particular religion to generate the “we are all of the
same kind” emotion. Thus differences of caste groups within a homogenous
Hindu identity, linguistic and sectional differences within Islam are shelved
to create a homogenous unified religious identity.

LANGUAGE

A systematic way of analyzing the uses of language for social science

analysis is presented. Language can be used to get people to do things, to
get people to say or believe things, or to stay in relationships with people.
Within these rough categories, many strategies for influencing through
words are given and the ways those strategies can be challenged or
prevented. These are then applied to conflict situations and examples given.

Identity claims based on the perception of a collectivity bound together by

language may be said to have its origin in the pre-independence politics of
the Congress that had promised reorganisation of states in the post-
independent period on linguistic basis.

The linguistic divisions have been complicated by the lack of a uniform

language policy for the entire country. Since in each state the dominant
regional language is often used as the medium of instruction and social
communication, the consequent affinity and allegiance that develops
towards one’s own language gets expressed even outside one’s state of
origin. For instance the formation of linguistic cultural and social groups
outside one’s state of origin helps to consolidate the unity and sense of
community in a separate linguistic society. Thus language becomes an
important premise on which group identities are organised and establishes
the conditions for defining the ‘in-group’ and ‘out-group’

PSYCHOLOGICAL STRATEGIES FOR HANDLING THE CONFLICT

Conflict is an inseparable part of people’s life. It is a perpetual gift of life,
although varying views of it may be held. Some may view conflict as a
negative situation which must be avoided at any cost. Others may see it as a
phenomenon which necessitates management. Still, others may consider
conflict as an exciting opportunity for personal growth and so try to use it to
their best advantage. Wherever one may fall on this continuum of view
points concerning conflict, seldom would one expect to be in a continual
state of conflict as the basis for employment

Conflict is a normal, and even healthy, part of relationships. After all, two
people can’t be expected to agree on everything at all times. Since
relationship conflicts are inevitable, learning to deal with them in a healthy
way is crucial. When conflict is mismanaged, it can harm the relationship.
But when handled in a respectful and positive way, conflict provides an
opportunity for growth, ultimately strengthening the bond between two
people.

Conflict arises from differences. It occurs whenever people disagree over

their values, motivations, perceptions, ideas, or desires. Sometimes these
differences look trivial, but when a conflict triggers strong feelings, a deep
personal and relational need is at the core of the problem—a need to feel
safe and secure, a need to feel respected and valued, or a need for greater
closeness and intimacy.

Conflict triggers strong emotions and can lead to hurt feelings,

disappointment, and discomfort. When handled in an unhealthy manner, it
can cause irreparable rifts, resentments, and break ups. But when conflict
is resolved in a healthy way, it increases our understanding of one another,
builds trust, and strengthens our relationship bonds.

1. Conflict includes opposing interests between individuals or groups in

a zero-sum situation;

2. Such opposed interests must be recognized for conflict to exist;

3. Conflict involves beliefs, by each side, that the other will thwart (or has
already thwarted) its interests;

4. Conflict is a process; it develops out of existing relationships between

individuals or groups and reflects their past interactions and the contexts in
which these took place; and

5. Actions by one or both sides do, in fact, produce thwarting of others’ goals
.

Six essential skills for managing conflict effectively

1. Create and maintain a bond, even with your ‘adversary’

The key to defusing conflict is to form a bond, or to re-bond, with the other
party. We do not have to like someone to form a bond with him or her. We
only need a common goal. Treat the person as a friend, not an enemy, and
base the relationship on mutual respect, positive regard and co-operation.
Leaders must learn to separate the person from the problem, genuinely want
to help the other party and avoid negative responses to attacks or intense
emotions.

2. Establish a dialogue and negotiate

At all times it’s important to keep the conversation relevant, stay focused on
a positive outcome and remain aware of the common goal. It is imperative to
avoid being hostile or aggressive. The next stage is negotiation, in which we
add bargaining to the dialogue. Talking, dialogue and negotiation create
genuine, engaging and productive two-way transactions. We need to use
energy from the body, emotions, intellect and the spirit.

3. “Put the fish on the table”

This expression means, simply, raising a difficult issue without being

aggressive or hostile. The analogy comes from Sicily where the fishermen,
who are strongly bonded, put their bloody catch on a large table to clean it
together. They work through the messy job and are rewarded by a great fish
dinner at the end of the day. If you leave a fish under the table it starts to
rot and smell. On the other hand, once an issue is raised, we can work
through the mess of sorting it out and find a mutually beneficial outcome.

The important thing to remember is that we should not slap the other party
in the face with the fish! We should be direct, engaging and respectful,
always helping the other person to ‘save face. ’In addition, timing is
important. It would not be beneficial to raise a difficult topic just as a senior
colleague is leaving to the airport. We can decide not to put the fish on the
table as a tactic, but not because we wish to avoid the conflict. Choosing the
right time and the right circumstances are part of an effective conflict
management strategy.

4. Understand what causes conflict

To be able to create a dialogue aimed at resolving the conflict, we need to

understand the root of the disagreement. Among the common causes of
disagreement are differences over goals, interests or values. There could be
different perceptions of the problem, such as ‘It’s a quality control problem’
or ‘It’s a production problem’, and there may also be different
communication styles. Power, status, rivalry, insecurity, resistance to
change and confusion about roles can also create conflicts. Egotistical
people, for example, leaders who manipulate others to build their own
identities and self-importance often generate conflicts. It is crucial to
determine whether a conflict relates to interests or needs. Interests are more
transitory and superficial, such as land, money, or a job; needs are more
basic and not for bargaining, such as identity, security and respect. Many
conflicts appear to be about interests, when they are really about needs. The
most conflict-provoking losses have to do with needs, and those needs may
connect to the deeper wounds people have suffered in their life. Someone
passed over for promotion, for example, may seem to be upset about the loss
of extra money, when the real pain is caused by a loss of respect or loss of
identity.

5. Use the law of reciprocity

The law of reciprocity is the foundation of cooperation and collaboration.

What you give out is likely to be what you get back. Humans have a deeply
hardwired pattern of reciprocity. Researchers have recently discovered
mirror neurons in the brain, suggesting that our limbic system (emotional
brain) that establishes empathy, re-creates the experience of others’
intentions and feelings within ourselves. Mutual exchange and internal
adaptation allows two individuals to become attuned and empathetic to each
other’s inner states. Hence a powerful technique to master in any kind of
dispute is to empathize with the feelings and views of the other individual by
managing what we express – both verbally and non-verbally. This social
awareness allows you to make the right concessions at the right time. Once
you have made a concession, it is likely that the other party will respond in
kind. Moreover, when you recognize a concession has been made,
reciprocate with one of your own.

6. Build a positive relationship

Once a bond has been established, we must nurture the relationship as well
as pursue our goals. We need to balance reason and emotion, because
emotions such as fear, anger, frustration and even love may disrupt
otherwise thoughtful actions. We need to understand each other’s point of
view, regardless of whether we agree with it or not. The more effectively we
communicate our differences and our areas of agreement, the better we will
understand each other’s concerns and improve our chances of reaching a
mutually acceptable agreement. The deepest bonds are founded on what the
eminent psychologist Carl Rogers called ‘unconditional positive regard’.
We can all learn to communicate acceptance of the other person while
saying no or disagreeing with a specific point or behavior. Feeling accepted,
worthy and valued are basic psychological needs. And, as hostage
negotiation demonstrates, it is more productive to persuade than to coerce.
SOCIAL CHANGE

Social change builds community-based responses that address underlying

social problems on an individual, institutional, community, national and/or
international level. Social change can change attitudes, behaviours, laws,
policies and institutions to better reflect values of inclusion, fairness,
diversity and opportunity. Social change involves a collective action of
individuals who are closest to the social problems to develop solutions that
address social issues.

Social change is the transformation of culture and social

organisation/structure over time. In the modern world we are aware that
society is never static and that social, political, economic and cultural
changes occur constantly. There are a whole range of classic theories and
research methods available within sociology for the study of social change

There are four main characteristics of social change: -

It happens everywhere, but the rate of change varies from place to

place.

For example, the United States would experience faster change, than a third
world country that has limited access to technology and information.

Social change is sometimes intentional but often unplanned.

For example, when the airplane was invented people knew that this would
increase and speed travel. However, it was probably not realised how this
invention would affect society in the future. Families are spread through
out the country, because it is easier to return for visits. Companies are able
to expand worldwide thanks to air travel. The numerous crashes and
deaths related to airplanes was not predicted either.

Social change often generates controversy.

For example, the move over the recent years to accept homosexual rights
has caused controversy involving the military, religion, and society overall.

Some changes matter more than others do.

For example, the invention of personal computers was more important than
Cabbage Patch dolls.

STRATEGIES FOR SOCIAL CHANGE

Persuasive Strategy. Persuasive strategies tend to employ logical (logos),
emotional (pathos), or moral/ethical (ethos) appeals. The goal of such a
strategy is to shift public opinion on a social problem. Poverty may seem to
need no strong push to have public opinion view it as a social problem, but
some view the individuals who are impoverished as lazy, deserving of their
poverty, even joyous in their lack of economic safety and stability. Here, bias
and ideology tend to counteract persuasive arguments. Still, the use of
persuasion to bring about change is a regular occurrence, used by
advertisers and non-profit groups, among others.

Normative/Re-Educative Strategies alter norms and re-educate to shift

normative orientations and develop commitments to new orientations. This
would include attempts to change attitudes, behaviors, values, skills, and
significant social relationships, etc. The emphasis here is on changing
individuals through direct intervention by a change agent. Behavior
modification strategies fit within this system. If this started to sound like
brain-washing, well, that is one very extreme example of a re-educative
strategy. A normative/re-educative strategy employed to alleviate poverty
would likely be targeted towards the middle class and upper middle class
with the aim that those people “of means” see poverty as a social problem
that affects everyone, through higher learning courses, church sermons,
informational materials, news stories, op-ed pieces or any number of other
informative works.

An Empirical/Rational Strategy operates under the assumption that

people are generally rational and will pursue their self-interests once
information about these are provided to them. It involves basic research,
dissemination of information, and knowledge to potential end users. This is
very similar to a normative/re-educative strategy, but it assumes that norms
will necessarily change along with the realization that increased information
provides.

Facilitative Strategies involve providing the necessary facilities and/or

assistance for the successful implementation of desired changes.
Occupational training and job placement services for unemployed and
underemployed people would constitute a facilitative strategy that help
individuals exit poverty.

wo more general strategies for social change sit at opposite ends of the
spectrum. Legal Strategies employ legal actions, in the litigious sense, to
counter social problems. Violent Strategies are self explanatory, using
violence to bring about change.

The last way to discuss methods of planned social change would be to

discuss the implementation of Multiple Strategies. Using our poverty
example, the U.S. Government has sought to employ facilitative strategies to
help poor people find jobs, employed legal strategies preventing job
discrimination, put money (power) behind their endeavors. Still, the
Government has yet to employ all the strategies at their disposal (though
some, violence, are completely uncalled for). Something to consider would
be, what strategies could the Federal Government employ to further alleviate
poverty?

PSYCHOLOGY OF TERRORISM

Terrorism has surely existed since before the dawn of recorded history.
Human nature has not changed. However, three interlocking trends have
significantly changed the nature and degree of the threat: the globalization
of commerce, travel, and information transfer, which puts economic
disparities and ideological competition in sharp relief and facilitates
cooperative aggression by far-flung but like-minded conspirators; the ascent
of religious fundamentalism as an aggrieved competitor with the market-
economic, democratic, and secular trends of modernity; and the
privatization of weapons of mass destruction, putting the potential of macro-
terrorist acts into the hands of small groups or even individuals

There are two common elements usually found in contemporary definitions

of terrorism:

(1) that terrorism involves aggression against non-combatants and

(2) that the terrorist action in itself is not expected by its perpetrator to
accomplish a political goal but instead to influence a target audience and
change that audience’s behavior in a way that will serve the interests of the
terrorist.

The typology of terrorism is complex and controversial since actors can be

characterized across multiple variables. There are seven such variables—
causes, environment, goals, strategy, means, organization, and partici
pation—that might be specified for revolutionary versus sub revolutionary
terrorism. political sub state terrorism is divided into

(1) social revolutionary terrorism,

(2) right-wing terrorism,

(3) nationalist-separatist terrorism,

(4) Religious extremist terrorism, and

(5) single issue (e.g., animal rights) terrorism, proposing that each type
tends to be associated with its own social-psychological dynamics.
psychological inquiry into the “mind of the terrorist” reveals that terrorist
groups typically exhibit hierarchical organization, with various roles
assumed within each level of that hierarchy .

Each position on such a matrix may attract individuals with different pred-
ispositions who perhaps play their roles because of profoundly different
psychological factors. One might postulate, for example, that some leaders
are more likely to be self-imagined idealists or altruists, others are driven by
messianic delusions, others by eth-nic or religious animus, and others by
entrepreneurial ambitions—a point that seems clear when we intuit.

FIVE TRAITS

(1) violent, often alcoholic father;

(2) deeply religious mother;
(3) sexually shy, timid, and passive;
(4) younger sisters toward whom the terrorist acted protectively; and
(5) poor social achievement.

TYPICAL CHARECTERISTICS

(1) ambivalence toward authority,

(2) defective insight,

(3) adherence to convention,

(4) emotional detachment from the consequences of their actions,

(5) sexual role uncertainties,

(6) magical thinking,

(7) destructiveness,

(8) low education, and

(9) adherence to violent subculture norms and weapons fetishes.