Five-Step Social Identity Model of the Development of Collective Hate
Came across this paper via Siddarth -


Quote:In the first part of this paper, we re-examine the historical and psychological case for ‘the banality of evil’ – the idea that people commit extreme acts of inhumanity,and more particularly genocides, in a state where they lack awareness or else control over what they are doing. Instead, we provide evidence that those who commit great wrongs knowingly choose to act as they do because they believe that what they are doing is right. In the second part of the paper, we then outline an integrative five-step social identity model that details the processes through which inhumane acts against other groups can come to be celebrated as right.The five steps are: (i) Identification, the construction of an ingroup; (ii) Exclusion,the definition of targets as external to the ingroup; (iii) Threat, the representation of these targets as endangering ingroup identity; (iv) Virtue, the championing of the ingroup as (uniquely) good; and (v) Celebration, embracing the eradication of the outgroup as necessary to the defence of virtue.

It makes some interesting points regarding Hindutva:

Quote:In the Indian context, Kaur (2003) shows how Hindutva organisations use the notion of Hindu tolerance to argue that all Indians must be tolerant and therefore Hindu. Any other position – specifically, being Muslim – undermines (Hindu) virtue and hence cannot be countenanced. Hence, Kaur refers to ‘a tolerance that breeds intolerance’.

Quote:This unfolding logic unfold can be seen clearly in the arguments of Hindu nationalist leader Pravin Togadia. We have already cited passages where he represents Muslims as both alien and dangerous to Hindus. Togadia also devotes time to representing Hindus as virtuous. He asks of his interviewer, ‘Do you know that Hinduism believes in the doctrine of Jeevastha Jivyasam meaning, “Live and let live” ’. And later, he asserts,‘Hinduism is synonymous with harmony’. In this context, ‘self-defence’ against Muslims, becomes a moral imperative. Thus, he asks, ‘If we are saving a civilization that preserves 1100 religions and 1600 dialects,defending it against a totalitarian and violent religious belief system ... is it wrong? Finally, lest anyone be unclear as to what such ‘self-defence’ might entail, Togadia draws upon a core cultural myth to drive home his point. He says, ‘(w)hen the secularists selectively condemn the Gujurat violence, it seems that without Sita haran the Lanka dahan is imagined’.The Sita haran was the abduction of the goddess Sita by the demon Ravana. Sita’s husband, the God Rama, then followed Ravana to his kingdom of Lanka and, in an act of purification, destroyed it with fire(the Lanka dahan). In other words, those who object to the slaughter of Muslims miss the point that such action is a morally justified or even necessary response to an act of violation against Hindus. The real massacre of innocents is elevated to the status of a holy rite.
gracias por el tema


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Questions of Identity: Exclusivity and Pluralism arvindiyer 2 6,684 19-Jan-2014, 12:36 PM
Last Post: rabrav
Last Post: psychsatani

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)