Intergroup harmony

This concept is based on the experiments done by Muzafer Sherif and Henri Tajfel respectively. The experiment done by Muzafer Sherif is the Robbers Cave Experiment. He demonstrated competition for resources and shared goals could shape the forming of group conflict and cooperation. He also suggested that intergroup hostility can be mitigated by introducing superordinate goals to promote cooperation.^[7] Henri Tajfel did another experiment in the "minimal group paradigm" experiments. This experiment shows that when there is no competition, intergroup bias arises by separating the members into different categories.^[8] Also, according to the Intergroup Threat Theory (2015), attitudes and behaviours towards outgroups would be influenced by the realistic or symbolic threats perceived.^[9]

Moreover, Vescio et al. (2004) suggested and verified the Crossed-Categorization Hypothesis. In this hypothesis, a conclusion is that intergroup bias would be reduced by weakening category distinctions when any categories overlap.^[10] This hypothesis provides thoughts on cultivating intergroup harmony, although there would still be bias because of the existence of in-group favouritism or prejudice.

There are multiple experts who contribute to this theory. Muzafer Sherif is one of the professionals who is famous for foundational experiments on conflict and cooperation in groups. The Robbers Cave Experiment is one of his well-known experiments that contributes to the concepts of intergroup harmony. Henri Tajfel is another expert. He is the developer of the Social Identity Theory, and he also suggested the minimal group paradigm" experiments. These two theories are essential for the study of intergroup harmony.

Theories about intergroup relations provide insight into how prejudice and conflict arise and how they can be reduced. The Social Identity Theory and Contact Theory are the basic theories to support this concept. According to the Social Identity Theory, an individual would define themselves by their social group partially. To enhance their status, they would have a higher probability of exhibiting in-group favouritism and discrimination against out-groups, which harms the harmony of the intergroup.^[11][12] However, when an identity shared beyond a single group is possible, this can reduce intergroup bias and even enhance cooperation.^[13] There might be defensive behaviours, as this theory highlights the role of subgroup identity threats, which supports greater harmony when these threats have been addressed.

The Contact Hypothesis mentions an approach to reduce prejudice and improve relationships in specific conditions is to have meaningful interactions between individuals from different intergroups. The conditions would be having an equal status among different groups and having cooperative goals, which requires the collaboration of the group.^[14][15] These conditions would be effective in diminishing prejudice. Also, having positive contact with institutional support and opportunities for personal interactions to challenge stereotypes would be a special condition for aiming the target. Based on this hypothesis, it reduces intergroup anxiety, increases empathy, and strengthens interpersonal connections. Moreover, the interactions would challenge stereotypes and promote mutual understanding, reducing intergroup tensions, which is essential for fostering intergroup harmony.^[16][17]

Intergroup harmony brings positive and negative influences. The first positive influence would be reducing prejudice and stereotypes. Various studies illustrate that prejudice declines when attitudes toward out-groups in a harmonious intergroup relationship are improved, even if the members are being threatened or discriminated against. There is a meta-analysis display of the positive impact of reducing prejudice and having intergroup contact.^[18] Reducing anxiety about interacting with members from the out-group, and having empathy and perspective-taking are the mechanisms for having this benefit. At the community level, positive intergroup interactions are common, and this would make it simpler to influence social norms and reduce stereotypes even if there is not existing any direct contact between individuals, especially in this diverse society.^[19]

Moreover, other positive impacts would be having benefits on the economic and educational levels. For the benefits in the economic category, having intergroup harmony would enhance the productivity of the team. Having intergroup harmony reduces challenges and conflict within the group and has a more equal distribution of resources. This allows the members of the team to focus more on their work rather than being concerned about striving for more resources. This also allows the members of the organisation to see greater networking, effort, and task coordination, which significantly enhances the productivity of the economy.^[20][21] And for the benefits in the educational category, this allows students to have better preparation for the globalised world. An inclusive environment reduces bias, and discrimination would be created by the academic environment. This enhanced the collaborations between students, which fostered the atmosphere within the school more harmonious. This would also be an improvement in academic outcomes and the development of cross-cultural competencies allows the student to be more competitive in the global environment.^[22][23] In conclusion, enhanced economic productivity and better educational outcomes would be seen in societies with higher intergroup harmony as discrimination decreases and more cooperation exists.

There are several pieces of evidence showing the existence of intergroup harmony. One of the examples would be happening in South Africa. In South Africa, after the apartheid era from 1948 to 1994, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission promoted restorative justice and racial understanding to address apartheid-era abuses. The commission focuses on truth-telling and amnesty, supporting social integration and democratic transition.^[24] However, critics argue that these policies do not fully address the needs of victims or systemic inequalities.^[25]

Another example would be the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. In 1998, the Good Friday Agreement was signed, and this agreement emphasised power-sharing and cross-community initiatives. This allows the citizens in Northern Ireland to have a similar status to fulfil the requirement of not having extreme differences in status. This has reduced violence and encouraged collaboration between Catholics and Protestants.^[26] However, continued segregation in education and neighbourhoods is still a challenge that harms intergroup harmony.^[27]

Moreover, in Rwanda, after the 1994 genocide, Gacaca courts were utilised for community-based justice. The courts are used for fostering accountability and reconciliation.^[28] Intergroup harmony has also been cultivated through education reforms that integrate peacebuilding and conflict resolution into school curricula.

Toronto and New York are the cities that have intergroup harmony. There are inclusive policies and cultural festivals to celebrate the diversity of the city, fostering intergroup dialogue and reducing prejudice.^[29] However, economic inequality and disparities in access to affordable housing are still the challenges hindering comprehensive social integration.^[30]

There are numerous debates towards intergroup harmony. Sustaining inequality is one of the negative arguments about intergroup harmony. Historical narratives would affect the legitimacy of social inequalities. As historical narratives can be changed, there might be an agreement within the harmonious intergroup that ignores historical contexts or changes the historical narratives. This might transfer the problem of intergroup conflict to interpersonal relations.^[31] Also if the intergroup threat perceptions forcing group-based inequality are seen as legal and acceptable, this would maintain and persist social inequalities.^[32]

However, the problem of inequality can be improved by having positive intergroup contact. Positive intergroup contact significantly enhances collective action among advantaged group members.^[33] This can reduce social dominance orientation and improve the inequality problem by taking further actions. The advantaged group members would have a higher probability to engage in collective action supporting disadvantaged groups when the advantaged group members engage in discussions about power imbalances during intergroup contact.^[34] This will also be improved when the advantaged group helps the disadvantaged groups to maintain an equal status within the intergroup.

Another negative argument would be reduced collective action motivation. Some arguments state that the motivation of marginalised groups for collective action would reduced when promoting intergroup harmony through common identity frameworks. When disadvantaged group members are encouraged to adopt a shared identity with advantaged groups, they may experience reduced group-based anger and perceive inequalities as less severe, decreasing their willingness to push for social change.^[35] Another argument would be promoting intergroup harmony would distract the members from social change goals. The goals of the advantaged groups and the disadvantaged groups might be different. They might change their goals because of intergroup harmony forcing them not to oppose the ideas.^[35]

However, the problem of collective action motivation can be improved by having a dual identity framework that enhances action. While common ingroup identity alone may reduce collective action, adopting a dual identity framework—where individuals maintain both their unique group identity and a shared overarching identity—can boost collective action. This approach allows disadvantaged groups to recognize their distinct struggles while fostering positive intergroup relations, enhancing motivation for social change.^[36]