Group discrimination is driven by political control motives, not hatred

Evidence

More recently, research on gender discrimination and the notion of ‘ambivalent sexism’ points to the role of favourable attitudes towards women that can reproduce women’s subordination (Glick and Fiske, 2001 ; Rudman, 2005 ). Jackman has argued against the notion of irrational hostility by noting that processes such as ‘discrimination and violence are driven by self-interested, rational, political motives. The central motivator for dominant groups in unequal social relations is not hatred, but the desire to control’ ( 2005 , pp. 89–90). The idea underpinning this is that ‘indiscriminate hostility is too incendiary to be effective. By contrast, positive beliefs and feelings – when offered on a conditional basis – have an unrivaled potency’ (ibid., p. 90, emphasis in original). — Cristian Tileagă, The Nature of Prejudice, 141 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

I begin with a brief outline of Allport’s views on prejudice and the rejection of outgroups. I then consider research developments since the publication of his book, noting his hegemonic impact on the main trajectory of research, before outlining the gradual accumulation of theory and data that contradict his position. Following that, I outline a new framework that dethrones hostility as the catalyst for intergroup discrimination and violence. I propose instead that discrimination and violence are driven by self-interested, rational, political motives. The central motivator for dominant groups in unequal social relations is not hatred, but the desire to control. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 640 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

I propose instead that discrimination and violence are driven by self-interested, rational, political motives. The central motivator for dominant groups in unequal social relations is not hatred, but the desire to control. As they seek to lock in the social, economic, and political benefits of long-term relations of inequality, indiscriminate hostility is too incendiary to be effective. By contrast, positive beliefs and feelings – when offered on a conditional basis – have an unrivaled potency. Contrary to Allport’s model, privileged groups thus strive to maintain amicable relations with subordinates. The dominant group’s success in this endeavor is constrained by the institutional structure of their relations with subordinates. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 641 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Protection and benevolence can control minority groups more than hostility; Groups can be discriminated against without being disliked; Forms of discrimination track institutional structure, not underlying hostility (+14 more)

Broader Connections

• The desire to control, not hatred, drives dominant groups’ discrimination #corroborates (0.97) — Cristian Tileagă, The Nature of Prejudice, 141
• Intergroup discrimination and violence stem from political self-interest rather than hostility #corroborates (0.96) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 640
• Intergroup discrimination is driven by rational self-interest and control, not hatred #corroborates (0.95) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 641
• Political and organizational factors rival hatred in explaining discrimination and violence #corroborates (0.93) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 649
• Mere group membership drives discrimination independent of economic self-interest. #complicates (0.76) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2730
• Mere division into groups triggers intergroup discrimination even without conflict or self-interest #complicates (0.74)
• Intergroup discrimination emerges without any conflict of interests #complicates (0.72) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2679