Intergroup power struggles always involve a third-party audience beyond two antagonists

Evidence

We have argued that social groups are often involved in power struggles in that they try to establish, change, or defend a power structure. We now need to make explicit an important, but often neglected, aspect of power struggles between social groups. That aspect is the societal embeddedness of intergroup power struggles and of their immediate protagonists. As a consequence, such power struggles also have repercussions for the overall power structure of the more inclusive societal context. By the same token, they are not merely bipolar conflicts between two opposing groups, but additional groups or segments of the wider society are involved as well. This calls for (at least) a triangulated or tripolar approach to power struggles. Typically, the following three parties are likely be involved: two antagonistic parties or groups, one of which may be an elite or authority, and the general public (or representatives thereof) as the third party, which each of the two antagonistic groups tries to control or otherwise enlist for its own particularistic interests. These three social entities need not be conceived of as mutually exclusive. On the contrary, each of the two antagonistic groups (e.g., a particular social movement and its countermovement) should be anxious to stress that it is an important part of the more inclusive general public or population so that its own interests appear to be compatible with, if not identical to, the “common” interest. By the same token, each group can be expected to strive for hegemony, claiming that their own position is or should be prototypical or normative for that more inclusive “in-group,” whereas the position of the other group is discredited as beyond the latitude of general acceptance (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999). — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4411

Categorization

• XREF: Tripolar structure connects to the strategic-essentialism question: identity claims are made not to oneself but to a third-party audience one tries to enlist — suggesting the strategic appeal of essentialism is inherently public/performative and answered collectively. — connects to: Intergroup power struggles are tripolar, drawing in a general public as third party; Intergroup power struggles are tripolar, not bipolar, with each antagonist courting the general public — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4411; Politicized collective identity requires power struggles reaching beyond immediate antagonists — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4395 (+1 more)
• ADDENDUM: The tripolar public-appeal logic resembles the status-signaling logic in the immodesty essay — parties claim their position as normative/prototypical against a third-party general public.

Broader Connections

• Intergroup power struggles are tripolar, drawing in a general public as third party #corroborates (0.95)
• Intergroup power struggles are tripolar, not bipolar, with each antagonist courting the general public #corroborates (0.95) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4411
• Group conflicts cannot be understood without accounting for third parties #corroborates (0.90) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4453
• Politicized collective identity requires power struggles reaching beyond immediate antagonists #expands (0.80) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4395