Prejudiced targets cope via assimilation, resistance, or pluralism

Evidence

In such contexts, there are three basic ways in which individuals can maintain their terror management defenses. One option is to simply assimilate into the prevailing culture, accepting the status quo. But fully embracing the dominant worldview requires abandoning one’s traditional worldview and buying into a culture that has disenfranchised one’s group, possibly for generations, and which may not even accept you in the end. Another option is to strongly militate against the culture at large, refusing to accept their attitudes and customs. Yet, worldviews formed out of minority resistance tend themselves to be quite rigid and unstable (e.g., The Black Panthers, The White Knights) and usually cannot be sustained because of the dominant culture’s power over resources. A third option is pluralism, attempting to maintain aspects of one’s traditional beliefs while still participating on the larger stage of the dominant culture. — Jeff Greenberg and Spee Kosloff, Terror Management Theory, 75

Categorization

• QUESTION: The reader’s stated purpose is whether TMT work covers identities with no affirmative content, only negation. “Worldviews formed out of minority resistance tend to be quite rigid and unstable” gestures at negation-based identities, but the chapter never fully analyzes a purely oppositional identity without affirmative content.
• XREF: The three options (assimilation / militant resistance / pluralism) echo acculturation taxonomies from Berry’s cross-cultural psychology and also Nigeria’s ‘no condition is permanent’ motif in Farah’s work. — connects to: Bicultural individuals shift worldviews contextually under death threat — Jeff Greenberg and Spee Kosloff, Terror Management Theory: Implications…, 82; Prejudice targets act as strategic agents rather than passive victims — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 931; Targets of prejudice respond with active coping strategies rather than inevitable self-hatred — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 124 (+4 more)

Related

• Targets of prejudice respond with active coping strategies rather than inevitable self-hatred (similarity 0.82)
• Prejudice targets act as strategic agents rather than passive victims (similarity 0.81)
• Targets of prejudice deploy many protective strategies, not just self-hatred (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Targets of prejudice respond with active coping strategies rather than inevitable self-hatred #corroborates (0.92) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 124
• Prejudice targets act as strategic agents rather than passive victims #expands (0.90) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 931
• Targets of prejudice deploy many protective strategies, not just self-hatred #corroborates (0.90) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1043
• Prejudice targets cope either by externalizing or internalizing blame #qualifies (0.80)
• Targets of prejudice respond by either redoubling effort or disengaging self-esteem from threatened domains. #corroborates (0.80)
• Cultures approve of extra-effort coping among prejudice targets over other responses #qualifies (0.75) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 962