Retaining group salience optimizes contact more than eliminating categories does

Evidence

Allport himself foresaw this dilemma between eliminating categories via assimilation and retaining important group memberships, and proposed that “for those who wish to assimilate, there should be no artificial barriers placed in their way; for those who wish to maintain ethnic integrity, their efforts should be met with tolerance and appreciation” (1954/1979, p. 517). Moreover, even if avoiding group salience seems theoretically desirable, it may be perceptually impossible for certain groups, such as race, age, and gender, for which even a minimal cue to group membership is asymptotically and unambiguously high. The elimination of group membership is not only impractical and threatening (Brewer, 1991), but it also limits the impact of intergroup contact on generalization. Therefore, retaining group salience in a positive, intimate, cross-group interaction appears to be the best way to optimize intergroup contact. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1818

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the assimilation-vs-multiculturalism tension in Smith’s civic nationalism debates. — connects to: Intergroup contact most strongly and reliably predicts willingness to mix with the outgroup — Miles Hewstone and Ed Cairns and Alberto Voci and Juergen Hamberger and Ulrike Niens, Intergroup Contact, Forgiveness, and…, 43; Empowering contact boosts minority readiness to cooperate across 24 samples — Nurit Shnabel and Johannes Ullrich, Identity Needs in Intergroup Relations:…, 97