Social identity theory underestimates how readily disadvantaged groups justify their own oppression

Evidence

NOTE 1. It is interesting to note that Tajfel & Turner (1979, 1986) originally raised the phenomenon of out-group favoritism among subordinate groups in order to criticize “realistic conflict theory” as defended by Sherif, Campbell, and others. Social identity theory was offered in order to account for negative social identity among disadvantaged groups, but mainly to propose that there are psychological pressures for these groups to improve their situation by challenging established hierarchies. The theory holds that disadvantaged individuals are highly motivated to overcome the effects of the existing social system and that they are frequently successful at it (e.g. Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986; Turner & Brown, 1978). This view may underestimate the extent to which ideological domination is possible and the degree to which members of disadvantaged groups persist in explaining and justifying the social order that creates their oppression. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2961

Categorization

• XREF: Directly resonates with ‘Things Fall Apart’ and ‘Parable of the Sower’, where oppressed characters internalize and perpetuate their own domination. — connects to: Meritocracy belief blames excluded individuals for their own exclusion — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity,…, 711; Disadvantaged groups accept stereotypes that sustain their own oppression. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 2911; The ‘be yourself’ mandate disadvantages those outside privileged attributes — W. David Marx, Status and Culture: How Our Desire for…, 287 (+2 more)
• QUESTION: Worth researching: what empirical evidence distinguishes genuine challenge-success from the theory’s optimism being a motivated belief of its own authors?