I would like to quibble with this.
I see Tajfel's Social Identity Theory (SIT) as being in many ways
diametrically opposed to realistic conflict theory (RCT). Tajfel, in
contrast to Sherif and those who followed, emphasized the symbolic
nature of group membership and identity. For SIT theorists, identity
comes first. Differences in identity are what lead to conflict. RCT
on the other hand predicts the opposite. To the extent that
incompatible goals (i.e., conflicts) exist between two groups, the
intergroup boundaries are strengthened. So, in SIT, intergroup
boundaries lead to conflict. In RCT, conflict leads to intergroup
boundaries.
I've exaggerated the distinction to make my point, and in practice the
whole thing leads to a vicious circle anyway. However, depending on
which theory you subscribe to, you will have very different views
about what interventions will work to reduce conflict and about what
the goal of interventions should be in the first place. The two
theories and their adherents also end up (or start out with) very
different views about the goals of interventions. SIT theory allows
for the importance of identities for individuals, while RCT doesn't
give much attention to this. The implications are very large, as seen
in the predominance in the US of intergroup interventions that
basically seek to create assimilation (and thus compatibility of
interests).
Thus, I believe that Tajfel, even though building in many ways on
Sherif's work, did not exactly expand it, but rather turned it on its
head. I could go on with this at length if others are interested, but
will stop for now (it's time to go home for dinner!).
Saludos,
Bernardo Ferdman
FROM:
-------------------------------------
Bernardo M. Ferdman, Ph.D. <csppbmf who-is-at class.org>
Associate Professor, Organizational Psychology Programs
California School of Professional Psychology
6160 Cornerstone Court East, San Diego, CA 92121, USA
Tel. 619-452-1664 x362; Fax 619-558-2279
-------------------------------------
01/17/96 17:52:27