MASTERTHESIS. San Cristobal de las Casas. Name: L. Joosten ANR: Telephone:

Transcription

1 MASTERTHESIS The applicability of Allport s contact theory for post-settlement peace-building intervention in a post-colonial context: a case study in Chiapas, Southern Mexico San Cristobal de las Casas Name: L. Joosten ANR: Telephone: L.Joosten_1@uvt.nl Master thesis Organisation of Cultural Diversity Cultural and Religious Diversity Name supervisor: Dr. A. Nugteren Second reader: Dr. S. Boroş

2 Contents 1 Abstract Introduction Problem statement Peace-building Post-settlement peace-building: two tasks Positive peace The psycho-social dimension Societal integration and social inequality: the contact theory contested Aim of the research Research questions Theoretical framework Contact hypothesis Utopianism Contextualization of the contact theory framework Levels and dimensions Framework of current research Equal status Institutional support Cooperation in mutual interdependency and common objective Friendship potential Methodology Research design Data collection Case study protocol Fieldwork, data collection and restrictions Data analysis Sample strategy Research quality indicators Results Introduction to Chiapas Social positions Religious conflicts Classical conflict Intervention by the Diocese INESIN Development and policy Sub-case 1 image: course Learning Hebrew Participants Activities Habitat

3 5.3.1 Development and policy Sub-case 2 image: Housing Construction Project in Chilol ya Participants Activities Discussion Sub-case 1: Learning Hebrew course Sub-question 5a: To what extent do the current activities meet Allport s conditions in the perception of the participants? Sub- question 5b: How do these perceptions relate to the ideological starting point/basis in the initial phase, and to the current organizations main objectives? Sub-question 6: To what extent could Allport s conditions be made relevant within the current activities in relation to the ideological basis in the initial phase, and to the current organizations main objectives? Sub-case 2: Housing construction in Chilol ya Sub-question 5a: To what extent do the current activities meet Allport s conditions in the perception of the participants? Sub- question 5b: How do these perceptions relate to the ideological starting point/basis in the initial phase, and to the current organizations main objectives? Sub-question 6: To what extent could Allport s conditions be made relevant within the current activities in relation to the ideological basis in the initial phase, and to the current organizations main objectives? Conclusion The sub-cases: local level peace-building intervention and Allport s conditions Main research question & recommendations Limitations Future research

4 Explanation of font use, boxing and colour coding Chapter 2-5: Italics: indicate important words Chapter 6: - Italics: indicate certain activities - Underlined: indicate important words (note: as of chapter 6 the indication of emphasis changes) - Bold: indicate certain perceptions of persons - Boxing: indicate the specific dimension(s) and level(s) of the analytic framework (see figure 3.1) through which the aforementioned should be interpreted: - dimension: in the text is referred to the various dimensions by means of the grey boxing: -id. = identification -acc.= acculturation -soc. pos. = social positioning -in.=institutionalization - level: in the text is referred to the various levels by means of the grey boxing: -mic. = micro -mes.= meso -mac.= macro - Colour coding: the following colours indicate the corresponding condition concerning Allport s contact theory by means of boxes or words: 1= Institutional support 1.Institutional support 2 = Equal status 2.Equal status 3 = Cooperation for common objective in mutual interdependence 3. Cooperation (for common objective in mutual interdependence) 4 = Friendship potential 4. Friendship potential 5= Other 5. Other 3

5 1 Abstract In the socially conflictive society of Chiapas, Southern Mexico, various civil organisations aimed at peacebuilding and social development intervene in order to stimulate societal integration and to contribute to social equality. The prominent contact theory of Allport (1954), in the social-psychological scientific field, presumes that if intergroup contact situations are created under the conditions of equal status, common objectives, institutional support and a common humanity the intergroup social relations would improve. However, recent research criticises the theory for its implicit utopianism, related to its Western origins. In societies where structural inequality has been present since centuries, such as in the Mexican post-colonial society of Chiapas, how could such a condition of equal status ever be experienced by different group members if social inequality is evident? Moreover, in some critiques, the issue of the contact paradox was raised: by the stimulation of positive intergroup relations structural inequality would be perpetuated, a situation that would undermine (on the part of the disadvantaged group) collective action that would adequately challenge the societal status quo. In order to formulate realistic conditions which could be applied to strategically stimulated intergroup contact situations in such societies, it is crucial to gain more insight into the ways in which Allport s conditions are perceived by different groups in local society. Furthermore, the impact of such a society s historical, ideological and socio-political characteristics in which the intergroup situation is embedded, must be understood in order to be able to adapt Allport s conditions to particular local situations. In the research presented here peace-building intervention in the post-colonial society of Chiapas forms a case study, and two civil organizations and their intergroup projects form the sub-cases. This qualitative exploratory research aims at contributing to further refinement of the contact theory and its conditions for implementation in societies where structural inequality is evident. Such adaptation could be helpful to other peace-building organisations in the creation of intergroup projects in settings of long-lasting post-colonial social inequality. Key terms: contemporary conflict, religion, post- settlement peace-building intervention, civil organizations, contact theory, societal integration, social inequality, social development, subgroup relations. 4

6 2 Introduction The First violence is the violence of the system the tremendous concentration of wealth resulting in misery,... The second violence is the repression, torture and imprisonment against people organizing against the First violence. The Third violence {that of revolutionary groups such as the EZLN, is} a results of the first and the second (Weinberg, 1994, as cited in Levine, 2003) The Catholic bishop Samuel Ruiz Garcia of San Cristobal de las Casas describes the violent attack on the city by the Zapatista movement in by which they declared the Mexican government the war-, which reflects very well the type of contemporary conflicts often mentioned in peace-building research of the last decades (Lund, 2003; Miall, Ramsbotham & Woodhouse, 1999). Developments of globalisation, climate change, scarcity of natural resources and the increasing economic inequality between the rich and the poor logically contribute to these kinds of conflicts, in which the dissatisfaction of the disadvantaged part of the population grows. Ramsbotham and Rogers (1999) discuss these issues in their review article about the evolution of peace and conflict research. Future world security problems and challenges for research are highlighted. They describe the emergence of the following three conflictive trends, referred to by Ramsbotham and Rogers (1999) as contemporary conflicts: (1) nationalist tendencies and cultural conflicts stimulated by migration, (2) environmental conflicts caused by the scarcity of land, water, global energy and mineral sources, and most importantly, (3) conflicts caused by violent eruptions of disempowered people. The Zapatista uprising, in the southern region Chiapas in Mexico in 1994, is being mentioned as an example (Ramsbotham & Rogers, 1999). Within such conflicts minority groups are under enormous pressure of aforementioned global developments, in which often political, religious and nationalist actors exploit the situation for their own interests: this is linked to underlying historically-conditions weaknesses in many post-colonial states, struggling as they are to accommodate twin pressures of globalization and fragmentation, and a prey to sectarian and factional exploitation (Ramsbotham & Rogers, 1999, p. 750). The southern state Chiapas can be characterised by the above mentioned developments and socio-political dynamics. It forms one of the poorest states of Mexico. At the same time it is one of the wealthiest in natural resources and totally dependent of the agriculture (Collier, 2005). More than 25% of its population is of Indian ethnicity (indigenous), which makes Chiapas one of Mexico s states with the highest proportion of indigenous people. This population is constituted by different ethnic groups, indicated by the language they speak; Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Chol, Tojolobal, Zoque, Kanjobal and Mame (Harvey, 1998). Moreover, the post-colonial history of Mexico conquered from 1500 onwards by Spanish Catholic intruders- has been marked by power struggles over land originally owned by the indigenous part of the population (Farfan, 2005). This disadvantaged group had to work for the Spanish, and later for a small part of the mestizo population (the mixed blood or ladino 1 ), who used the indigenous people as a cheap labour force (Collier, 2005). In the last half century Chiapas has undergone rapid developments, by which it has been made susceptible for various kinds of socio-political conflicts. Various factors like demographical growth from the 1940s onwards triplicating the population between the 50s and 90s-, and the subsequent economical pressure 1 a cultural category which refers to those who talk Castilian and who are not indigenous (Rus, 2009) 5

7 over natural resources from the 80s onwards weakened the ecological system. These factors caused severe social, cultural and economical transformations, to which the -especially vulnerable indigenous- population had to adapt. The previous ecological system and the productive structure proved insufficient for the biological and social reproduction of the population. Three different kinds of emerging violent conflicts can be distinguished (Farfan, 2005), of which two can be characterised as religious conflicts. The first occurred within indigenous communities (intra-community conflict) in which new Evangelical minority groups emerged, which formed a threat for the symbolic and normative interests of the dominant traditional Catholic majority (ruling the internal community structure). These minorities got expelled from their communities The second type is a more complex one, in which all minority religions as well as the official Catholic religion, especially its liberationist subtype, got into conflict with the traditional catholic indigenous majority groups. Moreover, in the broader society these evangelical religions stand in opposition to the Catholic (previous) dominant church as well. The third conflict can be typified as classical conflict, taking place especially in the city San Cristobal de las Casas. This conflict is mainly between the majority Catholic visitors of the church, especially mestizo families (term for ladino population in this city), and the Catholic minority popular liberationist subtype (Farfan, 2005). These conflictive dynamics both were caused by, and at the same time had as a consequence major migration streams of indigenous population, which overflowed the city San Cristobal de las Casas (from on now referred to as SCC) from the 70s. This city always had been a city inhabited mainly by mestizos, in which the dominant colonial relations with the indigenous newcomers continued to exist (Hernandez, 2009). So from these years the indigenous urban population increased extremely fast in a short time. In 2000 the city s population counted inhabitants, which meant an increase of 460% in the previous 30 years. This population number includes persons of indigenous people, half of the population (Rus, 2009). As a consequence of this rapid development, these migrants were received with a considerable hostile attitude by the traditional mestizo inhabitants of this city (Rus, 2009). Up to the present these rapidly sequencing changes and their consequences continue to feed the aforementioned three types of conflicts in the highly divided post-colonial society of Chiapas. Various civil society organisations in SCC try to contribute to the peaceful co-existence of different religious and social groups. The organizations which are central in this case study, INESIN and Habitat, find their origin in the institutional basis of the city s Catholic Diocese of former Bishop Samuel Ruiz García. He had formed a key person in this context, and mediated the Zapatista conflict in 1994 between the government and the Zapatista movement. The organizing committee of the Diocese had already started their first activities in 1992 to contribute to a peaceful societal co-existence of religious groups. The current research focuses on the peacebuilding potential of these two civil organisations projects, which form the units of analysis. The southern state of Chiapas, and especially the city of SCC, with its post-colonial society marked by intergroup conflicts and structural inequalities, forms the unit of observation. 2.1 Problem statement Peace-building The field of peace-building research has been growing since the post-world War II period, when its urgency got attention by the heightened threat of nuclear weapons. Rogers and Ramsbotham (1999) relate its development 6

8 characteristics and conceptualization to the aforementioned contemporary conflict areas, and come up with critical points which should be taken into account in the future research field. Firstly, they underline the importance of attention on main conflict causes like structural inequalities, and the necessary focus on equitable and cooperative societal relations within the context of a long term process, which characterizes the nature of conflicts. Secondly, they call for focus on nonviolent political and social change after settlements of conflicts, in which a multilevel analysis (individual, group, state, interstate) is needed. Thirdly, criticism has been expressed in the field about universalist peace-building methodology developed by international actors based on Western notions of democratic liberalism, and its appropriateness in locally, culturally and politically differing systems. Furthermore, other authors argue that attention is needed for intervention in the contexts of contemporary conflicts in developing countries systems, where the intervention at last must be perceived legitimate by its receivers (Lund, 2003; Miall et al., 1999). Moreover, Miall et al. (1999) remark that non-western perspectives are not nearly as articulated in the English-speaking literature as they should be. In sum, the most significant criticism on top-down peace-building processes highlights the need for a professional bottom-up approach, in which support for transformative indigenous capacity must be present (Lund, 2003; Miall et al., 1999; Rogers & Ramsbotham, 1999; Spencer, 1998) Post-settlement peace-building: two tasks Miall et al.(1999) responded to the aforementioned needs. They did a multiple case study with the focus on contemporary conflicts and post-settlement peace-building. A distinction is made in this peace-building stage between negative peace and positive peace (Lund, 2003; Miall et all, 1999). This is an important distinction which entails two essential tasks: negative peace referring to the absence of direct violence, and positive peace referring to the removal of cultural and structural violence (Galtung, 1990, in Miall et al., 1999) Positive peace The second task, by which a self-sustaining peace should be achieved (Miall et al., 1999), is of interest in the current research. Existing research specifies various dimensions of intervention to achieve this self sustaining peace. One dimension is the psycho-social domain, which forms a highly relevant one and inherent to the others. The areas of intervention entail reconciliation and social reconstruction (Lund, 2003; Miall et al., 1999). However, while this is a critical dimension, it has been relatively neglected in existing research. This academic neglect can be due to the fact that its importance is less visible: the causes underlying conflict in this dimension are more indirect, but highly related with the more direct causes (Miall et al.,1999). In their approach the focus lies on attitudinal change and inter-party reconciliation mainly at community and grassroots levels (Hampson, F.O. 1997, in Miall et al. 1999, p. 271) The psycho-social dimension The psycho social dimension described by Miall et al. (1999) coincides with the societal integration criteria for post settlement peace-building suggested by Lund: increased social equality and societal reconciliation and cohesion (2003, p.33). He identified weaknesses and strengths in the highly diverse and dispersed research field 7

9 in order to contribute to its consolidation. Lund (2003) discusses the ineffectiveness in the field of post settlement peace-building, and argues that to be able to identify factors which are effective, one needs to put limits to the kind of peace which is aimed for. On the basis of results criteria which have arisen from existing conflict analyses, he discusses achievements and successes of multiple-case empirical research about postconflict peace-building. He visualizes the relation between negative and positive peace as a continuum, entailing sub-criteria which should be reduced as an indication of its achievements. Lund (2003) proposes this continuum as an instrument to inform about the extent that a given intervention succeeded in the process to achieve sustainable peace. The criteria sprang out of direct to indirect causes, and range from short term pressing (security) to long term less pressing goals: from absence of actual or threatened widespread violence, accommodative political processes and economic growth prospects and reduction of poverty to functioning governments and lastly societal integration (Lund, 2003, p.27). He argues that just because peace-building would address many structural conditions which contribute to the development of a peaceful society, it would not mean that peace-building would effectively tackle any pre-existent negative factors. Therefore organizations intervening in the field should put limits to the kind of peace which is aimed for. Although he makes a critical remark about intergroup reconciliation as a criteria for societal integration, which goes beyond evidence-based peace-building requirements, he does argue in favour of this criterium. He explains that it is a criteria which reflects the structural criteria of social inequality, often a direct factor underlying conflict (Lund, 2003) Societal integration and social inequality: the contact theory contested So, to be able to tap further into the psycho-social dimension and the local level processes of attitudinal change, intergroup reconciliation and societal integration, we need to examine these concepts in more detail. In the social psychological research field a lot of research has been done about how to improve integration between groups in society. In particular about how contact may improve social relations. An immense body of research exists about the contact theory of Allport (1954). He stated that intergroup contact can diminish prejudices, foster interethnic tolerance and increase social cohesion between groups. To achieve this, Allport (1954) specified conditions which should be present in the contact situation: equal status, common objectives, institutional support and a common humanity. This theory has been critically discussed and further elaborated the last 56 years. But generally all researches followed Allport s psychological focus on the social process of intergroup contact on the micro-level, concentrating on the influence of the cognitive and affective factors of the identification dimension on perception (Pettigrew, 1998). A recent rapport from a Dutch Research Investigation Centre about the contact theory and interethnic contact (Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum [WODC], 2008) argued that since its origin, the influence of the behavioural factor on perception was mainly left out in further contact theory research. Some researchers adapted or elaborated upon the conditions, others underlined the importance of the underlying processes, but the core of the theory continued to be dominated by Allport s set of four conditions (WODC, 2008). This body of research, concentrating on the micro-level, can be put in contrast to recent social psychological research on intergroup contact, which started to emphasize the social processes on meso- and macro-level. This research of the last decades highly questioned the contact theory s applicability in societies characterized by the aforementioned type of contemporary conflicts where structural inequality is present (Dixon, Durrheim, Tredoux, Tropp, Clack, & Eaton, 2010; Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2005; Forbes, 2004, in 8

10 WODC, 2008; Pettigrew, 1998; Wright & Lubensky, 2009). A lot of criticism was expressed about the contact theory s supposedly objective conditions and its usefulness in a societal context, which is characterized by a long history of injustice, structural inequalities, and violent conflicts between groups. For example, concerning the equal status condition Pettigrew (2006) remarked: This is difficult to achieve when a struggle over power fuels the larger intergroup conflict (as cited in WODC, 2008 p.78). These kinds of societal conditions logically effect how people make sense of, and manage intergroup contact (Dixon et al. 2005). Therefore, in their meta-analysis of the contact literature Pettigrew and Tropp (2005) argued for more research on the way intergroup interaction, the contact conditions and their meaning can be interpreted differently by (minority or majority) members of the groups involved. Lubensky and Wright (2009) even argue that the contact theory on prejudice and its further development mainly sprang out from a majority perspective: if we seek to understand the role of prejudice in group inequality, or to reduce discrimination, it seems reasonable to begin by examining the negative attitudes of those with the power to discriminate (Chapter 16, in Demoulin, Leyens & Dovidio, 2009, p.293). Their study examined the underlying processes of positive intergroup contact resulting from the contact theory prejudice reduction strategies, and those proved to be crucial for collective action to challenge the societal status quo on the part of the minority group. The processes underlying a collective action orientation are visualized in the collective action model, which concentrates on the disadvantaged group in intergroup contact and inequality, and on how the minority group reacts to their subordinate social position (Wright & Lubensky, 2009). They found that both models are grounded on the same psychological mechanisms of intergroup contact, which means that positive intergroup contact can even have negative effects on minority group members. Wright and Lubensky (2009) underline the recent agreement in research that a collective action orientation requires an enemy, an out-group to be held responsible for the in-group s disadvantaged position (in Demoulin et al., 2009, p. 298). A direct relation was found between negative stereotypes of the other and the development of a politicized collective action orientation through ideological justification. Wright and Lubensky (2009) call this the paradox of intergroup contact: if contact improves intergroup relations, it could imply a reduction of recognition of the existing social injustice and inequality in society, in most cases the exact opposite of what was aimed at. Following this line of argumentation, it can be stated that the peace-building criteria of the improvement of social intergroup relations is a complex one, considering, as Lund (2003) remarked, that the social relations in society reflect the existing structural inequality. The principal question posed by this research is if positive intergroup contact can co-exist with the struggle for social equality in interventions where power is unequally distributed between various social groups. It sheds doubts on the effect of positive intergroup contact as occurring simultaneous with the maintenance of social inequality: it would enhance social inequality and make it even more structural. This recent theorizing consequently questions peace-building intervention on the local level, which often aims at improving societal relations simultaneously with the decrease of social inequality between groups in society (Lund, 2003; Miall et al., 1999). Like Wright and Lubensky (2009) argue it is likely that in the end prejudice reduction and collective action are both necessary for the building of a more just and egalitarian society (in Demoulin et al., 2009, p. 307). In this line of thought, various studies advocated a comparative framework that is able to acknowledge how and why different groups come to hold disparate understandings of what counts as equality, cooperation, 9

11 institutional support, intimacy, and even integration (Dixon et al., 2005, p. 708). Dixon et al. (2005) argue that this methodology should focus on the unexplored aspects of social relations, about which knowledge is needed. In this way the current (ideal) conditions as stated by Allport (1954) should be adapted conform the context s historical, ideological and socio-political situation, in order to be able to realize interventions which are effective in the particular contact situation and the wider meso- and macro-levels of society. 2.2 Aim of the research The current research about the peace-building potential of two civil organizations with their religious origins, can contribute to the post-settlement research field in the following ways. Firstly it intends to provide case study generated information which can bring nuances to the debate about the contested value of Allport s contact theory, and its potential for local peace-building interventions in post-colonial societies. The case study generates insights into the context of Chiapas politically weak, culturally and religiously divided, and highly racist society. Secondly, this research consists of a bottom-up approach and could contribute to the scarcity of presence of Non-Western views on peace-building activities, especially in the domain of intergroup interaction and the contact conditions, in English research literature. Thirdly, it could contribute to the consolidation of conceptual frameworks which could be used to assess peace-building activities at the local level, in order to improve achievements. 2.3 Research questions The following questions are central in this research and should answer the principal question of how Allport s contact theory and its conditions prove to be relevant or irrelevant in the local situation, or could even have negative by-effects, as voiced in interviews with culturally and religiously different group members, and how this could inform local level peace-building activities intended to improve societal intergroup relations and decrease the effects of social inequality: Research Question How does the societal context (historical, political, material/economical, social) influence the way the project s participants perceive the contact situation as created by peace-building organizations, and what consequences may this have for the implementation of Allport s theory in local level peace-building intervention? Sub-questions 1. What was the ideological (theoretical) basis and its objectives of the organizing parties linked to the Diocese- in their initial phase when they started the first project activities? (Per case) 2. What are the project s participants historical, political, material/economical and social conditions? 3a. What are the characteristics of the activities within the two types of projects? 3b. How do the activities of the two types of projects reflect the organization s main objectives? 4. What elements of the current activities reflect the ideological (theoretical) basis and its objectives of the initial phase, and what new elements or changes have been implemented? 10

12 5a. To what extent do the current activities meet Allport s conditions in the perception of the participants? 5b. How do these perceptions relate to the ideological (theoretical) basis in the initial phase, and to the current organizations main objectives? 6.To what extent could Allport s conditions be made relevant (adapted) within the current activities in relation to the initial ideological basis, and to the current organizations main objectives? 11

13 3 Theoretical framework 3.1 Contact hypothesis Racism, discrimination, avoidance and other forms of behaviour are all manifestations of people s hostile attitude towards another person or group. Allport (1954) stated that people who are negatively prejudiced towards the other, have a more fixed attitudinal structure in which this aversive attitude is present. He argued that intergroup contact under the following conditions can lead to a changed attitude; equal status, institutional support, common objectives and a common humanity. The first condition refers to equal status between groups in the contact situation. The second indicates the existence of institutional authorities which support the contact in the process of interaction and the first condition of equal status between the groups. The common objectives condition indicates that the persons involved should have a common goal, of which each should recognize the shared interest. The fourth condition implies an inclusive identity in which a common humanity is felt. Furthermore, not all types of contact lead to positive relations. Allport (1954) distinguished between various types of contact, of which casual and acquaintance contact are the most important ones according to Allport. Casual contact, in contrast to acquaintance contact, may lead to the increase of existing prejudice. He explains this by the categorization mechanism inherent to humans perception: casual contact constitutes superficial perceptions in a person, which will be elaborated upon by means of association with any knowledge or beliefs coming from previous experiences about the category, to which one thinks the person involved, or his or her group, belongs (WODC, 2008). Acquaintance contact, in contrast, entails three elements; the interaction (behavioural factor), the knowledge about each other (cognitive factor), as well as the trust and confidence with each other (an affective factor). Only the latter type of contact, in which the four conditions are present may be able to reduce prejudice. 3.2 Utopianism A large amount of researches about intergroup contact and prejudice, based on the contact hypothesis and its four conditions, criticized Allport s theory. Some researchers adapted or elaborated upon the contact theory, but Allport s conditions in some form continue to form the basis of the theoretical framework. Pettigrew (1998) started the line of research in which more attention was paid to the factors of behaviour and the time aspect. He focused on the interrelated processes operating through contact and establishing a change of attitude, and distinguishes: learning about the out-group, changing behaviour, generating effective ties and in-group reappraisal. Moreover, he began to acknowledge the limits of the theory and its conditions concerning the wider institutional societal norms by which intergroup contact situations are influenced, and in which they are embedded (Pettigrew, 1998). The conditions have always been understood on the level of the direct environment in which the actual intergroup contact develops, and would thereby determine the social and institutional environment of the inter group contact situation (WODC, 2008). In this way the effect of the wider socio political context is neglected. Dixon and Durrheim (2003) continued this line of critique. They further discussed the idealistic nature of the theory s optimal contact conditions, and argued that in this way the theory detaches itself from reality and possibly also from the history of conflict and injustice : The historical, ideological and material 12

14 inequalities of relations between groups may be increasingly neglected as attention is directed towards relations unfolding under optimal conditions (Dixon & Durrheim, 2003, p. 2).This problematic of the contact theory leads to overestimation of the extent of the contact effect, since current realities of segregation shape intergroup contact: segregation also materializes- and thereby reproduces and legitimates- an ideology for defining our relationships with them (Dixon & Durrheim, 2003, p. 20). Their recent research findings in post-colonial South Africa, however, do support the contact- prejudice relationship. They investigated interracial contact and Black South African s perception of racial discrimination in the post-conflictive context of South Africa (2010). They typify the surrounding society as highly unequal and dominated by power questions and divide and rule socio-political dynamics. But they did highlight the dangers of the efforts towards racial integration, in that they may diminish the Black s recognition of structural injustice in the society, and thus even reproduce and legitimate existing structures. However, despite its limitations, they do recognize that the contact theory is a highly promising framework within which to understand and promote social psychological change in this country (Dixon et al.,2010, p.402). 3.3 Contextualization of the contact theory framework Dixon et al. (2005) specified on the basis of recent research on intergroup contact (Conolly, 2000; Forbes 2004; Lee 2003; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2005; Scott, 2004) some lines of direction for research to go beyond the constraints of the theory, and to develop a more politically sophisticated model in these types of societies. Firstly they advocate a bottom-up approach, in which ethnography informs emic analysis. These emic analysis provide an insider lens, through which the intergroup contact situation can be investigated through the eyes of the participants. As this insider perspective is group-inherent, different involved social group perspectives can be researched. Knowledge is needed about the different social group participants own frameworks through which intergroup contact is perceived, and how contact conditions are interpreted by them. For how people make sense of and manage intergroup encounters is culturally embedded (Dixon et al. 2005). Moreover, important are insights about what implications the intergroup contact has for the attitude of the minority group members towards majority group members, and about what intergroup contact between members of disadvantaged groups with a shared history can signify for them (Dixon et al.,2010). Secondly, they underline the importance of thick descriptions of informal segregation in society, constituted by routine practices and daily boundary construction which influence intergroup contact situations. Dixon et al. (2005) argue that these strategies can provide the necessary knowledge to facilitate the applicability of the contact theory for effective interventions in the contact situation embedded in its particular historical, ideological and socio-political situation. Thirdly, they argue that the relationship between contact and prejudice on the micro-level is problematic, since individual prejudice reduction is taken as the sole index of social change (Dixon et al.,2005, p.705). Therefore, also the meaning of contact and perceptions of ideological legitimacy and systematic inequality on the meso- and macro-level need to considered. Here the contact paradox is relevant, considering the existing ideological legitimacy of systematic inequality often exercised by majority members (Dixon et al., 2005). As Jackman and Crane (1986) put it: interracial intimacy may nurture bonds of affection, yet leave intact political commitments that sustain institutional discrimination (as cited in Dixon et al., 2005). The issues of ideology, social and political organization of society inform about the institutionalization dimension on the meso- and macro-level, in which intergroup contact should be analyzed (WODC, 2008). 13

15 3.4 Levels and dimensions By emic analysis, the micro-level informs wider dimensions which should be considered when interpreting what the contact conditions for differing group members signify. Personal experiences of individuals are essential in this (Dixon et al., 2010; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006 in WODC, 2008). Attention must be paid to personal experiences with discrimination and segregation dynamics of society. Furthermore, Pettigrew and Tropp (2006, in WODC, 2008) stress the influence of impeding factors related to behaviour on intergroup contact situations. Allport did already mention that besides perception of the other on identity issues, also behaviour and skills influence attitude. But in the further theory development of the contact hypothesis, there is a lack of attention of behavioural change and its (possibly impeding) effects on positive attitude change (WODC, 2008). Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) then also coincide with Dixon et al. (2005) in their argument for the examination of the possibly varying ways majority and minority members perceive the contact situation, pointing out the relevance of acculturation dilemmas (in WODC, 2008). Within this domain Forbes (2004, in WODC, 2008) highlighted the effects of contact on acculturation issues concerning the in- or decrease of differences in cultural competency. Where Allport focused on the effect of contact on prejudices and the accompanying cognitive and affective processes, Forbes put emphasis on the influence of behaviour on perception. Forbes distinguished between intrinsic (elements of a group s cultural heritage like religion or certain perspectives linked to group identity) and extrinsic factors (language, civilities, social intercourse, norms, etc.), of which the latter are more susceptible to acculturation effects. Because intrinsic factors are closely linked with identity, these are more difficult to change (WOCD, 2008). So, in the interpretation of the contact situation for the different group members these issues of the micro-, meso- and macro-level, as well as the dimensions of institutionalization, acculturation and social positioning are essential. Factors of personal experiences, social position and skills are critical in the perception of the intergroup contact situation. As Dixon et al. (2005) note, group members social, political, historical and material conditions can provide knowledge to implement more realistic and (politically) more sophisticated conditions for intergroup contact. 3.5 Framework of current research In the current research a framework, developed through an investigation about interethnic contacts and the applicability of the contact theory (WODC, 2008), is used which implicates a qualitative, ethnographic and longitudinal method. This framework is built on a multidimensional approach and should investigate the particular case from the meso- and the macro-level as well, which both have an impact on the micro level (WODC, 2008). This framework is selected because it enables analysis of the intergroup interaction, which meet the above requirements. It facilitates the analysis of the differences in understandings by the members of the groups involved. By means of this framework the meaning of the contact conditions can be contextualized beyond the micro-level in more analytically distinctive dimensions and levels (see Appendix 1: 3.1). It is based on the idea that the central conditions stated by Allport basically are processes, of which the dynamics take place in, and interrelate between the following four dimensions: cognitive and affective identification, social status, institutionalization and acculturation. Furthermore, within these dimensions there are implicit historical, social, political, economical and material factors which should be considered in these analyses as well (Dixon et al.,2005). In the following, the various conditions will be contextualized within the framework. Throughout the 14

16 years of contact theory research up to the present, all adaptations and elaborations of the conditions stayed centred around the core of the initial four proposed by Allport (WODC, 2008). As the by Pettigrew and Tropp (1998) specified conditions suit the work contexts of the contact situations in this research, the by them proposed set of conditions and their definitions will be adopted within this framework for its operationalization. Though, the ethnographic method leaves open the framework for adaptations of the conditions, or any other emerging factors of the contact situation which deem to be important to the group members involved. Pettigrew and Tropp (1998) added upon Allport s original condition of common objectives (implicitly referring to cooperation), cooperation in mutual interdependency. Then they left out the condition of common humanity and added the condition of friendship potential, referring to the required facilitation in which people have the opportunity to get to know each other. In the following, these five conditions will be put in perspective of the framework elements, which will inform the further analysis in the current research (see Appendix 1: 3.2) Equal status The first condition of equal status refers to the position of the individual in the specific setting of the contact situation, as Pettigrew underlined the importance that: both groups expect and perceive equal status in the situation (1998, p.66). This condition seems to be positioned within the social positioning dimension (WODC, 2008). It refers to one s social status, and should be analyzed not only on the micro level of the intergroup contact situation, but also on the meso-level of the individuals wider social positioning as well as on the macrolevel. The latter impacts upon one s own experienced social position, as well as on his or her social position experienced by others, by ideological and societal processes. On the face-to-face interaction, the social status which persons ascribe to one another can directly be linked with one s labour occupation or educational level (social positioning). Macro Social positioning Institutionalization Meso Identification Acculturation Micro Figure 3.1 Framework of analysis 15

17 But simultaneously this condition should be considered on the identification dimension, since cognitive and affective factors of the contact situation influence the perception of another person, as well as one s self image (WODC, 2008). One s self image plays a role, because how a person thinks about him, or herself automatically influences his or her social status in the contact situation by its impact on the perception of others (again on the social positioning dimension). This self image is the result of the person s wider social roles in various other societal domains and his or her participation in other relational fields of his or her daily life. This analysis thus takes place on the meso-level. Moreover, personal experiences should be considered as well in this dimension. In SCC a lot of excluding and racist norms towards indigenous people existed in the past in this society. They were, for example, prohibited to walk on the streets at night (Rus, 2009). Therefore, contact experiences may imply a struggle for social acceptance from the side of a minority group member, which should be taken into account. Social status, economic status, physical aspects and language play a role in this, for example language skills can be an issue (Dixon et al., 2005). So these aspects link this condition to acculturation dilemma s as well. Finally, the macro-level in the perception of social status is relevant concerning ideological processes which are often unconsciously present (WODC, 2008). The way persons ascribe a certain social status to one another on the micro-level (derived from directly visible or clear social positions like education), gets indirectly influenced by these macro-processes (WODC, 2008). These ideological processes and the social and political organization of society in their turn, link the condition to the institutionalization dimension as well. So starting from the micro-level, the condition of equal status can be linked and contextualized further in other levels and dimensions Institutional support Pettigrew states that institutional support constitutes norms of acceptance within the intergroup contact and that under this condition intergroup contact is more readily accepted and has more positive effects (1998, p.67). It logically falls in the dimension of institutionalization. On the micro-level of the contact situation rules and norms can be present in a certain degree to support the intergroup interaction (WODC, 2008). On the macro-level the societal norms and the historical, political and economic organization of the specific society have influence on the institutional support, and on how this is perceived by the different group members within the contact situation (WOCD, 2008). Here it should be noted as well that ideological meanings, emerged on higher (meso- /macro-) levels, can play a role in the sense-making of the conditions and the contact situation. Dixon and Reichner (1997, in Dixon et al., 2005) comment about their case study of residential segregation in South Africa how a collective framework of interpretation was created by members of an advantaged group, by which they legitimated certain political, material and socio-cultural advantages in the society s organization. This shows how racism may be imminent within, and enacted through, the working models of contact that members of a community apply as they make sense of their changing relations with other (Dixon et al., 2005, p. 702). Moreover, related to the perception of institutional support which should guard the equal status condition- is the contact paradox seen from the minority perspective. This should be taken into account, since this paradox states that positive intergroup contact may have the additional effect of reproducing existing social inequality, and thus may undermine a collective action orientation (Wright & Lubensky, 2009). 16

18 3.5.3 Cooperation in mutual interdependency and common objective These two conditions will be taken together because having a common objective in a work context stimulates cooperation. Pettigrew states that the conditions in the contact situation constitute an active, goal-oriented effort (1998, p. 66), whereby an interdependent effort without competition is required (1998, p.67). These should be analyzed within all dimensions (WODC, 2008). Starting from the institutionalization dimension, a common objective should be facilitated. But on the micro-level persons or groups can hold different or more objectives related to (other) own interests, which can be in contrary to the facilitated common objective. The possibility that the common objective can be a limited good or that the resources necessary to achieve the objective are limited, which can create competition, should be taken into account as well in the analysis of its meaning for group members (WODC, 2008). On the same level, interests of persons or groups also play a significant role in the cooperation, aimed at a common objective (WODC, 2008). Advantages, or what is at stake for each, play a role in how the shared objective is perceived by those involved. People can get motivated to avoid or to get rid of impeding factors in the intergroup cooperation, like differences manifested by habits, skills or certain beliefs. This links up with the acculturation dimension: from a certain interest to cooperate together, people can get stimulated to edit or bridge cultural differences (WODC, 2008). In the current research context of cooperation between different cultural and religious groups this could be of high importance. Forbes (2004) stresses that in such situations of cooperation, persons or groups strive to pay the lowest possible price in terms of acculturation dynamics (in WODC, 2008). Unequally distributed power over groups is at stake, which destabilizes the acculturation process. Dominant groups have the most power, social capital, and politically and economically supportive institutions to achieve their interests (WODC, 2008). These dynamics -resulting from what is at stake for them- can play a role as well within the social positioning and the identification dimension, and should also be taken into account. Considering what is at stake and power within the acculturation dimension, one should also discuss the dynamic of identity threat between groups: the perception of the risk that one would lose their group identity, or that the group identity gets undermined. Forbes (2004, in Dixon et al., 2005) explains that most research of contact has overseen this issue, because the focus of research on intergroup contact mainly continued to be on the micro-level. He argued that the intergroup contact and cooperation also can have unanticipated effects on relations of the collectivity (meso-level) in the communities involved, where perceptions of group identity threat can be perceived by the desegregation. Following to Forbes (2004) this can turn out into higher forms of racism and even emergence of new forms of segregation (in Dixon et al., 2005). The perception of cooperation for common objectives also implies the aspect of reciprocity linked to mutual responsibilities on the micro-level, which should be considered in the institutional dimension (WODC, 2008). Reciprocity can be at stake in functional interdependency during the intergroup cooperation, or in terms of structural interdependency relating with the social capital of the individuals, and groups involved on the meso-level. Putnam (1993) defined social capital as both the network of (supportive) relations a person has at its disposal, and the degree to which a group or society is characterized by a repertoire of relations of mutual support (in ten Wolde, 2010). Ten Wolde (2010) argued in her research about the value of Allport s contact theory for religious institutions (and their activities which intend to stimulate social cohesion in the culturally and religiously diverse society of The Netherlands) that the conditions of Allport, all together, constitute a binding condition of reciprocity. She argued that if material and/or immaterial reciprocity is established, an 17