The Realistic Conflict Theory

The Realistic Conflict Theory is a theory within social psychology that believes that limited resources will lead to competition and will directly result in discrimination and stereotypes. The main experiment associated with the Realistic Conflict Theory is the Robbers Cave experiment in which two groups of boys who did not know each other were formed. The experiment proceeded in three phases:
1. In-group formation
2. Friction phase
3. Integration phase
The In-group phase involved the hierarchical formation within the group as the boys became more accustomed to each other. The Friction phase was where the two groups were made to compete in a series of ways including sports. It was found that hostility between the groups occurred just a few days after the Friction Phase had begun and was becoming so intense that the phase had to be ended early for safety. The third phase was an integration phase in which the two groups participated in activities in which they needed to cooperate with each other. The result of this was a decrease in hostile behavior as the two groups bonded. The Robbers Cave experiment demonstrates not only how different groups can polarize due to competition, but also that this polarization can be reversed.
There are many examples of resources polarizing communities including a study (1979-2002) in the Netherlands that showed the changing attitudes of the Dutch towards immigrants (Coenders, 2008). The results of the study showed that attitudes towards immigrants were more negative during high periods of immigration in which unemployment was higher which demonstrate the competition that results from the scarcity of resources (in this case jobs).
This competition over resources can also be found in The Congo as the Hutus and the Tutsis continue to fight over the oil and other natural resources. This conflict has been going on for decades and is another example of the Realistic Conflict Theory.
The Realistic Conflict Theory and the Robbers Cave Experiment imply that the polarization of groups over resources can be reversed; however, this has not been seen on a large scale. This could be because there are factors other than resources that cause the polarizations and also because of the length of time that the conflict has been going on. It is much more difficult for most people to forget decades or centuries of hatred than a few days such as with the Robbers Cave Experiment. By accepting the Realistic Conflict Theory it may be possible to resolve some conflicts by causing the two groups to cooperate and hoping a bond will form between the two that will lessen hostility. However, this may not be practical with large groups of hundreds of thousands of people and may only be feasible in small groups of no more than a few dozen or hundred.


Coenders, Marcel. (2008). More than Two decades of changing ethnic attitudes in the netherlands. Journal of social issues, (2), 269.

Nationalism: From War to Sports

The Olympic Games are traditionally thought of as the pinnacle of peaceful competition between nations. International sporting events are made to bring peace and unity to an ever globalizing world, but often some of the most brutal examples of violence are found at these events.
During the 1994 FIFA World Cup, Columbian soccer player Andrés Escobar scored an own goal in a match which Colombia lost 2-1. After returning to Columbia, Escobar was confronted by a gunman and shot six times with the gunman reportedly shouting “gol” with every shot. Throughout the years, other examples of this unnecessary violence have been seen all around the globe over sporting events. What causes this senseless violence over nothing more than a simple soccer match? A simple game?
For international sporting events nationalism can often be credited as one of the main causes. WWI demonstrated the devastating potential of nationalism on a large scale. As the world becomes more and more globalized; outlet of nationalism have become scarcer to find. One of the remaining outlet; however, is sports.
The existence of nationalism has been present since nations were first formed, but has only been made prominent in the last three centuries. The main reason for this is the evolution of personal property. Michael Hechter states: “The principle benefit of group formation lies in the concentration of individually held resources. By pooling at least some of their own resources, people can provide themselves with jointly produced goods-including security” (Hechter, 2000). Because of the increase in personal property brought on by the industrial revolution, people began to have more pride in the products their country was making. This pride transferred from the items being produced to the nation itself with the help of propaganda and as a result, nationalism increased (especially in Europe and U.S.).
Nationalism is prevelant in most if not all 20th century wars and this trend has continued into the 21th century. However; more recent wars have not been fought in the traditional stronghold of nationalism (The West). Europe since the end of the cold war has been relatively peaceful and the only western power that has been heavily involved in war in the 21th century is the United States. The War on Terror; however, does not affect the lives of many of the citizens of the U.S. and many of them are against the war. During this time period, there has been an increase in fan violence. This shows the lack of nationalism that has been directed at large conflicts over the past few decades.
Even though nationalism has not been expressed in large conflicts, it has manifested itself into smaller incidents (usually at soccer matches in Europe and South America). The feelings of pride in the success of a nation cannot simply disappear. They ultimately change the way by which they are presented. a

Hechter, M. (2000). Containing nationalism. New York: Oxford Publishing Inc.

The Triumph of the Battleship Potemkin

The origin of the word propaganda is Pope Gregory XV who used the word to mean the dissemination of information. If we were to accept this definition then everything intended to reach masses of people should be labeled propaganda. However; the term propaganda now has a negative connotation due to WWI and the rise of imperialistic states in the 20th century including Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Two of the most notable pieces of propaganda to come out of these empires are the films The Battleship Potemkin (Sergei Eisenstein, 1925, Soviet Russia) and Triumph of the Will (Leni Riefenstahl, 1935, Nazi Germany). Propaganda is often defined to be “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person” and while these films are noted as some of the greatest examples of propaganda in history, are they truly necessary (Merriam-Webster)? Do they truly help Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia?
No, these films are cannot truly be called necessary because ultimately they were simply reinforcement. In 1925 Soviet Russia change from the Tsarist regime had already been occurring for years with the New Economic Policy and the masses were able to see changes in their way of life before The Battleship Potemkin was released. It is true that Lenin’s death in 1924 had caused a power struggle, however; this struggle stayed mostly within the Soviet Party and most people were not directly affected until Stalin commenced his Five Year Plans in 1927. Lenin was already actively changing the system that people were so unhappy with prior to the film’s release and The Battleship Potemkin was ultimately a reinforcement of the idea that the Bolsheviks were the heroes of Russia. The film cannot stand on its own; it was the actions of the Bolsheviks that convinced the population that change was coming so the film was not necessary and would have been pointless had the Bolshevik’s actions been ineffective.
This is also true in Nazi Germany. Prior to the release of Triumph of the Will; Hitler had already demonstrated to the German people that change was arriving by his rejection of the Treaty of Versailles. The masses were already glad of the actions that Hitler was taking and so the film was simply an attempt to reinforce the positive attitudes towards Hitler. However; this reinforcement would not pointless if people would not have already seen Hitler as a positive change. As WWII progressed and conditions became worst in Nazi Germany many people become disenchanted with Hitler and no amount of propaganda could change that attitude. This suggests that propaganda can only be used as reinforcement. It will only be effective if conditions are viewed as positive and thus propaganda cannot stand on its own.
A more modern example of this can be seen with a McDonald’s commercial. If you have had a Big Mac prior to seeing the commercial and found it disgusting the commercial would not make you want to go and buy one. However; if you loved the taste of a Big Mac and saw the commercial then you would be more likely to see the commercial and desire a Big Mac. Ultimately the commercial will only work on audiences that already favor the product while being infective towards audiences who do not. This same principle can be noted with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. If there had been no positive action by the governments in power then the films would have been completely ineffective. Thus propaganda is useless in trying to convince someone who is of the opposing view, but can be useful in reinforcing positive feelings of someone already convinced.

propaganda. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

Crime

War is killing, fighting, stealing and violating. Sound familiar? These actions occur every day in the cities we live in. What’s the difference between crime and war? Crimes involve individuals. Wars involve countries.
So, what is crime?
Crime is a civil war without government sanction. Ultimately, all large countries are always involved in a civil war within themselves with policemen and thieves playing the role of soldiers.
In the United States about 80 reported crimes are committed per 1000 people per year. You might think that you are not a part of this conflict because you are neither a thief nor policeman, but do you lock your doors at night? Do you hide your valuables from prying eyes? Do you have a security system? Fear is a large part of many people’s lives, it is constant and we have lived with it for so long that we no longer notice it. Locking our doors is automatic, it’s rarely an action we take the time to think about, but rather we just do it. Crime is the result of a multitude of factors including familiarity, opportunity and desperation.
To many people, their neighbors are strangers. There are many factors that lead to crime; however one major factor is familiarity or lack of it. Safety and comfort involves a sense of familiarity as people cannot feel comfortable living with what they do not know. It is a classic case of the fear of the unknown. Familiarity with a routine, place, or people is the only method by which to feel secure. In large societies, familiarity is often difficult to find due to the sheer number of other people living within the same vicinity. People who are comfortable with each other are more likely to help and share with each other and also more likely to feel guilty about committing a crime against people who they are familiar with. When people are unfamiliar or lack guilt, they are more likely to steal or commit a crime instead of asking for help.
As a general trend, larger and more technologically advanced nations or groups of people have higher crime rates per capita; however, this is not always the case as many undeveloped nations also have staggering crime rates (South Africa and the United States have similar crime per capita rates (nationmaster.com)).
Desperation is another cause of this civil war. People who feel that they are without any other options will often do anything to survive. This helps to explain the heightened crime rate of impoverished countries but does not explain why so many crimes are committed in a country as rich as the United States. While there is some poverty in the U.S. the vast majority of people are not in a situation desperate enough to justify a crime. The reason that there is such a high crime rate in larger countries is due to opportunity.
The theory of the Sucker’s Payoff can be used to explain this situation. The Sucker’s Payoff theorizes that if continually given the opportunity one side of a conflict will continue to take advantage of the other side. A large number of robberies are the variety where a person will break into a car to steal a phone or an ipod. By leaving a valuable device out in the open the victim is practically inviting someone to steal it and as long as people continue to leave such a golden opportunity; people will continue to take advantage of the opportunity.
In the end, true peace can only be found on a small scale ranging from an individual to small groups of people with populations no greater than a few hundred people. A small population certainly does not guarantee a peaceful society but a large one does guarantee the presence of crime. Tribal areas in Southeast Asia and Africa may be seen as fiercely aggressive, but for some tribes this aggression is directed towards external enemies with the result of having very little crime within the tribe itself. As greater and greater number of people congregate in an area it increases the likelihood that the crime rate will increase, especially violent crime.
This means that while our nation may be at peace with other nations, in the end it is never truly at peace with itself. The only thing you can do is be aware. Be aware that a war exist and be aware that as long as there is desperation and opportunity; crime will exist.

“Total crimes per capita.” Nationmaster.com. 7 September 2009.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita.