ABSTRACT
The field of violent conflict studies revolves around a set of rather unnerving questions about what ordinary human beings are capable of in settings of war. Why are people prepared to die for the notion of a ‘mother country’, a nation or an ethnic group? What moves people to fight their neighbours, city members or acquaintances in the name of ethnic or religious identity? What is it that has to happen to ordinary people to make them support or even commit atrocities against people they have lived with peacefully for decades? Both from an analytical and commonsensical point of view, understanding the social psychology aspect of this problem seems crucial. In the previous chapter we looked at group formation and attachment as possible sources of violent action. We have seen instrumentalist explanations focusing on the seemingly cold blooded and calculated crafters of group violence, who are in it for gain and power. And we addressed the emotional force of group belonging as at the base of violent conflict. In this chapter we remain focused on the emotional power of group attachments, on ‘in-group love’ and ‘out-group hate’ as propelling violent conflict, but now through the lens of social identity approaches. These hold that although analyses of elite machinations, power interests and resource deprivation are undoubtedly important to understand conflict, they do not represent the whole story. What is argued for is that violent conflict is not likely to occur in the absence of an escalatory process of identity group dynamics. This chapter discusses a selection of social identity approaches that examine the connection between in-group formation and out-group hate, hostility and violence. The assumption underlying social identity approaches is that group violence is inherently related to a set of rather fundamental human needs, implying that violence between groups may result from almost inevitable social automata. This position stands in stark contrast to the earlier discussed constructivist view on group conflict as actively produced and politically constructed.
