Groupism and Societal Hypocrisy

Groupism and Societal Hypocrisy

Domination by minority populations is not a new thing nor is it confined to a single group. In the ancient Hindu books of the Veda there is a reading, now controversial, that interprets a chronicle of the historical displacement and domination by peoples from the Indus River valley region into then Dravidian India. Whether it is chronicled in the Vedas or not it does seem that an invasion actually occurred. Surely in Britain, long before there was the genocide and subjugation of the modern Irish by the England, small Germanic bands- Angles, Saxons, Jutes from the European mainland dominated and eventually committed genocide against the Celtic inhabitants of England.

Han chauvinism finds its roots in a group from the Yangtze River Valley who spread far beyond, dominating the inhabitants of the Eastern Asian continent. East Asia complains that the process has renewed itself. Arabs have been victims of colonialism’s monstrous actions, with millions of Algerians alone wiped out by French settlers who dominated the region. Today in Haiti Blacks complain that Arabs mistreat and profit from the African descended majority in sweatshops that do contracted labor for Americans and Europeans. Indian settlers from the Subcontinent in southern Africa suffered brutal backlash through the bloody handed nationalist Idi Amin. These settlers cannot escape the culpability of having caused such resentment. Indians (from the Subcontinent) took advantage of blacks in the racially tiered system the British constructed and would not relinquish their dominant grip in the post colonial setting without the African leader’s brutality. Still today Whites in South Africa and pockets of settlers through the continent control much of the continent’s resources. In Zimbabwe, the West has screamed bloody murder as the overwhelmingly Black majority has re-appropriated lands stolen in the colonial period.

Closer to home white settlers in America committed as a small minority until they practically emptied part of a continent. Each case being different but sharing the same phenomenon- of a minority who cooperates to dominate a majority and in each case there is abuse of the native and or majority populations. It is also a phenomenon that majority populations, native or not, tend to respond. Thus it is the normative behavior for the minority to use every wile and every tool at their disposal to maintain their position.

Political ethics leave a lack of clarity in dealing with groupism. So that small group domination of the majority or extra-territorial domination might be considered wrong while groupism as an expression of identity, or as a survival strategy especially for the marginalized might be considered right- all sound like valid assumptions but are seldom tested.

Today fortunately we condemn some of the excesses, at least some do, of domination- imperialism, colonialism, neocolonialism and genocide; all were once good words now considered descriptions of criminality. Europeans, who for the last 500 years have wrought the most violent- and successful- forms of groupism have been subject to every form of criticism, and generally speaking such criticism is appropriate. This process of moral reproach is part of how the excesses of groupism are held in check.

Nevertheless the processes have not stopped, for they are part of human behavior. Instead countries and peoples make all sorts of pretense. The more self imaginative a ‘developed’ nation, the more the pretense. The ‘developed’ nations are the most given to group domination within and without. In fact these ‘civilized nations’ were the first to see the advantage that might be gained in pitting a small group against a larger group for their own ends. One need only recall how the British would encourage tiered societies, where a small group would dominate a larger and the Union Jack would rest upon them all.

In the present day we have taken to the scientific analysis of such phenomenon, not suffice to settle with just our notions of superior cultures, or revert to outdated notions of superior biology as applied (or more often misapplied) Darwinism. ‘Groupism’ is now the meme but it has also been referred to as tribalism and ethnocentrism as a cousin; and groupism has as its distant kin the term ‘racism’ though that term is encumbered with baggage and layered meanings that makes it less useful in brief sociological discussion.

The distribution of power, economic spoils, living arrangements, in western societies is most singularly determined by group. This requires vast societal participation leaving virtually everyone as participants. Because so many lines have been maintained we see the persistence of group identity and groupism as the behavioral norm. It is in the politically expedient condemnation that we see the real hypocrisy of society since superficial condemnation of groupism does nothing to prevent the behavior.

Research by our current crop of scientist such as Ross Hammond of the Brookings Institute in Washington DC and Robert Axelrod of the University of Michigan point out that group behavior is biological as well as cultural and structural. Other work has been done to explain groupism’s persistence; the effect of culture on personality patterns, and the persistence of group identity and biculturalism in multicultural societies. Scientist are most likely today to contend that when fully exposed, fully understood (and addressed)- groupism is not just a good group survival strategy but under the right circumstances a healthy social phenomenon.

Societal or structural groupism in intra and inter societal contexts, is not a new or hidden topic. Dominant minority groups are a familiar phenomenon. What is culturally innovative is that the groups that dominate have found a valuable lesson. Today the dominant minority groups aim to stifle any debate about their excesses. The evolutionary lesson of the minority group is that we do not speak about their behavior or status in order that it can continue. The successful dominant minority groups do not want to be noticed as a successful group at all. Their way is to avoid the discussion of supremacy, tribe, economic control and domination. And this may be a step back in our evolution of the worst kind.

One is left to wonder why one thing can be discussed and not the other. Why we can indict one group for misdeeds, and diagnose their history, structure and methods of behavioral groupism and not another? Language, political etiquette, intellectual orthodoxy (necessarily enforced by a dominant group), and the declaration of whole topics as forbidden is not ‘political-correctness’. That is far too of an innocuous characterization. It is not liberal, for that would be the exact opposite characterization. It is a method of social domination and in the context of groupism it is an extremely potent one. It can be used to secure the structural, cultural and some say biological underpinnings of group domination from necessary and healthy challenges.

At least one answer to why we cannot vigorously examine developments in groupism is because of the groups themselves and the tools and approaches now at the disposal of groups in modern society. A notable and relatively recent approach of groupism in modern society has been to psychologically condition larger groups not to respond to the domination by smaller groups. Historically that has never been a viable option for groupist behavior, especially for smaller groups that dominated larger groups. Modern understanding of psychology and mass media have been the reason that this is now possible. The question remains however how efficacious is such an approach in the long term. Can it change historically established and deeply rooted patterns of human behavior is a question bubbling under the surface.

There is no naïveté in this issue. Instead there is social censoring for political purposes. There is also no egalitarianism, for ignoring groupism does not eliminate it, even if that is the proper approach we should take to the phenomenon. Ignoring groupism also has the added hypocrisy of an uneven approach, i.e. some forms of groupism can be discussed and others cannot; widely differing levels of concern for different groups according to societal perspective; or the reckoning of all groupism being the same in origin and nature. When such hypocrisy holds sway, groupism in its unhealthy form (and challenges to groupism in their most unhealthy form) fester into a dangerous things with dangerous consequences.