Abdinasir Ali Mohamed
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Clan may be defined as a social group that brings together kin groups who either have a common patrilineal ancestor or have been incorporated into the clan for other purposes. From a functional perspective, a clan group provides its members a unified social identity, social status, wide support network, a degree of ‘public liability insurance’ and a so called defence system. However, for others, clan is the source of negative stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination and social conflicts. This paper explores, from a social psychological perspective, how competition and identity lead to interclan prejudice, and conflicts. In addition, the paper invites social science scholars to open a debate on the motives of deliberate activities to stoke up interclan/state/national/religious tensions as a political means to an end.
By their nature, humans live in social groups that provide them efficient survival mechanisms. For example, cooperating social groups can produce more food products, defend their territory and resources and can provide moral and material support to their members in difficult times than fractured and divided social groups. In some cases, social groups arise out of survival needs; however, in most cases such groups emerge from historical and blood ties. For instance, Sherif [1], one of the founding fathers of social psychology, demonstrated that, when provided with a competition task, individuals who had no prior relationships instantly formed two distinct and hostile social groups, simply because only one of them could win the competition for a trophy and penknives. Therefore, if individuals who had little in common (and who did not know each other prior to the experiments) formed such powerful social groups with immediate intragroup cooperation and intergroup derogation, it is conceivable that clan members with a common patrilineal ancestor and a shared history are more likely to form distinct social groups to maximise their potential of winning competitions for scarce resources. Hence, the source of interclan prejudice and social conflicts in the current Somali context can partly be attributed to interclan competition for access to power in order to exploit scarce public resources.
However, while competition can lead to interclan prejudice, it is not the only factor. This was noted in Sherif’s experiments and by other social identity theorists [2] that knowledge of a group membership appears to trigger identification with that group as a whole. For example, observations on news articles featuring interclan conflicts of interest, indicate the level of clan identification and solidarity with the ingroup clan and the derogation of outgroups regardless of the moral positions of the opposing sides. This unconditional identification, solidarity and emotional attachment to ingroup clans is exploited by politicians. An excellent example of such exploitation may be seen in the debate on ‘changes’ of the ‘constitution’ and ‘rejection’ of federalism. My point is not so much about the politics of exploitation; rather, the social identification that derives the unconditional solidarity of the masses and the resulting interclan hysteria and tensions.
From a social psychological perspective, the tendency to view the ingroup more positively than outgroups is understandable since part of people’s self-concept is derived from their group membership. In other words, the self becomes synchronised with the ingroup clan/state. Thus, in order for people to feel good about themselves, they actively compare the ingroup clan/state to other similar outgroups in search of an optimal distinctiveness e.g. ‘we’ are generous, hardworking, law abiding, and make good leaders, but ‘they’ are barbaric, lazy, and thugs, who can neither rule, nor accept to be ruled.
In light of this categorisation, one wonders why people choose to identify with a subordinate clan/state group at the expense of the superordinate national group (Somali Government). Perhaps, the answer lies in shifting identities, clan norms and prototypicality. As mentioned earlier, the self becomes interchangeable with the group; so if the group is doing great, the self is contented. If the group is doing badly, the self becomes enraged e.g. protests, civil disobedience, and riots. Therefore, in order for people to identify with the superordinate group, it has to reflect the clan norms and prototype. Clan norm is either the central tendency (average) of the ingroup culture or the point that polarises the ingroup clan/state from outgroups. Prototypicality refers to the relative fit between the clan norms and clan/state members (particularly clan leaders). So, if the superordinate group is led by a prototypical leader of the ingroup clan, people are likely to identify with it. If it is led by a non-prototypical ingroup leader, one may or may not identify with it as the leader is viewed as violating the clan norm; however, if the superordinate group is led by an outgroup member, then it is likely to be vilified―leading to a cycle of interclan prejudice.
In the intergroup literature, it is established that when people are divided along intergroup lines, even if the groupings do not make sense to members, people still engage in intergroup bias (preferring the ingroup over the outgroup). Using minimal group paradigm experiments, Tajfel and colleagues showed that participants showed marked ingroup favouritism, even though they had no idea who they were rewarding in their ingroup or in the outgroup. Tajfel and colleagues suggested that in the absence of any meaningful information about the members (politicians) and the groups (clans/states), people tend to stick to the only piece of information they can get―in this case the clan label. However, others [3] suggested that it could well be due to the nature of human cognition to simplify complex information into small manageable categories, as is evident in the human language e.g. enemy, ally, so and so clan, and so and so nation, where each category contains thousands, if not millions, of individual members with different personal characteristics, emotions, ambitions and worldviews. This categorisation, as Brown put it [4], could be a matter of life and death if one cannot differentiate quickly enough between the lines of an enemy and an ally in a hostile environment.
Although, social psychology enhances our understanding in the why and how aspects of prejudice development and intergroup relations, so far, it has not been successful in helping us eliminate it once and for all, even in Western societies where prejudice is intensely debated and studied. Thus, the spirit to investigate interclan prejudice, particularly in the Somali society, should be a priority not only for Somali social scientists, but for other scholars as well. This is because, there is a lot to be studied in a society where interclan discrimination and prejudice is practiced in the absence of meaningful features that distinguish interclan members!
As for the Somali people, until we claim ownership of our shared superordinate national identity (national government), be prepared to make sacrifices to guide and not misguide, to save and not sabotage, inform and not disinform; and until we judge our leaders not by their clan lineage but by the contents of their beliefs and behaviours, and until we accept and internalise civic ideals, rights and responsibilities, prejudice and social conflicts will remain the hallmarks of our lives and that of our children.
Abdinasir Ali Mohamed is interested in the Social psychology of group processes
(BSc & MSc in Social Psychology, Statistics and Research Methodology)
E-mail: [email protected]
References
[1]
M. Sherif, O. Harvey, W. B.J., W. Hood and C. Sherif, Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiments., Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange, 1961.
[2]
H. Tajfel, M. Billig, R. Bundy and C. Flament, “Social categorization and intergroup behaviour,” European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 149-178, 1971.
[3]
J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher and M. S. Wetherell, Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory, Oxford: Blackwell, 1987.
[4]
R. Brown, Prejudice: Its Social Psychology, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
[5]
H. Tajfel and J. Turner, “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict,” in The social psychology of Intergroup Relations, Monterey, CA, Brooks/Cole., 1979.
[6]
H. Tajfel, C. Flament, M. Billing and Bundy.R.P., “Social Categorisation and Inter-group Behaviour,” European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 1, pp. 149-178, 1971.
[7]
S. Schwartz, “Basic human values: Their content and structure across countries,” in Valores e comportamento nas organizaç|Atoes [Values and behavior in organizations], Petrópolis,, Brazil: Vozes., 2005, p. 21–55.