In the New York Times article “A Social Reflex: Police and Blacks, Seeing Threat, Close Ranks” Amanda Taub discusses the “intergroup threat theory” as well as how conflicts effects group dynamics such as group cohesion and what she describes as “out-group hate” (Taub, Amanda.) Going in sync with the article, Taub talks about how threats, whether its focused on single members or the entire group as a whole, changes the behaviors of the people who identify with said group. These conflicts can range from actual violence directed towards the group to just changes to the infrastructure on the group. These threats however, can also rise “out group hate” or a prejudice towards other groups. In the article Taub uses the example of police shootings
…show more content…
Because of infrahumanization, many horrible acts can happen or are even encouraged in certain groups of the world (Taub Amanda). Since it’s easy for these errors to run rampant, atrocities like terrorists groups, genocides, and preventable killings can and do, happen. While it supports many viewpoints I list, the conflict theory paradigm might not be the best paradigm to analyze with this article, and I would argue that symbolic interactionism would be much more appropriate. While these groups are formed because of inequalities, no real or sudden revolution takes place to fix the problem; instead, hatred and ill will are propagated through generation festering to continually hinder progress between two opposing groups, which is why I believe the best view point to analyze these group interactions is better suited with symbolic …show more content…
Taub also discussed several errors in human judgment that are root causes with conflict and even violence between groups of people. Upon analyzing the article, it seemed as though people are steered more by their emotions than anything and form groups in opposition and rarely anything else, people seem to go against more for their interpretation of a concept or thing much more than logic. Due to the inherent greedy and ethnocentric nature of man, groups are quick to de humanize the other group and lead to extremists within the group and violence. Without an opponent, a group may also become perverted and twisted similar to the violence between each rival
Because of infrahumanization, many horrible acts can happen or are even encouraged in certain groups of the world (Taub Amanda). Since it’s easy for these errors to run rampant, atrocities like terrorists groups, genocides, and preventable killings can and do, happen. While it supports many viewpoints I list, the conflict theory paradigm might not be the best paradigm to analyze with this article, and I would argue that symbolic interactionism would be much more appropriate. While these groups are formed because of inequalities, no real or sudden revolution takes place to fix the problem; instead, hatred and ill will are propagated through generation festering to continually hinder progress between two opposing groups, which is why I believe the best view point to analyze these group interactions is better suited with symbolic …show more content…
Taub also discussed several errors in human judgment that are root causes with conflict and even violence between groups of people. Upon analyzing the article, it seemed as though people are steered more by their emotions than anything and form groups in opposition and rarely anything else, people seem to go against more for their interpretation of a concept or thing much more than logic. Due to the inherent greedy and ethnocentric nature of man, groups are quick to de humanize the other group and lead to extremists within the group and violence. Without an opponent, a group may also become perverted and twisted similar to the violence between each rival