Journal of Social Issues 1990, 46(1), 65-81.
Causes and Consequences of Delegitimization: Models of Conflict and Ethnocentrism
Daniel Bar-Tal
School of Education
Tel Aviv University
Requests for reprints should be sent to Daniel Bar-Tal, School of Education, Tel-Aviv University,
Tel Aviv, ISRAEL.
Abstract
Delegitimization, defined as a categorization of groups into extreme negative social
categories which are excluded from human groups that are considered as acting within the limits of
acceptable norms and/or values, is a phenomenon which occurs in intergroup relations. The paper
analyzes causes and consequences of delegitimization, suggesting models of conflict and
ethnocentrism. Within the situation of a conflict, there are two possibilities. Sometimes, a conflict
erupts when the group perceives that the negating goal(s) of the outgroup is far-reaching and evil.
Then, the threat is especially high and the ingroup uses delegitimization to explain the conflict.
Subsequently, in order to prevent the danger, the group may harm the threatening outgroup and
later justify the harm by delegitimization. In turn, delegitimization increases perceived threat and
leads to increased harm of the other group. Not all the conflict begins with far-reaching
incompatibility of goals and involve high threat. Nevertheless, even low-key conflicts may
deteriorate to high violence which in turn leads to deligitimization as an explanation and later as
justification. The second model indicates that groups which are perceived as very different and
devalued, and arouse feelings of fear and despise are delegitimized. In turn, delegitimization leads
to harm and later to increased delegitimization as a justification of the harm. The analyses of the
models are accompanied by numerous illustrations. Special emphasis is given to cases of
American delegitimization of Soviets, delegitimization during the Vietnam war, mutual
delegitimization of Israeli Jews and Palestinians, European delegitimization of American Indians,
delegitimization of Blacks in the South before the Civil War and German delegitimization of Jews
during the Nazi era.
Causes and Consequences of Delegitimization: Models of Conflict and Ethnocentrism
The concept of delegitimization was presented to describe a specific case of group
categorization (Bar-Tal, 1988,1980a, in press). This categorization is based on extremely negative
outgroup's characterization aimed to deny humanity from this group. Specifically, delegitimization
is defined as categorization of a group or groups into extreme negative social categories which are
excluded from human groups that are considered as acting within the limits of acceptable norms
and/or values.
Dehumanization, outcasting, negative train characterization, use of political labels, and
group comparison are among the most commonly utilized contents of delegitimization.
(a)
Dehumanization involves categorizing a group as inhuman either by using
categories of subhuman creatures such as inferior races and animals, or by using categories of
negatively valued superhuman creatures such as demons, monsters, and satans. Both categories
involve characterizing the members of the delegitimized group as possessing inhuman traits
different from the human race.
(b)
Trait characterization is done by means of the use of traits which are evaluated as
extremely negative and unacceptable to a given society. Use of labels such as aggressors, idiots, or
parasites exemplifies this type of delegitimization.
(c)
Outcasting consists of categorization into groups which are considered as violators
of pivotal social norms. Outcasting may include such categories as murderers, thieves,
psychopaths, or maniacs. The society usually excludes these violators from its system and often
places them in total institutions .
(d)
Use of political labels involves categorization into political groups which are
considered to be totally unacceptable by the members of the delegitimizing society, as for example,
Nazis, fascists, communists, or imperialists. These groups often threaten the basic values of the
given society and are considered a danger to its system.
(e)
Delegitimization by group comparison consists of labelling the delegitimized group
with the name of another group which serves as an example of negativity in the given society. Use
of such categories as "Vandals" or "Huns" is an example of this type of delegitimization. Each
society has in its cultural repertoire examples of other groups or societies which serve as symbols
of malice, evil, or wickedness.
Delegitimization should be viewed as a particular category of stereotyping and prejudice.
But, whereas the latter concepts refer to wide range of cognitive and affective reactions, the former
concept implies the following features :
(a)
Delegitimization consists of extremely negative, salient, and unique contents which
serve as a basis for categorization.
(b)
Delegitimization has a purpose of denying humanity from the delegitimized group.
(c)
Delegitimization is accompanied by intense negative emotions of rejection such as
hatred, anger, despise, fear or disgust.
(d)
Delegitimization implies that the delegitimized group may potentially perform a
negative behavior which may endanger the delegitimizing group.
(e)
Delegitimization has a behavioral implication for the delegitimizing group. It
indicates that the delegitimized group does not deserve human treatment.
The purpose of the present paper is to further explore the phenomenon of delegitimization
by analyzing its causes and consequences. Specifically, two models are described: The conflict
model and the ethnocentric model. Each of them focuses on different set of conditions which
evokes and maintains delegitimization.
Conflict Models
Every intergroup conflict begins with the perception that group's goals are incompatible
with goals of another group (Bar-Tal, Kruglanski, & Klar, 1989; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). The
perception of a conflict means that a group finds itself blocked, since the attainment of a goal or
goals is precluded by another group. This situation is not uncommon and infrequent, but
inseparable part of intergroup relations. Groups have many goals, are in relations with many
groups and therefore some goals may be contradicted by goals of other groups. Conflicts are thus
unavoidable. They are part of normal group life and are continuously waged.
Obviously, conflicts can be of various types and of different intensity. Not all of them
resort to extreme antagonism, although it is clear that conflicts sometimes involve delegitimization.
Thus, the question that should be posed is what conditions of conflict foster the excitation of this
extreme negative labeling. The present paper intends to focus on two conditions in a conflict
situation which are probably most frequent in evoking delegitimization. One condition derives
from the perception of the outgroup's contradictory goals as being far-reaching and sinister, and the
other condition is related to extreme violence. Both conditions are not mutually exclusive and can
appear together. Here they will be described separately.
Threat and Delegitimization: Explanation and Derivation
Perception that the ingroup goals are contradicted by goals of another group and cannot be
easily achieved incites some level of threat perception (see Figure 1), because the outgroup is
perceived as preventing the achievement of the goal. But since, as indicated, groups frequently
experience conflicts in the course of their intergroup relations, the crucial questions in explaining
the appearance of delegitimization in the early phase of conflict are: (a) how are perceived the
goals of the opponent and (b) what kind of own goals are perceived to be blocked?
The first proposition then is that when a group perceives that the negating goal(s) of the
outgroup is far-reaching, especially evil, and threatens the basic goals of the ingroup, then the
ingroup uses delegitimization to explain the conflict. In principle, the two conditions are
complementary - when the goals of the other group are perceived as outraging, far-fetched,
irrational and malevolent, they also are perceived as greatly negating the basic ingroup's goals and
therefore threatening.
Insert Figure 1 about here.
Usually this type of conflict is of zero sum type. The possible achievement of the
outgroup's goals is perceived often as constituting a danger to the existence of the ingroup itself.
The perceived danger can be of economical nature (e.g., the group can be left without raw materials
for the industry), political (e.g., the political system is challenged), or military (e.g., the country or
part of it is in danger to be conquered .)
The described beliefs about dangers imply a perception of severe threat - that is, an
anticipation of impending serious harm. Group members believe that there is a possibility that the
danger can be actualized. The basic web of the group is threatened and they feel that their group is
in jeopardy. In this vein, it should be noted that it does not matter whether the beliefs are based on
"reality" or "imagination". What counts is the perception - it leads to action and reaction (see BarTal, Kruglanski, & Klar, 1989; Pruitt, 1965). The reality as perceived by group members influences
their decisions and behavior. When a threat is perceived, it is real for them (Cohen, 1979; Knorr,
1976 .)
Threat perception in general, and especially serious threats of high level, are accompanied
by stress, uncertainty, vulnerability, and fear (Lieberman, 1964; Milburn, 1977; Singer, 1958;
Tedeschi, 1970). These feelings raise the need for structuring the situation and its quick
understanding by forming knowledge, which allows an explanation and prediction (Bar-Tal, Y.,
1989). Delegitimization fulfills this function. It, on the one hand, explains why another group
threatens and, on the other hand, predicts what the other group will do in the future (see Figure 1).
Delegitimization, thus, enables an economic - fast, unequivocal, and simple - way of understanding.
It is a parsimonious knowledge which comes to mind, since the perception of high threat decreases
ambiguity, narrows the range of considered alternatives, and leads to antagonism (Holsti, 1971;
Hornstein, 1965; Smock, 1955; Tedeschi, 1970.)
As Figure 1 shows, this is the situation in which the ingroup uses delegitimization as an
explanation for the perceived outgroup's outraging aspirations and demands. Delegitimizing labels
provide, for example, an answer to Poles why German Nazis decided to occupy their country, or to
Americans, why the Soviet Union strive to dominate the world. Who can seriously and highly
threaten, if not a group which is imperialistic, satanic, or fascistic. These labels and the other
delegitimizing labels indicate that a group has extremely negative characteristics, which imply
extremely negative behaviors that the group can carry on .
The latter process is based on the derivation from the used labels (see Figure 1). That is,
once delegitimization was used, it increases the perception of threat as an inference from the
delegitimizing category. Thus, for example, use of such labels as aggressive, ruthless, devious, or
oppressive indicates that the outgroup is capable of serious destruction, violence, or brutality and,
therefore, a sense of group's security is further disrupted. In this way, an explanation, together with
a derivation, form the vicious cycle in which the perception of severe threat and delegitimization
feed each other continuously.
The conflict between Americans and Soviets, which reached one of the its peaks during the
Cold War and only recently leveled out, provides an example of delegitimization based on absolute
negating goals. From the American perspective, the Soviet goals as expressed in the communism
are principally contradictory to the American system. Most Americans believed, and many still
continue to believe, that Soviets within the communistic system are expansionistic, seek dominance
in the world threaten the American religious and moral values, oppose the American socialeconomic order and collide with the American political underlying ideology (e.g., Bar-Tal, 1989b;
Bialer, 1985; English & Halpern, 1987; Free & Cantril, 1967; Frei, 1986; Stouffer, 1966; Welch,
1970 .)The Soviets have been perceived as the most threatening country to the Americans. Their
acts in Poland, Finland, Baltic States, Iran, Berlin, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia or
Afghanistan and in Soviet Union itself have provided evidence regarding their contradictory goals.
Moreover, the Soviets themselves continuously and constantly communicated during the decades,
until recently, the thesis that the United States and the Soviet Union engage in an ideological,
political, economical, scientific, and cultural competition which was often presented as zero sum
conflict, indicating that only one system will survive the competition.
In this framework it is not surprising that Americans perceived the U.S.A.-U.S.S.R. conflict
as struggle between good and evil, moral and immoral - as a defense against an attempt to dominate
them.1 These beliefs fed the feelings of threat which penetrated and spread out in all the sectors of
the American society (Smith, 1983.)
On the basis of these perceptions, delegitimization evolved - and so, on the one hand, it
served as explanation to the existing threat and, on the other hand, it strengthened the perception of
threat. President Reagan expressed the delegitimizing beliefs in a direct way on March 8, 1983 saying "They are the focus of evil in the modern world.[It is a mistake] to ignore the facts of history
and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant
misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong, good
and evil".
The delegitimizing labels have been directed especially towards the Soviet communists, but
often the reference was made to Russians, or Soviets, in general. The label, a "communist" has
become itself a delegitimizing label in United States, since it implied that the person tries to
overturn the acceptable norms and values of the American society. In addition, the Russians were
delegitimized with labels describing them as brutal, primitive, aggressive, sadistic, cold-blooded,
ruthless, cruel, and devious. The Soviet Union was delegitimized as oppressive, trouble maker,
without respect for human life or human rights, totalitarian, militaristic, deceptive, adventuresses,
and offensive - striving for dominance in all parts of world with the commitment to destroy
capitalism and the democratic political institutions (Bialer, 1985; Bronfenbrenner, 1961; Cohen,
1986; Dallin, 1973; English & Halpern, 1987; Frei, 1986; Stein, 1985; White, 1985; Ugolnik,
1983.)
Although serious conflicts involving far-reaching incompatibility usually end with direct
violent confrontation or war, this is not a necessary phase. In spite of the described conflict
between the Americans and Soviets, the two superpowers have not yet engaged in a direct warfare
between them. Nevertheless, violent confrontation is more prevalent outcome of a serious conflict
which leads to delegitimization through a perception of high threat (see Figure 1). In serious
conflict situation, violent confrontation (harm) erupts when as a result of perceived high threat and
delegitimization the ingroup tries to avert the danger by preventive actions or the outgroup attempts
to realize the goals and the ingroup actively opposes these acts.
Delegitimization and Harm: Prevention and Justification
As indicated, in most cases of serious conflicts, delegitimization leads to harm and violence.
Once the ingroup delegitimizes the outgroup with various labels such as "imperialists", "fascists",
"terrorists" implying high threat and evilness, acts for preventing the danger usually follow. These
acts by their nature cause harm to the outgroup. Since the outgroup is delegitimized, the preventive
measures can be accordingly severe. Delegitimized group, which is excluded from the normative
groups, does not deserve human treatment. The denial of humanity, which is an inherent part of
delegitimization, may lead to extreme acts of violence on the part of the delegitimizing group.
Deportations, destruction, and mass killings of civil populations are not exceptional behaviors in
these cases. A demonstrating example of this phenomenon was provided by an American soldier in
the Vietnam War who insightfully said,
"When you go into basic training you are taught that the Vietnamese are not people. You are
taught, they are gooks and all you hear is 'gook, gook, gook, gook...' The Asian serviceman in
Vietnam is the brunt of the same racism because the GIs over there do not distinguish one Asian
from another... You are trained 'gook, gook, gook' and once the military has got the idea implanted
in your mind that these people are not humans, they are subhuman, it makes it a little bit easier to
kill 'em... (Boyle, 1972, p. 141.)
Exceptional violent and harming actions, in turn, augment further the process of
delegitimization, since it serves as justification for performing acts which negate the normative
behavior (see Figure 1). The more violent the performed behavior, the more delegitimization is
attributed, sine more justification is needed for the harm done. In addition, any violent acts
performed by the delegitimized group in the confrontation reinforce the delegitimization since they
serve as an explanation for the deviative or extreme behavior of this group (see Figure 1). Thus,
the second proposition states that a violent conflict leads to delegitimization to justify and explain
it.
A current example of delegitimization which is based on far-reaching incompatibility of
goals can be observed in the Middle East. Israeli Jews and Palestinians persistently delegitimize
each other as an explanation to the threat that each group poses to the other and as a justification to
the harm that they inflict to each other (Bar-Tal, 1988, in press). Both groups have struggled for
the same land in the course of the present century and today in spite of attempts to bridge the
irreconcilable goals, the protracted conflict is still on its way.
The majority of the Israeli Jews believe that the Palestinian final objective is the
annihilation of Israel and establishment of a Palestinian state (Bar-Tal, 1989c). This belief is
presently reinforced by the Palestinian National Covenant which declares as its central tenet "a total
repudiation of the existence of Israel and institutionalizes this stand and the theoretical and practical
implications that derive from it in an ideological system" (Harkabi, 1979, p. 11). Even recent
conciliatory statements by Arafat are perceived by many Israelis, including the Prime Minister
Yizhak Shamir, as tactical moves on the way to achieve the final goal of establishing Palestinian
State on the ruins of the State of Israel. Accordingly, the violent acts of the Palestinians in the
present century provide evidence to the Israeli Jews as to their objectives. The violent objection to
the establishment of the Jewish State, the pogroms done in the 20's and 30's, the active participation
in the Independence War, the continuous terrorist activities against the Jewish population within
Israel and outside it which caused to hundreds of casualties, and recently the uprising against the
Israeli rule int he West Bank and Gaza Strip - are all in the Israeli eyes expressions of Palestinian
intransigence and irreconcilability (Bar-Tal, in press-a; Herzog, 1978; Katz, 1973; Lorch, 1976,
Schiff & Rothstein, 1972; Shamir, 1982; Yaari, 1970.)
At the same time, the Palestinians believe that the Israeli Jews disregard the existence of the
Palestinian people, neglect their national aspirations, and forcefully take their land (e.g., Jiryis,
1976; Zogby, 1981). Presently, of special threat to them is the perceived Israeli desire of expansion
by possible annexation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as, possible expulsion of the
Palestinian population. This threat is based on the past acts of the Jews who immigrated to Israel
(previously Palestine), in what they consider as their country and, later, expropriated Arab-owned
land, expelled hundreds thousands of Palestinians, confiscated Arab property and discriminated
Israeli citizens of Palestinian origin (Bishuti, 1969; Hadawi, 1968; Kayyali .)4791 ,The perceived
threat is supported by the violent acts that Israeli Jews have performed against the Palestinians
through the decades. Recently in the West Bank and Gaza Strip hundreds have been killed,
thousands have been wounded in addition to mass arrests, deportation, limitation of civil rights,
imposition of curfew and humiliation (e.g., Al-Abid, 1970; Bar-Tal, in press-a; Zogby, 1981;
Zureik, 1979 .)
The protracted conflict has led to perception of threat and caused to mutual attempts to
exclude the other group from the community of nations through delegitimization. The continuing
mutual harm and violence only strengthened the delegitimization process. The Palestinians label
Israeli Jews as colonialists, racists, aggressors, Nazis, imperialists, fascists, and oppressors (e.g.,
Hussein, 1970; Kishtainy, 1970; Said, 1980; Sayegh, 1965). In this line they use the label
"Zionists" or "Zionism" which according to their belief is a "colonialist movement in its inception,
aggressive and expansionist in its goals, racist and segregationist in its configurations, and fascists
in its means and aims." (Article 19 in the National Covenant of the Palestine Liberation
Organization.)
The opposite party, the Israeli Jews, from the beginning of their encounter with the
Palestinians, viewed them as primitive, bandits, cruel mobs, not recognizing their national identity.
Later, with the eruption of violence, they have delegitimized Palestinians with labels such as
robbers, criminals, gangs, anti-Semites, terrorists and Neo-Nazis. Special attempts are made in the
last decades to delegitimize members and sympathizers of the PLO which represents the national
aspirations of the Palestinians (e.g. Kelman & Weiner, undated; Landau, 1971; PLO, 1982). On
September 1, 1977 the Knesset of Israel adopted a resolution by a vote of 92-4 saying that "The
organization called the PLO aspires, as stated in its Covenant, to destroy and exterminate the State
of Israel. The murder of women and children, and terror, are part of this organization's ideology,
which it is implementing in practice."
Another example of violent intergroup conflict which involved delegitimization is the
Vietnam War. In this case, the government of South Vietnam supported by United States perceived
the goals of Viet Cong backed by North Vietnam as completely contradictory. It was a struggle
between two opposing ideologies in which only one could win.
White (1970) described the mutual perceptions of Vietnamese supporters of Viet Cong and
Americans during the violent conflict. The two groups were in warfare against each other
involving violent and brutal acts. On the one side, President Johnson called the violent
confrontation " a war of unparalleled brutality. Simple farmers are the targets of assassination and
kidnapping. Women and children are strangled in the night because their men are loyal to their
government". On the other side the Viet Cong claimed that U.S. imperialists and their lackey
"killed about 170,000 people, wounded and crippled through torture about 800,000 people,
detained more than 400,000 people in more than 20,000 prisons, raped more than 40,000 women..."
The performed cruel and vicious acts were fueled by delegitimization and were further reinforced
by this type of categorization. In one study, White (1970) found that all the 337 (100%)
Communist characterization of Americans appearing in Vietnamese Communist statements, were
in terms of evil. They were labeled as "imperialists", "aggressors", "international gendarme",
"cruel enemy", "neocolonialists" and so on. At the same time, out of 130 characterizations
contained in statements by President Lyndon Johnson and the Defense Secretary Robert
McNamara, 127 (about 97%) were negative. The latter used such terms as "terrorism",
"aggression", "sabotage", or "assassination" to describe the acts of Vietnamese Communists.
Not all the conflicts begin with far-reaching incompatibility between goals of the parties
involved. Conflicts may also begin with low key incompatibility, without involving high level of
threat. Such situation may continue for a long time. But, these type of conflicts may get out of
control and escalate into violent confrontation.
Insert Figure 2 about here.
The deterioration may lead to mutual harm and violence (see Figure 2). In this case, as
Figure 2, shows, delegitimization evolves out of violence, since a group needs a justification to the
harm done by the members of own group and an explanation to similar acts performed by the
members of the outgroup.
An example of conflict which evolved into bloody and violent confrontation is the Iran-Iraq
war which ended last year with heavy losses on both sides. The principal dispute between Iran and
Iraq centered around the demarcation of a border on the Shatt al-Arab waterway and its
administration, originating from the 1937 treaty. The conflict erupted at the end of 1959, as Iran
began to demand a resolution to the disagreement. Through the years the conflict between these
two countries was managed through diplomatic ways, and some minor confrontations (see Chubin
and Zabih, 1974; Pipes, 1983). But, on September 1980 the war erupted which turned very quickly
in one of the bloodiest confrontation since World War II. The war claimed hundreds thousands
casualties, including civilians.
During eight years of the war, both, the Iranians and Iraqis delegitimized each other to
explain the brutality of the other side and to justify own harm done. On the basis of the Daily
Report of the Foreign Broadcast Information which reports radio speeches and interviews of the
political and military leaders of Iran and Iraq, it is possible to note the following ways of
delegitimization. The Iranians, for example, in 1984 used for Iraqis labels such as "Saddamist
mercenaries", "criminals", "aggressive Ba'thist forces", "Zionist protectors", "terrorists",
"archsatans", imperialist", "criminals", "reactionaries" and described their acts as "inhuman" and
"diabolical". Similarly, the Iraqis labelled Iranians as "criminals", "aggressors", "deceitful diabolic
entity", neofascists", "agents of Zionism", "illiterates", and "expansionists". One of the military
commanders reported in a publicized statement to the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein:
..."We gladly inform you of the annihilation of thousands of harmful magi insects... We... will turn
what is left of these harmful insects into food for the birds of the wilderness and the fishes of the
marshes" (Bengio, 1986, p. 475.)
Ethnocentric Model
Delegitimization does not take place only in conflict situations. A group may also attribute
delegitimizing labels to another group as a result of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism, as introduced
originally by Sumner (1906), denotes a tendency to accept the ingroup and reject the outgroups.
Delegitimization can serve this tendency. Using delegitimization the ingroup members see
themselves as virtuous and superior and the outgroup as contemptible and inferior (LeVine &
Campbell, 1972 .)
The depicted model in Figure 3 indicates that the ethnocentric tendency to perceive the
other group as different and devalued can be the underlying basis for this type of delegitimization.
Nevertheless, the necessary mediating conditions for the use of delegitimizing labels are feelings of
fear and/or despise toward the outgroup. Subsequently, delegitimization may lead to harm, since
the ingroup may either prevent the potential danger implied from the delegitimizing label or
inhumanly treat the outgroup as deserved. This model is now described with more specificity.
Insert Figure 3 about here.
Ethnocentrism and Delegitimization: Attribution
Delegitimization is used in the extreme case of ethnocentrism, since it sharpens the
intergroup differences to a maximum and totally excludes the delegitimized group from commonly
accepted groups, implying a total superiority of the ingroup. It indicates that the delegitimized
group does not belong to groups which are evaluated positively by the norms and/or values of the
delegitimizing group. Delegitimization, thus, not only differentiates between the groups by placing
definite boundaries between them, but also resorts to denial of humanity .
Not every case of ethnocentrism ends with delegitimization. A mere perception of
difference and devaluation does not lead necessarily to an exclusion. The necessary condition for
delegitimization, in the case of ethnocentrism, is an arousal of fear and/or despise feelings by the
outgroup (see Figure 3). The third proposition, then suggests that delegitimization is used when a
group perceives another group as different and devalued, and feels fear and/or despise toward it.
The more the two groups are different, the easier it is to delegitimize. As Brewer (1979)
indicated, that the perception of salient differences between the ingroup and outgroup facilitates the
development of negative attitudes and reactions toward this outgroup. The salient differences
demarcate clearly the intergroup boundary and allow a simple identification of an outgroup
member. They point out that the delegitimized label cannot be generalized to the ingroup.
The most salient differences are based on physical appearance, since they enable a clear
distinction and enable an easy identification. Thus, characteristics such as skin color,
physiognomic features, hair color, body structure or even a dress allow an unmistaken
differentiation between the groups. Indeed, these differences served most often in the human
history as bases for differentiation and delegitimization. Other cues, including invisible ones, are
obviously possible. People can be also differentiated and delegitimized on the basis of such hidden
criteria as religion or ideology. Though, in these cases, an external identification may be
impossible and the delegitimizing group needs other cues or ways for simple identification.
Difference by itself does not have to lead necessarily to delegitimization. Its combination
with devaluation is another necessary condition for this type of categorization. Devaluation, as
already presented, expresses the basic ethnocentric tendency (Brewer & Campbell, 1976). It
indicates that ingroup members, on the one hand, feel positive about own group and attribute it
favorable characteristics, while, on the other hand, feel antipathy toward outgroup(s) attaching to
them unfavorable features (see the chapter of Levinson in Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson,
& Sanford, 1950.)
The last necessary condition, which together with perceived difference and devalue, evokes
delegitimization is an arousal of fear and/or despise feelings. This is the direct cause for
delegitimization, based on the previously described perceptions. Fear is elicited when the different
and devalued group projects a threat, an unknown, or mystery. In this case the ingroup uses
delegitimization as an attribution to explain this feeling (see Figure 3.)
The feelings of despise can be accompanied with the feelings of fear, or appear separately.
They are elicited when the outgroup is perceived as absolutely inferior. The inferiority is inferred
on the basis of perceived cultural, economical, military, scientific, and political achievements. The
ingroup usually evaluates these achievements on the basis of superficial and visible cues. Clothing,
working tools, weapons, households, or religious principles are examples of such cues.
At least two main reasons may cause to ethnocentric delegitimization: the desire to make a
complete differentiation between the delegitimized group and the ingroup in order to exclude it
from the human groups, or the will to exploit the delegitimized group. Although in a number of
cases these two reasons complement each other, they do not necessarily appear together.
Delegitimization for the sake of exclusion comes in view of the perceived great difference
between the ingroup and outgroup, which implies a complete inferiority of the outgroup. By using
delegitimization the ingroup expresses its superiority and despise for mere differentiation. An
example of this background for delegitimization can be found in the encounter between Europeans
and American Indians. The perceived difference and inferiority with feelings of despise underlined
the delegitimization of American Indians. Forbes (1964) provides several illustrations of this
phenomenon by reviewing original writings of Europeans. American Indians were described as :
"without religion or government, [having] nothing more than diverse superstitions and a type of
democracy similar to that of ants" (p.16.)
"Indians are so free and live so like animals" (p. 16.)
"Viewed in the most favorable manner, these poor creatures are miserably brutish and degraded..."
(p. 16.)
"The indigenous population of America present man under many aspects, and society in various
stages, from regular but limited civilization of Mexico and Peru, to savage life in t is most brutal
state of abasement" (p. 17.)
"The Indians as a race are, of course, far inferior to white men in intellectual capacity" (p. 17.)
Ethnocentric delegitimization may be also underlined by the motivation to exploit another
group. In this case, the economical needs dictate the nature of social categorization delegitimization serves as a legitimization of an abuse. An outgroup perceived as greatly different
and inferior group can be considered as a suitable target for exploitation, which almost always
involves inhuman treatment. A salient example of delegitimization used as a rationalization of
exploitation is an enslavement of Blacks by Whites. Delegitimization was a very important, and
maybe the most important, justification for slavery. Otherwise, how it can be explained that these
moral, deeply religious, and gallant Southerners treated so inhumanly part of human race.
Blacks being different in physical appearance, having different folk ways and mores,
believing in different religion, speaking different languages, having different culture were the
perfect target for exploitation. Their characteristics which were not only of large difference, but
also greatly devalued, led to delegitimization. Blacks were perceived as primitive, savages, inferior
and son on. As the preamble to South Carolina's code of 1712 declared, they were of "barbarous,
wild savage natures, and... wholly unqualified to be governed by the laws, customs, and practices
of this province". In this vein, Stampp (1956) points out to three beliefs which underlined the
slavery: (a) the "all wise Creator" had designed the Blacks for labor in the South; (b) being inferior
in intellect and having the special temperament the Blacks were the natural slaves of the White
man; and (c) Blacks are barbarians who need to be subjected to rigid discipline and severe control.
Blacks' enslavement, thus, was seen as natural and essential for their own good and for the
preservation of White civilization (see also Bancraft, 1931; Genovese, 1969; Sellers, 1950). This
perception allowed the deliberate choice to use Blacks as slaves in Southern states. Being
considered as inferior and subhuman they were used as "property" to satisfy the economical needs
of the South (Genovese, 1966.)
Delegitimization and Harm: Intention and Justification
Once delegitimization is used, it opens a way to harm. The labels may either indicate that
the delegitimized group is inhuman and therefore harm is "allowed", or that it is threatening and,
therefore, to prevent the danger, harm should be carried out. In turn, when subsequently harm is
performed, delegitimization serves as a justification. It implies that the delegitimized group
deserves the inhuman treatment (see Figure 3 .)
The delegitimization of the American Indians greatly affected their fate. Their perception
by Europeans facilitated cruel behavior toward them. Once they were labeled as "savages",
"inferior" or "animals" there was short way to their harm. Inferior and savage men do not deserve a
human treatment and so Europeans did not hesitate to destroy, to enslave, to injure, or to kill them.
As an illustration to the logic, one of the first English settlers of Virginia proposed :
"it is more easy to civilize them by conquest than by faire means; for the one may be made at one,
but their civilizing will require a long time and much history. The manner how to suppress them is
so often related and approved, I omit it here: and you have twenty examples of the Spaniards how
they got the West Indies, and forced the treacherous and rebellious infidels to do all manner of
drudgery work and slavery for them..." (from Vogel, 1972, p. 40.)
An example of reinforcement and strengthening of delegitimization following harm is
development of defenses by Whites to justify the enslavement of Blacks (e.g., McKitrick, 1963).
Doctors, scientists, and phrenologists in the South searched for physiological differences to
substantiate the assumed temperamental and intellectual differences :
"Dr. Samuel W. Cartwright of Louisiana argued that the visible difference in skin pigmentation is
also extended to 'the membranes, the muscles, the tendons, and... [to] all the fluids and secretions.
Even the Negro's brain and nerves, the chyle and all the humors, are tinctured with a shade of the
pervading darkness'" and Dr. Josiah C. Nott of Mobile proposed that Negro and Whites do not
belong to the same species (Stampp, 1956, p. 8.)
One of the striking cases of ethnocentric delegitimization, which led to tragic consequences,
is delegitimizing of Jews in Germany between 1933-1945 (Bar-Tal, in press-b). This case
combines all the elements of the proposed model (see Figure 3). Jews were perceived as different
and devalued, arousing feelings of fear and despise, altogether. They were excluded, exploited and
murdered within the delegitimization framework.
During the Nazi era, Germans grew to accept the beliefs that Jews are responsible for the
alienation of humanity from the natural order and were the main obstacle to human redemption.
Therefore, they were convinced that it was necessary to exclude Jews from the economic, political,
societal and cultural aspects of life and deny their humanity. Delegitimizing Jews (Anti-Semitism)
in Nazi Germany is one of the few cases in modern times in which delegitimization was legally
enforced. Individuals who violated the delegitimizing laws were arrested and even executed
(Dawidowicz, 1975; Wistrich, 1985.)
At least partial basis to the delegitimization of Jews can be located in the German
ethnocentrism which was embedded in the racist ideology. This ideology propagated Aryan
superiority over other races, but especially over Jews (Mosse, 1964; Pulzer, 1964). The major
proponent of racial ideology, Hans F.K. Gunther, suggested that Jews are an inferior race, a mixture
of Oriental or interasiatic races, while Aryans are at the top of racial superiority. In line with this
view, Jews were presented a ugly, dirty, perverted, corrupted, and most important, as inferior and
inhuman (Mosse, 1964; Wistrich, 1985; Zeman, 1964). For example, in the most known
documentary film done by the Nazis describing Jews, Wer ewige Jude (The Eternal Jew), they
looked physically repellant, greasy, fat, hook-nosed, black-haired, and wore traditional Jewish
clothes. Of more importance, this film portrayed Jews as greedy, sneaky, exploiting Germans - as
the narrator in the film says ,
"Jews have no indigenous civilization; they are unclean; they are not poor, they simply prefer to
live in a state of squalor; their community life is on the streets; they hardly ever make anything for
themselves; they do not want to work. Their only desire is to trade; their pride lies in haggling over
a price. They have no ideals; their divine law teaches them to be selfish to cheat any non-Jew"
(Richards, 1973, p. 345.)
During the Nazi regime the contents of the delegitimizing beliefs about Jews were of wide
scope. They included all the previously presented ways of delegitimization. Their partial list
included such contents as Jews are "satanic", "Jews are the incarnation of destructive drive", Jews
are "devils", "femanent of decomposition", "destroyers of civilization", "parasites", "demons",
"bacteria, vermin, and pests", "degeneration of mankind", "international maggots and bedbugs",
"spiders that slowly suck the people blood at their pores" and "inspirers and originators of dreadful
catastrophies" (Gordon, 1984; Jackel, 1981; Noakes & Pridham, 1984.)
In addition, Jews were specifically accused of starting World War I, causing Germany's war
defeat, precipitating the Great Depression, polluting the Aryan race, exploiting German people,
performing criminal acts, and seeking world domination.
They were also presented with political labels, since they were viewed as promoters of such
diverse evils as bolshevism, capitalism, democracy, and internationalism - all aimed at subverting
Aryan racial superiority. All these and other delegitimizing beliefs became part of the almost daily
diet of the German people during the Third Reich. Nazi propaganda was entirely preoccupied with
spreading delegitimizing beliefs. Press, pictures, films, lectures, literature, radio programs, art, and
political speeches continuously and repeatedly expressed these beliefs (see for example, Mosse,
1966). In the totalitarian Nazi regime, all means were used to achieve the end of delegitimizing
Jews (Bramsted, 1965; Gordon, 1984; Zeman, 1964.)
There is little doubt that the distance between the delegitimization of such scope, as done to
Jews in Germany, and behavioral harm is very small. The delegitimizing beliefs imply behavioral
intentions from the complete denial of humanity, on the one hand, and the threatening contents, on
the other hand. The first factor indicated that Jews being of lower race deserve inhuman treatment,
while the other factor led to preventive acts in order to avert the danger and also to avenge Jews'
past evil behavior. It is thus not surprising that between 1933 and 1945 Jews in Europe were
subjected to exclusion, deportation, expropriation, expulsion, pogroms, mass killings and ultimately
to genocide on an unprecedented scale, performed in a systematic, well-organized and brutal way.
During six years - 1939-1945 - about 6 million Jews perished as a consequence of starvation,
deadly epidemics, mass executions, and systematic gassing (Bauer, 1982; Cohn, 1967;
Dawidowicz, 1975; Mosse, 1978; Wistrich, 1985). Finally, there is little doubt that as these terrible
actions were carried out, Germans could only justify them with delegitimizing beliefs, which first
led to the atrocities and later reinforced further this type of behavior .
Conclusions
Delegitimization as an expression to the desire of an outgroup's exclusion and a denial of its
humanity is a phenomenon with cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects. On the cognitive
level, delegitimization is a categorization which enables an understanding of the social world. It
organizes the "reality" by providing an explanation for the perceived characteristics and behaviors
of the outgroup and by supplying a prediction for the future potential events. On the emotional
level, delegitimization is a reaction to feelings which stimulates another group - feelings of fear,
threat or despise. Its use in turn not only strengthens these feelings, but also may arouse new
negative emotions. On the behavioral level, delegitimization leads to array of behaviors as a
logical implication of the used labels. The delegitimizing categories imply not only that the
outgroup deserves malevolent treatment, but also that it is necessary to take preventive steps to
avert potential danger. Subsequently, on the same level, delegitimization is also a consequence of
brutal and cruel behavior, since it serves as a justification mechanism.
Delegitimization as an extreme case of stereotyping and prejudice is a prevalent
phenomenon in intergroup relations. Almost every group used in the past, or is still using this type
of group's categorization. The two proposed models focus on two situations which elicit
delegitimization: Situation of conflict and situation of ethnocentrism. In the first situation,
delegitimization appears in view of a conflict which involves a perception of far-reaching and
outraging incompatibility of goals between groups and/or high level of brutal violence. In the other
situation, delegitimization results from an extreme case of ethnocentrism, when an outgroup is
perceived as very different and devalued.
The presented models of conflict focus on intergroup relations. Delegitimization is a
function of how the relations between the ingroup and outgroup are perceived and how the two
groups act and react towards each other. In contrast, the ethnocentric model of delegitimization
expresses more intragroup characteristics and processes. It focuses on ingroup tendency to feel
superior and to devalue a different outgroup. Delegitimization in this case depends on the ingroup
tolerance toward different groups, as well as on the perception of an outgroup and the feelings
toward it.
Both models portray severe consequences of delegitimization. It leads often to array of
harmful behaviors, including the most extreme expression of killings, the genocide. In most cases,
delegitimization accompanied by threat is the necessary condition for the performance of the most
brutal and violent acts against an outgroup. In this vein, the present paper sheds light on this
extremely negative phenomenon of human race. Additional understanding is a prerequisite for
attempts to reduce mutual delegitimization between groups in the course of resolving conflicts
and/or reducing ethnocentrism.
Footnotes
.4
It can be assumed that recent developments in the U.S.A. - U.S.S.R. relations contribute to
the ease of the conflictive relations and change of mutual perception.
References
Adorno, .W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D.J., & Sanford, R.N. (1950). The auhoriarian
personaliity. New York: Harper & Row.
Al-Abid, I. (1973). 127 Questions and answers on the Arab Israeli conflict. Beirut: Palestine
Research Center.
Bancroft, F. (1931). Slave-trading in the Old South. Baltimore: J.H. Furst Company.
Bar-Tal, D. (1988). Delegitimizing relations between Israeli Jews and Palestinians: A social
psychological analysis. In J. Hofman (Ed.), Arab-Jewish relations in Israel: A quest in human
understanding (pp. 217-248. Bristol, Indiana: Wyndham Hall Press.
Bar-Tal, D. (1989a). Delegitimization: The extreme case of stereotyping and prejudice. In D. BarTal, C. Graumann, A., W. Kruglanski, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice: Changing
conceptions (pp. 169-188). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bar-Tal, D. (1989b). American convictions about conflictive USA-USSR relations: A case of
group beliefs. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Bar-Tal, D. (1989c). Security beliefs: The basic Israeli dilemma. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Bar-Tal, D. (in press-a). Israeli-Palestinian conflict: A congitive analysis. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations.
Bar-Tal, D. (in press-b). Group beliefs. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bar-Tal, D., Kruglanski, A.W., & Klar, Y. (1989). Conflict termination: An epistemological
analysis of international cases. Political Psychology, 10, 233-255.
Bar-Tal, Y. (1989). Coping with uncertainty. Paper presented at the Fourth International
Conference on Psychological Stress and Adjustment in Time of War and Peace. January 1989, TelAviv, Israel.
Bauer, Y. (1982). A history of the Holocaust. New York: F. Watts.
Bengio, O. (1986). Iraq. In H. Shaked & D. Dishon (Eds.) Middle East contemporary survey (Vol.
8, pp. 465-496). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
Bialer, S. (1985). The psychology of US-Soviet relations. Political Psychology, 6, 263-273.
Bishuti, B. (1969). The role of Zionist terror in the creation of Israel. Beirut: Palestine Research
Center.
Boyle, R. (19720. The flower of the dragoin: The breakdown of the U.S. Army in Vietnam. San
Francisco: Ramparts Press.
Bramsted, E.K. (1965). Goebbels and National Socialist propaganda 1925-1945. East Lansing:
Michigan State University Press.
Brewer, M.B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive motivational
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 308-324.
Brewer, M.B. & Campbell, D.T. (1976). Ethnocentrism and intergroup attitudes: East African
evidence. New York: Halsted.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1961). The mirror image in Soviet-American relations: A social psychologist's
report. Journal of Social Issues, 27(3), 45-56.
Cohen, R. (1979). Threat perception in international crisis. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press.
Cohen, S.F. (1986). Sovieticus: American perceptions and Soviet realities. New York: W.W.
Norton.
Cohn, N. (1967). Warrant for genocide. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.
Chubin, S., & Zabih, S. (1974). The foreign relations of Iran. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Dawidowicz, L.S. (1975). The war against the Jews (1933-1945). New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Dallin, A. (1973). Bias and blunders in American studies on the USSR. Slavic Review,32, 560576.
English, R., & Halperin, J.J. (1987). The other side: How Soviet and Americans perceive each
other. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Forbes, J.D. (1964). The Indian in America's past. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Free, L.A., & Cantril, H. (1967). The political beleifs of Americans--A study of a public opinion.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Frei, D. (1986). Perceived images: US and Soviet assumptions and perceptions in disarmament.
Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
Genovese, E. (1966). The political economy of slavery: Studies in the economy and society of the
slave south. New York: Random House.
Genovese, E. (1969). The world the slaveholders made. New York: Random House.
Gordon, S. (1984). Hitler, Germans and the "Jewish Question". Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Hadawi, S. (1969). Palestine Occupied. (Rev. ed.) New York: The Arab Information Center.
Harkabi, Y. (1979). The Palestinian Covenant and its meaning. London: Vallentine, Mitchell.
Herzog, C. (1978). Who stands accused? New York: Random House.
Holsti, O.R. (1971). Crisis, stress, and decision-making. International Social Science Journal, 23,
53-67.
Hornstein, H.A. (1965). The effects of different magnitudes of threat upon interpersonal
bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 282-293.
Hussein, G. (1970). Ideologies of Zionism and Nazism. Arab Palestinian Resistance. 2, 12-28.
Jackel, E. (1981). Hitler's world view. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jiryis, S. (1976). The Arabs in Israel. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Katz, S. (1973). Battleground: Fact and fantasy in Palestine. New York: Bantam.
Kayyali, A.W. (1974). Palestine: A modern history. London: Groom Hlem.
Kelman, I. & Weiner, J. The PLO. Jerusalem: The Israel Economist (undated.)
Kishtainy, K. (1970). Whither Israel? A study of Zionist expansionism. Beirut: Palestine
Liberation Organisation Research Center.
Knorr, K. (1976). Threat perception. In K. Knorr (Ed.). Historical dimensions of national security
problems (pp. 78-119). Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press.
Landau, J. J. (1971). Israel and the Arabs. Jerusalem: Israel Communications.
LeVine, R.A., & Campbell, D.T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes and
group behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lieberman, E.J. (1964). Threat and assurance in the conduct of conflict. In R. Fisher (Ed.)
International conflict and behavioral science (pp. 110-122). New York: Basic Books.
Lorch, N. (1976). One long war. Jerusalem: Keter.
McKitrick, E.L. (Ed.) (1963). Slavery defended: The views of the Old South. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
Milburn, T.W. (1977). The nature of threat. Journal of Social Issues, 33(1), 126-139.
Mosse, G.L. (1964). The crisis of German ideology. New York: Grosset and Dunlap.
Mosse, G.L. (1966). Nazi culture: Intellectual, cultural and social live in the Third Reich. New
York: Grosset & Dunlap.
Mosse, G.L. (1978). Toward the final solution: A history of European racism. New York:
Howard Fertig.
Noakes, J., & Pridham, G. (Eds.) (1984). Nazism 1919-1945: A documentary reader (Vol. 2 and
3). Exeter, Great Britain: University of Exeter.
P.L.O. (1982). Jerusalem: Department of Information, WZO.
Pipes, D. (1983). A border adrift: Origins of conflict. In S. Tahir-Kheli & S. Ayubi (Eds.) The
Iran-Iraq war: New weapons, old conflicts (pp. 3-25). New York: Praeger.
Pruitt, D.G. (1965). Definition of the situation as a determinant of international action. In H.G.
Kelman (Ed.) International behavior: A Social-psychological analysis. (pp. 391-432). New York:
Holt.
Pruitt, D.G., & Rubin, J.Z. (1986). Social conflict. New York: Random House.
Pulzer, P.G.J. (1964). The rise of political anti-Semitism in Germany and Austria. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Richards, J. (1973). Visions of yesterday. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Said, E. (1979). The question of Palestine. New York: Vintage Books.
Sayegh, F.A. (1965). Zionist colonialism in Palestine. Beirut: Research Center P.L.O.
Schiff, Z., Rothstein, R. (1972). Fedayeen: Guerrillas against Israel. New York: David McKay.
Sellers, J.B. (195). Slavery in Alabama. University of Alabama: University of Alabama Press.
Shamir, I. (1982). Israel's role in a changing Middle East. Foreign Affairs. 60, 789-801.
Singer, D. (1958). Threat-perception and the armament-tension dilemma. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 2, 90-105.
Smock, C.D. (1955). The influcene of psychological stress on the "Intolerance of Ambiguity".
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50, 177-182.
Stampp, K.M. (1956). The peculiar institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. New York:
Vintage.
Stein, H.F. (1985). Psychological complementarity in Soviet-American relations. Political
Psychology, 6, 249-261.
Stouffer, S.A. (1966). Communism, conformity and civil liberties. New York: Doubleday and
Company.
Sumner, W.G. (1906). Folkways. New York: Ginn.
Takaki, R.T. (1971). A pro-slavery crusade. New York: Free Press.
Tedeschi, J.T. (1970). Threats and promises. In P. Swingle (Ed.) The structure of conflict (pp.
155-191). New York: Academic Press.
Ugolnik, A. (1983). The Godlessness within: Stereotyping the Russians. The Christian Century,
100, 1011-1014.
Vogel, V.J. (1972). This country was ours. New York: Harper & Row.
Welch, W. (1970). American images of Soviet foreign policy. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
White, R.K. (1970). Nobody wanted war. New York: Anchor Books.
White, R.H. (1984). Fearful warriors: A psychological profile of US-Soviet relations. New York:
The Free Press.
Wistrich, R. (1985). Hitler's apocalypse: Jews and the nazi legacy. London: Weidenfeld &
Nicolson.
Yaari, E. (1970). Strike terror. New York: Sabra Books.
Zeman, Z.A.B. (1964). Nazi propaganda. London: Oxford University Press.
Zogby, J.J. (1981). Palestinians: The invisible victims. Washington D.C.: American Arab AntiDiscrimination Committee.
Zureik, E. (1979). Palestinians in Israel: A study of internal colonialism. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Figure Captions
.4
Conflict Model: Far-reaching Incompatibility of Goals.
.2
Conflict Model: Deterioration.
.3
Ethnocentric Model.