comparing tajfel's social identity theory and scapegoating theory in explaining prejudice
Tatenda NYoka
comparing tajfel's social identity theory and scapegoating theory in explaining prejudice.
The issue of comparing and contrasting Tajfel’s theory of social identity and the scapegoating theory in explaining prejudice is a very controversial issue subject to debate .The theories are like one and the same thing though they are different as show be noted as the debate goes on.The main difference is that scapegoating mainly touches on the rivals of in-group against out-group while social identity theory bases on the individual rivalry against individual and both have got a negative prejudice effect.
Barbara (1997) reiterates that prejudice by definition is an attitude usually negative toward a member of some other group solely on prejudice the membership in that group . Feldman explains prejudice in the sense that when two groups want to achieve the same goal but both groups cannot get hostility is due to happen .For example increased competition of various groups in times of economic crisis may be one of the factors leading to prejudice .Tajfel (1971) believes that the scapegoating theory is not adequate in explaining prejudice and he also uses a social identity theory .However Tajfel et al (1971) argue that competition is not sufficient for inter-groups conflict and hostility .Tajfel does not deny the importance of competition between groups as explanation for the origins of prejudice but argues that mere perception of the existence of another group can itself produce discrimination .Tajfel et al goes on to say that before any discrimination occur ,people must be categorized as members of in-groups or out-groups but more significantly the very act of of categorization by itself produces conflict and discrimination leading to negative prejudice .Therefore from the above analysis one can be tempted to say that the origins of prejudice in both social identity theory and scapegoating theory arise from the same nature to a greater extent as
comparing tajfel's social identity theory and scapegoating theory in explaining prejudice.
The issue of comparing and contrasting Tajfel’s theory of social identity and the scapegoating theory in explaining prejudice is a very controversial issue subject to debate .The theories are like one and the same thing though they are different as show be noted as the debate goes on.The main difference is that scapegoating mainly touches on the rivals of in-group against out-group while social identity theory bases on the individual rivalry against individual and both have got a negative prejudice effect.
Barbara (1997) reiterates that prejudice by definition is an attitude usually negative toward a member of some other group solely on prejudice the membership in that group . Feldman explains prejudice in the sense that when two groups want to achieve the same goal but both groups cannot get hostility is due to happen .For example increased competition of various groups in times of economic crisis may be one of the factors leading to prejudice .Tajfel (1971) believes that the scapegoating theory is not adequate in explaining prejudice and he also uses a social identity theory .However Tajfel et al (1971) argue that competition is not sufficient for inter-groups conflict and hostility .Tajfel does not deny the importance of competition between groups as explanation for the origins of prejudice but argues that mere perception of the existence of another group can itself produce discrimination .Tajfel et al goes on to say that before any discrimination occur ,people must be categorized as members of in-groups or out-groups but more significantly the very act of of categorization by itself produces conflict and discrimination leading to negative prejudice .Therefore from the above analysis one can be tempted to say that the origins of prejudice in both social identity theory and scapegoating theory arise from the same nature to a greater extent as