Versión de HTML Básico
eluding the relevant characteristics of the minority group itself—
characteristics, which in turn are frequently the result of the other
factors we have been considering but which also form part of an
“interactive complex” which serves to perpetuate intergroup hostility.
From the standpoint of our concern with general principles of
strategy for improving relationships between the races, Allport’s em
phasis upon the fact that many factors are involved in the etiology of
prejudice and discrimination is an important one. Allport does not,
however, give sufficient attention to the interdependence of the dif
ferent factors which he describes.31 These factors do not operate as
isolated, independent units: rather, they constitute an interactive com
plex which needs to be understood in terms of the dynamic relation
ships among the various parts. Allport recognizes this fact to a certain
extent, but it needs to be made clearer. He points out, for example,
that there is a tendency on the part of the minority group to fulfill the
dominant group’s expectations with regard to its behavior. If they are
expected to be dirty, lazy, dishonest, inferior, or clownish, members
of the minority group frequently tend to exhibit such characteristics,
which in turn serve to perpetuate the dominant group’s expectations.
But the dominant group’s expectations are also affected by other
factors such as the changing contacts between the groups involved,
significant changes in the relative size of the groups, the attitudes of
leaders of the dominant group toward the minority group, the tradi
tion of a region, the economic opportunities open to members of the
minority group, and the personality structure of members of the
dominant group. These interrelationships are obviously important
when one faces the question of the kind of attack upon prejudice and
discrimination that will be most effective. Failure to recognize the
interactive character of the various causal factors results in a false
abstraction of one from the others and frequently leads to the effort
to advocate one type of strategy as a panacea for the elimination of
intergroup hostility.
Simpson and Yinger remind us that effective strategy is based upon
a precise knowledge of the goals which one wants to achieve and
upon a thorough understanding of the obstacles in the way of achiev
ing them.32 We have already examined the nature of the Christian’s
31Otto Klineberg,
Social Psychology
, New York, Henry Holt and Company,
rev. ed., 1954, pp. 536-537. Cf. Robert M. Maclver,
Social Causation,
New
York, Ginn and Company, 1942.
32Simpson and Yinger,
op. cit.,
p. 726.
Race Relations
367