Dialogue Across Difference: Practice, Theory, and Research on Intergroup Dialogue

2. The Practice of Intergroup Dialogue

chAPTER 2 The Practice of Intergroup Dialogue In this chapter, we describe more fully the intergroup dialogue (IGD) practice model that addresses the divides and challenges of talking across and about race and gender highlighted in chapter 1. We have four goals: to place the foundations of intergroup dialogue in the context of social psychological research on intergroup relations and of multicultural education concerned with diversity and social justice; to draw on approaches to reflective, relational , and integrative learning that inform and undergird dialogue pedagogy ; to show how intentional intergroup interactions can be supported by content and facilitation to achieve the major goals of IGD; and to provide in-depth information on the educational design of intergroup dialogues. fouNDATIoNs of INTERGRouP DIAloGuE PRAcTIcE Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations The major theories of intergroup relations in social psychology derive from the classic work on intergroup contact (Allport 1954), which hypothesizes that intergroup harmony can be fostered by having members of different groups interact with each other under specified conditions. These conditions include equal status between the groups in the contact situation, intergroup PRACTICE OF INTERGROUP DIALOGUE 33 cooperation toward common goals, opportunities to get to know members of the out-group personally, and knowledge that the contact is positively sanctioned and supported by relevant authorities. More than a thousand research studies have supported these ideas (for reviews, see Pettigrew and Tropp 2011; Tropp and Pettigrew 2005). Following Gordon Allport’s statement of conditions for beneficial intergroup contact, much of social psychology’s theoretical and empirical work on intergroup relations was directed at understanding ways to achieve intergroup harmony and reduce bias and prejudice by creating ideal contact conditions. One enduring question in creating the ideal conditions has been how salient separate group identities are and should be in the contact situation. Patricia Gurin and Biren (Ratnesh) Nagda (2006) summarize three approaches to this question. These approaches indicate how in recent years theory and research on social identity have been incorporated into the contact hypothesis. The initial view is that intergroup harmony depends on deemphasizing separate group identities so that members of different identity groups will treat each other as individuals, rather than as group members. The ultimate goal is to create a comprehensive group identity that overrides their separate group identities. One theoretical approach, called decategorization or personalization, suggests that members of groups need to personalize and get to know out-group members as individuals rather than as group members (Brewer and Miller 1984; Wilder 1981). The goal is to promote differentiated conceptions of outgroup members so that they “slide even further toward the individual side of the self as individual–group member continuum” (Gaertner and Dovidio 2000, 43). According to the decategorization model, anything that makes groups salient and encourages thinking about groups rather than individuals —group competitiveness, seating arrangements, resource allocation, discussion of cultures and histories, and attention to group identities—fosters intergroup prejudice, bias, and discrimination. A second approach, called recategorization or the common in-group identity model (Gaertner and Dovidio 2000), draws on well-documented evidence that members of groups show bias in favor of others in their in-groups in evaluating and allocating resources. Because of this in-group positivity bias, recategorization theorists argue that “once outgroup members are perceived as ingroup members, it is proposed that they would be accorded the benefits of ingroup status” (Gaertner and Dovidio 2000, 48). The way to 34 DIALOGUE ACROSS DIFFERENCE achieve a superordinate, overall group identity is through common activities and tasks, rewards based on cooperative behavior, integrated seating and living patterns, and symbols such as a T-shirt with a group logo for the new inclusive group. Research shows that when the common in-group identity model guides intergroup interactions, prejudice and intergroup bias are reduced , and both helping and self-disclosure to former out-group members are enhanced. These two approaches, advanced by many social psychologists as the most effective for achieving intergroup harmony, do not distinguish among the identities or statuses of the groups involved (for overviews of these models, see Gaertner et al. 1999; Stephan and Stephan 2001). In both models, all group identities, whether privileged in the social structure or not, are deemphasized so that group members think about each other as individuals or as part of a newly formed deracialized or nongendered in-group. Original ingroup identities are deemphasized as a trade-off to improve intergroup harmony . However, it is...