User:Skel.cro/sandbox

§kєl.₡rΘ 19:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

== M O R A L    E X C L U S I O N ==

Definition
A psychological process where opponents in a conflict view each other as undeserving of morally mandated rights and protections, (Forsyth, 2010). When conflict between groups attains drastic intensity, the in-group/out-group bias between the groups heightens. During these drastic conflicts, people tend to view their own group as higher-ranked than the other. This phenomenon is known as moral exclusion. Moral exclusion is very similar to the idea of injustice. (Forsyth, 2010)

Severe violence from one group to another is one of the causes of moral exclusion. As groups aggression intensifies, this results in the belittling effect. Groups that possess the belittling effect on a regular basis are more likely to succumb to moral exclusion. (Forsyth, 2010)

Also, a distinction should be drawn between active exclusion and omission. The former requires intent, while the latter is thoughtlessness, (Leets, 2001).

Key Scholars and notable contributions to the field
''is Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Education and founder of the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution (ICCCR) at the Teachers College at Columbia University. During his prominent career he has conducted pioneering studies on cooperation and competition, intergroup relations, conflict resolution, social conformity, and the social psychology of justice. Read more about'' Morton_Deutsch ''Received her Ph.D. in social psychology from Columbia University in 1987. Opotow focuses on research on examples of moral exclusion that occur in adolescents' interpersonal conflicts with peers.''
 * ==== Morton Deutsch ====
 * ==== Susan Opotow ====


 * ==== Henri Tajfel ====

''Born in Hungary, Staub endured Nazism and communism in his early live before fleeing to Vienna and then making his way to the U.S. where he earned a Ph.D. at Stanford. He is the founding Director of the Ph.D. concentration in the Psychology of Peace and Violence at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst where he also has the distinction as Professor of Psychology Emeritus. Find out more about '' Ervin_Staub
 * ==== Ervin Staub ====

=== History === Throughout the course of history there have been instances in which human beings treat others as less than human and undeserving of equal moral treatment. Occurrences such as the Nazi genocide during World War II and the African slave trade have lead researchers to question whether or not human beings have the tendency to deem others as “worthy” or “unworthy” of moral treatment. Furthermore, if it were the case that humans label one another as acceptable or unacceptable and treat each other accordingly, it is important to examine the rationalization that occurs during this process. This is the type of thinking that spurred Morton Deutsch, Susan Opotow and Ervin Staub to investigate the processes of dehumanization and moral exclusion. Susan Isaacs, and other members of the object-relations school of psychoanalysis, set the stage for moral exclusion research with the theory that perceiving certain people as “allies” and others as “enemies” is intrinsic to human nature (Deutsch, 1990; as cited in Isaacs, 1946). This categorization of persons creates a marked distinction between “good” and “bad” and leads to the exclusion of those, who are negatively perceived, from the moral community. Deutsch, Opotow and Staub have defined the moral community, or scope of justice, to be a “…psychological boundary for fairness, within which concerns with justice and moral rules govern our conduct,” (Deutsch, 1974, 1985; Opotow, 1990; Staub, 1987, 1990). Such exclusion has been thought to be evolutionary, as it is beneficial to individuals to avoid others who are harmful and seek out those that are helpful. Henri Tajfel conducted multiple experiments that returned the conclusion that people’s “…actions are unambiguously directed at favouring the members of their ingroup as against the members of the outgroup, (Tajfel, 1971). Moreover, Tajfel reported that individuals can be placed in an outgroup for any number of reasons, including (but not limited to), “ideology, skin color, age, and cognitive capacity,” (Tajfel, 1978; as cited in Opotow, 1995). Given these findings, the assumption can be made that human beings have an innate tendency to classify those around them into definite categories, which creates the basis for exclusion. Once these individuals are outside the scope of justice, they are no longer considered to have the right to fair treatment and equality (Opotow, 1995).

== Dangers of Moral Exclusion == === a slippery slope ===

Every culture has its own set of values for behavior and communication that exist somewhere along a moral continuum. One end is the aforementioned scope of justice and the other is moral exclusion, (we could say the scope of unjust), (Deutsch,1990). The root of “othering” is basic categorization. The us/them dichotomy is a embedded psychological process, occurring without  conscious thought. Initially, elevating ingroup and diminishing outgroup occurs in innocent ways. For example, using the salute, “Heil Hitler,” is not explicitly harmful to anyone, yet this  is now seen as an entry point for shifting into a system of destruction, (Staub, 1992). People change through their own actions; practicing new habits and participating in small acts gradually shifts  internal standards of individuals interacting at the interpersonal level. The innocuous becomes insidious. Individuals hold positions at various levels of corporate  and governmental structures, thereby institutionalizing particular modes of  thinking and behaving. conditions are ripe, this becomes a continuum of destruction that is legitimised or rationalised in the collective consciousness. Ofrena and de Vela (2006) developed a model to depict systems of violence situated within a society which are co-created by the social psychological process of moral exclusion,  cultural norms that justify violence, and by economic and political hierarchies of power that maintain it (see Figure 1). The model depicts three levels of society in which moral exclusion roots and recreates itself. At the bottom is the social psychological, within an individual psyche. In the middle of the model is the social cultural,informal group level interaction where behavior is either ignored or applauded which normalizes it or condemned and eradicates it. At the top is the social structure, governments, corporations, institutions that solidify and reify cultural norms.

Figure 1 Model of the Problem

No setting is immune from marginalizing members. For instance, moral exclusion is an area of academic study, yet within academia, instances of the phenomena exist. Allen- Collinson (2009) analyzes moral exclusion, in the article,“Negative ‘marking’?” University research administrators and the contestation of moral exclusion.”  The degradation of research administrators among their academic colleagues is examined. Allen-Collinson found that research administrators were being subjected to a variety of moral exclusion dimensions such as negative labeling and marking. Academic staff had been labeled (informally as well as documented) by their colleagues and administration as “assistant” or “support staff,” fundamentally downplaying their skills and expertise. Another dimension of moral exclusion that appeared was the rendering of research administrators as invisible by either excluding them from research related committees as actual academic staff or by not acknowledging their presence in regularly staffed meetings.

===Solutions ==== =====teaching and communication and dissent=====

Even habituated behaviors can be changed by evaluating what we are doing and consciously modifying what had been a norm, see Figure 2. The model depicts how each of the three levels of society can create greater justness within their realm. At the bottom is the social psychological, within an individual psyche, individuals can recognize and treat all others with basic human dignity. In the middle of the model is the social cultural,informal group level interaction where undesirable labeling, marginalizing, or dehumanizing behavior can be condemned. Dissent for inappropriate actions can change them. At the top is the social structure, governments, corporations, institutions have the power to redistribute ore equitable ideas, thereby solidifying nonviolence as a cultural norm. Figure 2  Model of a Solution

§kєl.₡rΘ 14:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Opotow, Gerson, & Woodside (2005), explore moral exclusion theory in terms of teaching peace education and providing a more structured and systematic approach to the complex issue of peace. Opotow et al. (2005) lists the following four key social dilemmas that moral exclusion systematically illustrates in the study of conflict, war, and peace: educating for coexistence, educating for human rights, educating for gender equality, and educating for environmentalism. Pairing moral exclusion with such areas, Opotow et al. (2005) argues, provides a larger scope for peace education and clearly outlines peace education as a relevant and grave topic that needs to be studied and satisfied by students of all ages. Opotow et al. (2005) therefore states that moral exclusion should be seen as a human factor, as something that every person does, rather than the limited scope of justice that malicious people act on. Consequently with moral exclusion seen as a human capacity, the theory itself can be coupled with peace education to better understand the downward spiral of war and conflict and shift to an inclusionary focus for groups and individuals.

===Examples===

Some practical examples of the concept of moral exclusion could include situations as severe as genocide and slavery, to situations as controversial as abortion, gun control, and immigrant laws.

Genocide/War
Genocide is the act of purposefully killing a mass of people due to their particular ethnic group. Such action was attempted by the Nazis in Germany towards Jews. The Nazis took away the basic rights of the Jewish people, placed them in camps, experimented on them, tortured them, and killed them; all on the basis of the fact that these people were a part of a certain group.

Slavery
Slavery is another example. European Americans who enslaved Africans in United States history took away the rights of the Africans in order to have them subject to their orders. Even when slavery was abolished, enactments such as the Jim Crowe Laws kept Blacks/African-Americans from some basic rights, based off of their racial group. European Americans believed that the African-Americans did not deserve the same rights, facilities, and access to the public like they did.



Immigrants
Other examples include undocumented students, or even immigrants in general in the United States. In Arizona, laws were passed to allow police officers the capability to pull anybody over that they may suspect as an illegal immigrant and ask them to present their birth certificate at any given time. This type of moral exclusion takes away the rights of not only the immigrants (although, it can be argued that the illegal immigrants do not technically have rights in the US since they are not citizens) but also those who may “look like” they are immigrants. This judgment would be based off of the characteristics of the group that these people may not necessarily identify with, but seem to fit in. As for undocumented students, who are born in the United States by illegal parents, their right to go to school in the United States might be taken away based off of their group’s status in the US. Even though they are technically US citizens, other citizens believe that these people do not belong in the group, and therefore should not be allowed the rights that the group has. Simply based on the way someone looks; see video link at left 

Religion
Palestinians and Israelis have been practicing moral exclusion for centuries. Both groups view the other as being wrong and out of line when it comes to their religious beliefs, so they are at war with each other, killing one another because they believe the other should not be allowed to live.

Prison
In the United States we believe that every human, citizen, etc. has a set of basic rights (the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). Yet, we have a justice department that believes that anyone who acts out of line should (within reason) be stripped of those rights when put in prison. A person in jail is stripped of their freedom, privacy, right to vote; even their right to life if placed under the death penalty. As a society, we have found it okay to morally exclude those who have done wrong and strip them of their rights and privileges because of it.

Since the inmate uprising at Attica in 1971, prison reform has improved QUOTE FROM THE NATION "'The basic fact that prisoners, too, are human is one that society has yet to accept. “WE are MEN!” the Attica inmates wrote in a manifesto addressed to “the people of America.” “We are not beasts and do not intend to be beaten or driven as such.” At the top of a list of “demands” was the basic request that officials “provide adequate food, water, and shelter for all inmates.” Others included “adequate medical treatment,” “realistic, effective rehabilitation programs,” “true religious freedom,” an end to “censorship of newspapers, magazines [and] letters” and, tellingly, “a program for the recruitment and employment of a significant number of black and Spanish-speaking officers." click link for entire article http://www.thenation.com/article/163214/attica-40

http://www.thenation.com/article/slaughter-attica

Death Penalty
An interesting approach would be to look at the death penalty, as this is a controversial issue. We tend to see those who commit perverse crimes as unworthy of receiving the same treatment as others (i.e. we believe that humans should not kill each other, yet we kill people when they do things that place them in an extreme outgroup).

§kєl.₡rΘ 18:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

§kєl.₡rΘ 18:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC) §kєl.₡rΘ 23:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)