The sibling rivalry that divided a town - Jay Van Bavel and Dominic Packer

Prevodilac: Milenka Okuka Lektor: Ivana Korom

In the years before World War Two,

U godinama koje su prethodile Drugom svetskom ratu,

a pair of brothers worked together as shoemakers

dva brata su radila zajedno kao obućari

in the German town of Herzogenaurach.

u nemačkom gradu Hercogenaurahu.

But during the war, the siblings had a terrible argument—

Međutim, tokom rata, braća su se užasno posvađala -

a fight so explosive it split the family business in two.

toliko žestoko da su pocepali porodično preduzeće na dva dela.

At first, the feud only infected their newly competing personnel.

U početku, neprijateljstvo je zarazilo samo novopečeno sukobljeno osoblje.

But over the coming years,

U godinama koje su usledile pak,

this disagreement divided all of Herzogenaurach.

rasprava je podelila čitav Hercogenaurah.

Residents became fiercely loyal to one brand of shoe.

Stanovnici su postali žestoko odani jednom brendu cipela.

Local businesses chose sides and marriage across lines was discouraged.

Lokalne firme su odabrale strane, a mešani brakovi su obeshrabrivani.

Herzogenaurach eventually became known as “the town of bent necks”

Hercogenaurah je vremenom postao poznat kao „grad povijenih vratova”

because its residents looked down to ensure they were interacting

jer su njegovi stanovnici gledali nadole kako bi bili sigurni da interaguju

with members of their group.

sa članovima svoje grupe.

But could such a serious divide really be about shoes?

Međutim, može li tako ozbiljna podela da nastane zbog cipela?

Doesn’t it take more significant cultural differences

Zar nisu potrebne značajnije kulturološke razlike

to produce this degree of conflict?

da proizvedu ovaj stepen konflikta?

To answer this question, we can turn to social psychologist Henri Tajfel

Da bismo odgovorili na pitanje, okrenućemo se socijalnom psihologu Henriju Tadžfelu

and his collaborators at the University of Bristol.

i njegovim saradnicima sa Univerziteta u Bristolu.

This team developed the minimal group paradigm,

Ova ekipa je razvila paradigmu minimalne grupe,

a methodology designed to investigate

metodologiju osmišljenu da istraži

the minimal conditions required to turn people against each other.

minimalne potrebne uslove da bi se ljudi okrenuli jedni protiv drugih.

Their plan was to gather participants without the usual factors

Njihov plan je bio da okupe učesnike bez uobičajenih faktora

that lead to hostility,

koji vode do neprijateljstva,

such as religious, ethnic, gender, or other cultural differences.

poput religije, nacije, roda ili drugih kulturoloških razlika.

Then, they would split into groups,

Potom bi ih podelili u grupe

and run them through scenarios that added one variable at a time

i provlačili su ih kroz scenarije koji su dodavali jednu po jednu varijablu

to see what stirred up conflict.

kako bi videli šta pokreće konflikt.

But first, they needed a control condition—

Međutim, prvo im je bilo potrebno kontrolno stanje -

a pair of groups without any group bias.

par grupa bez ikakve grupne pristrasnosti.

The researchers told participants they were being grouped

Istraživači su rekli učesnicima da su grupisani

based on their ability to estimate things correctly or incorrectly;

na osnovu sposobnosti da procene stvari tačno ili netačno;

but in reality, the groups were totally random.

ali u stvarnosti, grupe su bile u potpunosti nasumične.

Since the researchers ensured none of the participants interacted,

Kako su se istraživači postarali da ne bude interakcija među učesnicima,

no one could form any judgments or personal bonds.

niko nije mogao da formira stavove ili lične veze.

Then everyone was given resources to distribute.

Potom su svima dati resursi za raspodelu.

Each participant was free to give resources to members of either group,

Svaki učesnik je imao slobodu da dodeli resurse članu bilo koje grupe,

and importantly, everything was anonymous.

i što je najvažnije, sve je bilo anonimno.

So whatever a participant decided,

Stoga, šta god da bi učesnik odlučio,

it had no impact on how many resources they personally would receive.

nije imalo uticaja na to koliko će resursa lično dobiti.

With all the ingredients for discrimination removed

Sa uklonjenim svim sastojcima za diskriminaciju

and no reason for competition over resources,

i bez razloga za nadmetanje zbog resursa,

the scientists assumed this would make a conflict-free baseline

naučnici su pretpostavili da će ovo sačinjavati beskonfliktnu osnovu

for further research.

za buduća istraživanja.

But even in these groups,

Međutim, čak i u ovim grupama,

where membership was only defined by a perceived similarity

gde je članstvo jedino definisano percipiranom sličnošću

in possessing an arbitrary skill,

u posedovanju proizvoljne veštine,

individuals still showed in-group bias.

pojedinci su i dalje ispoljavali pristrasnost unutar grupe.

They consistently gave more to members of their own group than the out-group.

Stalno su davali više članovima svoje grupe nego onima izvan nje.

Later, research went even further,

Kasnije je istraživanje otišlo i dalje,

informing participants that the only thing determining their group membership

obaveštavajući učesnike da je jedina stvar koja određuje članstvo u grupi

was a coin flip.

bacanje novčića.

But group bias still occurred.

Međutim, i dalje je dolazilo do grupne pristrasnosti.

The minimal groups of “us” and “them” were enough.

Paradigma minimalne grupe „mi” i „oni” je bila dovoljna.

So, in the absence of stereotypes, resource conflicts and status differences,

U odsustvu stereotipa, konflikta zbog resursa i statusnih razlika,

what was left?

šta je preostalo?

What could possibly account for people showing clear preferences

Šta bi uopšte moglo da objasni zašto ljudi pokazuju jasne preference

for the most temporary and meaningless of groups?

za najprolaznije i najbeznačajnije grupe?

The answer that came to Tajfel and his colleagues was social identity.

Odgovor do kog su došli Tadžfel i kolege je bio društveni identitet.

People regularly use group membership to help determine their sense of identity.

Ljudi redovno koriste grupnu pripadnost da utvrde svoj osećaj identiteta.

And these minimal group experiments suggested that simply being categorized

A ovi eksperimenti sa minimalnom grupom upućuju na to da je puka kategorizacija

as part of a group is enough to link that group to a person’s sense of self.

pripadanja grupi dovoljna da poveže tu grupu sa nečijom svešću o sebi.

Then, in an effort to create a meaningful identity,

Potom, u naporu da stvore smislen identitet,

participants allocated more resources to their in-group than the out-group—

učesnici su dodeljivali više resursa onima unutar grupe nego onima van nje -

pursuing their group's interests despite no clear benefit to themselves

vodeći se interesima svoje grupe uprkos nepostojanju jasnog interesa za njih

as individuals.

kao pojedince.

Variants of these experiments have been conducted around the globe,

Varijacije ovih eksperimenata su izvođene širom sveta,

examining how a shared sense of “us” can affect our attention,

istražujući kako zajednička svest o „nama” utiče na našu pažnju,

perception, memory, and emotions.

percepciju, pamćenje i osećanja.

The mental processes behind minimal group distinctions

Mentalni procesi iza razlika paradigme minimalne grupe

appear to be the same as many of those that underlie real group identities.

čini se da su isti kao mnogi od onih koji su u srži stvarnih grupnih identiteta.

So it is possible that these seemingly insignificant differences can harden

Stoga je moguće da ove naoko beznačajne razlike mogu da očvrsnu

into much more serious divides.

u mnogo ozbiljnije podele.

That said, minimal groups don't always drive people apart.

S tim u vezi, minimalne grupe nužno ne razdvajaju ljude.

Bringing individuals together in a new group

Spajanje pojedinaca u novu grupu

can temporarily help people overcome entrenched biases.

može privremeno da pomogne ljudima da prevaziđu uvrežene predrasude.

However, these positive effects are easily negated by external factors

Međutim, ovi pozitivni efekti se lako poništavaju spoljnim faktorima

that reinforce existing group identities.

koji učvršćuju postojeće grupne identitete.

Ultimately, the psychology of groups is part of the human condition,

Naposletku, psihologija grupa je deo ljudske prirode,

and our tendency towards in-group bias is an undeniable part of that.

a naša sklonost ka pristrasnosti unutar grupe je nesumnjivo deo toga.

So it's up to all of us to make our groups and ourselves

Stoga je na nama da učinimo naše grupe i sebe same

as inclusive of others as possible.

što je moguće inkluzivnijim za druge.