Social Distance in Psychology | Psychology

Social Distance in Psychology!

Each human being has affiliations with his family, his caste, his village, his language group, his religious sect, his nationality and so on. This membership of one’s group is basic to our existence. Otherwise we are purushapasus. We become human beings with foresight and understanding, because we are socialized by our parents, our relatives, our teachers and others. For a man, his parents, his birth place, however humble or exalted it is, his religion, his language all these are good. He is born into them.

They are given to him. They are like the air that he breathes. He takes them for granted. Generally it is believed that the love of the parents, the neighbourhood and other groups is the result of the rewards. Because his family feeds him, looks after him and gives him security, he learns to love them.

But according to Allport, “A child who has plenty of fun at a family re-union may be more attached there—after to his own clan because of the experience. But normally he would be attached to his clan anyway, simply because it is an inescapable part of his life. Few of our group memberships seem to be sustained by the pleasure they provide… it takes a major unhappiness, a prolonged and bitter experience, to drive us away from loyalties once formed.”

Thus according to Allport we adhere to our own families, clans, castes, linguistic groups, ethnic groups because that is the ground of our existence. We came from there and that is the basis of our existence. Even when a person feels unhappy or miserable in his village or in his caste group he does not abandon it. A few years ago when the writer was at Harvard University, he met a Negro gentleman from a Southern American State. He spoke about the humiliations of the Negro in the South, about the handicaps, how his children were unable to move with the white children with equality. In contrast he said that his life at Harvard was so different.

He was able to get a house in the midst of the white people. His children were mixing with the white children in the neighbourhood. This was an astonishing experience for him. He was a teacher. When asked why he does not give up his state and come and live in Harvard, he said that he could never think of giving up his home. This is a typical human situation. The persecuted group never desires to give up the place of its birth. Particularly so in a country like India where it is only in recent years that there is population mobility.

Several Muslims who went to Pakistan when that state was formed now feel miserable that they are cut off from the neighbourhood where they were born and brought up. In a similar way the Indian who migrates from one state to another state in pursuit of a career always speaks with regret that he was unable to find a suitable job in the state of his origin. It is true that people migrate; but it is also true that they continue to have a love and a yearning for the place from which they came.

Thus the individual as well as the family tends to have a strong in-group feeling and so he will not forsake the group or migrate from the area. In every city in India we find that new localities are springing up with better roads, better houses and other facilities. Still we find that the old families with their ancestral homes in the middle of the city will not move out though they may be owning houses in the new extensions.

The very same process that is responsible for the in-group formation is also responsible for the out-group formation and social distance. In our villages and in our towns we find that more prosperous and more cultured groups live around the centre and as we go farther and farther from the centre we find that the less privileged groups construct their homes until at last the Harijans live at the outskirts of the village or the town. This was the old pattern. But in the new cities we find that with the rapid increase in population, extensions are formed and the homes of the middle class or of the upper-classes may be beyond the homes of Harijans.

Before proceeding further it would be useful to discuss some of the aspects of the problem of the formation of in-groups. As we have just now seen in a static society like in the village, kinship, status, sense of responsibility etc., are almost rigidly prescribed. But in a mobile society particularly in our cities, which are growing bigger and bigger, there is no such rigidity. Thus the nature and the composition of the in-group varies with the dynamic or the static character of the group as a whole.

In a static group the membership of the in-group is more rigidly prescribed and so the individual cannot shift his membership to other groups. On the other hand in a more dynamic society where the group membership is not rigidly prescribed the individual may belong to a number of organizations. But, membership of certain groups is essential; for example, the child is regarded as a member of his parents’ groups.

So he belongs to the same race, caste, class, religion etc., as his father. When he grows old and particularly if he lives in a more mobile group he may escape from some of the memberships but not all. The boy who belongs to the barber’s caste would have to take the barber’s occupation if he lives in the village. If he takes up any other occupation he will meet with disapproval from his own caste group in the village as well as from the other caste groups.

On the other hand if he goes to a school and obtains general education, and also obtains some professional education he may not take up his caste occupation. He may become a teacher or a doctor. Thus the status of an individual is of two varieties- (a) there is the ascribed status, which the individual gets because he is born in a particular family belonging to a particular group, (b) There is the achieved status depending upon the education of the individual, his ability, his character and achievements. As the society becomes more and more dynamic, the membership of the in-groups depending on achievement will become more important and significant than the membership which is based upon his birth and upbringing. It may be said that one of the important aspects of the Indian Constitution is the stress on the achieved status in contrast to the stress on ascribed status, which existed for thousands of years in Indian society.

Thus, in the olden days membership of a small in-group like that of the clan was the most significant. With the development of society, membership on the basis of clan, class, caste, and so on become less significant and membership of the race, the nation or the commonwealth becomes more significant. We have already seen that the ancient Indian concept of the ashrama-dharma has taken note of this essential character in the development of an individual.

In the Brahmacharya-ashrama the individual belongs to the group into which he is born and he conducts himself so that his potentialities find an expression. On the basis of his education and training he enters into a profession, marries and sets up a home. He now belongs to a larger number of in-groups depending upon his achievement. But finally in the Sanyasa-ashrama he gives up his affiliation to all the various in-groups and now becomes a member of the in-group which includes the entire humanity. So, for the Sanyasi there is no out-group whatever.

However, though the human beings in different countries and in different cultures are trying to outgrow the narrow limitations of the old formations, still they are unable to develop a world outlook. Ancient Indian thought itself had realised that very few individuals can rise up to the stature where they can look upon the entire humanity as an in-group.

It is not possible for a whole group, which identifies itself and differentiates itself on the basis of colour, creed, or culture to develop this universalistic attitude. Consequently, the fears, loyalties and rivalries have now been shifted from the primitive clan level to the modern ideological level. So whole groups of nations and races join together to form an ideological block which looks upon members of the other ideological block as members of the out-group.

We have to realise the in-group membership is not a permanently fixed feature. There are certain in-group memberships, which are permanent, but certain others are not permanent. For example, one’s membership within a family is a permanent membership. Though the individual may migrate into other areas he will still have affiliation with the village in which he was born, with the family in which he was born, with the group in which he was brought up.

These affiliations may be so strong that he may come back and settle down in his village after the age of retirement. It is possible that he may be disillusioned. There may be a conflict in him as well as between him and the other members of his family. Anyway this illustrates the strength of the affiliation. But the other in-group memberships may be given up more easily, and he may become a member of a new group depending upon his education, his interests, his wealth, his profession his status etc.

In fact in a city there are so many voluntary organizations into which he can enter as a member. Each organization will have its own rules and regulations. If he is qualified he can become a member of these new groups or he may himself start a new group and get like-minded people to become members of this new group. So there is no end to the possibilities of change of membership. But the basic thing is that the in-group feeling, the sense of belonging, is a highly personal matter.

One may be a member of an in-group socially but psychologically he may feel that he is not a member of that in-group. For example, a man may belong to a caste group but he may not like to look upon himself as a member of that caste. He may repudiate the entire caste system with all its implications. Similarly a man may belong to a professional group, but he may not like the work that he is doing, and the other colleagues in that profession. His interests may be in other directions. This may lead to a clash between his membership of a particular profession and his personal interests. For example, by profession a man may be an engineer but by interests he may develop affiliations with some artistic or economic or scientific groups. Such an individual will work as an engineer but his whole interest may be with a non- engineering group.

Nor is it necessary that an individual should have direct acquaintance with all the members of the in-group. He may know intimately the members of his family and some others in the in-group. He may know his classmates and his school fellows by personal contacts or merely by name. Other members of the in-group, whether it is of caste or class or nation, he may know only indirectly.

Thus, the feeling of belongingness to an in-group depends upon symbols and upon hearsay. No one can have direct knowledge of all the members of one’s group. Still one feels certain belongingness to one’s religion and so there are close affiliations. Consequently when a stranger from another state or another country who belongs to the same religion writes to one, he may be received with great affection though probably that is the first and only occasion that these two members ever meet.

Similarly, the child identifies himself with his family merely on the basis of hearsay. He may not have seen his parents much less his grand-parents and great grand-parents. The Hindu, when he offers oblations to his forefathers at the shraddha ceremony, he has to recall the names of his father, grandfather and great-grandfather and offer symbolic food to these pitrus, though he may never have had any personal contact with any of them.

In this way the shraddha ceremony tries to make an individual feel that he belongs to a family with certain noble traditions. This makes him a member of an in-group with a past and with a future and thus makes him develop a certain attitude of responsibility to preserve it by good behaviour, by bringing up his children properly so that the fair name of his family is perpetuated and enhanced. Similarly, one cherishes one’s caste membership on the basis of the symbols and the hearsay. The words he hears provide him just as authentic a ground for his life as do his daily experiences. By symbols one learns family traditions, patriotism and racial pride.

The in-group membership thus, is based upon the sense of belonging, the ‘we’ feeling. When all the individuals look upon themselves as members of that particular group, there is the development of the sense of belonging. However, we should not mislead ourselves that this in-group feeling is the same in all the members. History has shown, personal experiences show, that any group can be pulled down effectively only by the members of that same group.

The bitterest enemy is not a member of the out-group, so much as a member of the in-group. It was the Greeks who gave hemlock to Socrates, it was an American who shot Abraham Lincoln, it was a Hindu who shot Gandhi. So, the mere fact of in-group membership does not imply that there is an undifferentiated uniform feeling of affiliation to every member of the in-group. The greatest hostility is between the people who love each other.

No two people can become more bitter enemies than the husband and wife, or the brother and brother or sister, or the parent and child. So the mere fact of in-group membership does not imply that there is freedom from jealousy and rivalry within the group. The thief in a gang is more frightened that a member of the gang may betray him, than that a member of the police organization may discover him. Similarly the labour union, which is on strike is more afraid of sabotage from within, than of being crushed from without.

So we should not mislead ourselves into thinking that all the members of an in-group perceive each other in the same way and have love for each other. Rivalries and jealousies may lead to a good deal of hostility among the members within the group.

Sherif and Sherif have introduced the concept of Reference Group in order to explain differences within the group. They have defined the reference groups as “those groups to which the individual relates himself as a part to which he aspires to relate himself psychologically”. Thus, within the in-group there is a reference group, which is warmly accepted by the individual and with which the individual wishes to be included or a reference group may be outside the in-group.

For example, many educated Indians look upon the British, the Americans and other Western nations as a reference group. During the days before independence the ideal of a highly educated Indian was to send his child to England so that he could study there and become a small “Englishman”. For example, Nehru had his high school as well as college education in England. Similarly, Aurabindo Ghosh had his entire education from the elementary stage to the college level in England.

He became thoroughly Indian in his outlook after he returned from England and has written many books expounding Indian culture. Even after independence, there is a great deal of eagerness on the part of highly educated Indians to send their children to the convents conducted by the Westerners or by Indian Christian missionaries.

As a matter of fact in many cities many convents have been established in the post-independence years because of this need. Similarly our large programmes of industrialisation are based on the American or the British model.

So the out-group itself may serve as a reference group. Similarly a certain section of the in-group may serve as a reference group. In many parts of the country the Hindus of the other castes look upon the Brahmin caste as the reference group; particularly in the South, there is a double attitude towards the Brahmin group among the other castes: they want to imitate them and at the same time they are hostile to them. Similarly in the North, particularly in the cities like Lucknow and Delhi or in Hyderabad the reference group, were the Muslims. The Hindu would look down upon the Muslim but still imitate him in dress, customs and manners.

Consequently we cannot agree with Sherif and Sherif that a reference group always implies a warm acceptance, which serves as a model. It need not necessarily lead to warm affiliations. As Freud pointed out long ago there may be an ambivalent attitude towards the reference group, or a complete identification. Many castes in the South have tried to elevate themselves by adding the word Brahmin to their caste name and by putting the sacred thread and reciting the gayathri at the dawn and in the evening.

Such groups not only have the Brahmin group as the model but they also have love and admiration for them. There are also non-Brahmin groups, which have the Brahmin group as a model and at the same time are hostile to them. Among the former there may be, what Kurt Lewin has called, “self-hate” because they want to be like the members of the reference group, they may develop a hatred and contempt for their own in-group, their own caste. They may suffer from serious conflict because they would like to be incorporated with the reference group but they are forced to live as members of their own caste group and so they may tend to dislike the members of their caste groups.

Social Distance:

As we have noted above prejudice is revealed in social distance. It is the distance at which members of a prejudiced group hold another group and its members. The concept of social distance was first used by the sociologist Park when he was describing the observed fact that the relative intimacy and understanding between the members of the different groups vary. In 1924 Bogardus developed a scale to measure social distance.

He asked the respondents to indicate to which of the following steps they would admit members of the various groups in United States:

1. To close kinship by marriage,

2. To my street as neighbours,

3. To my club as personal chums,

4. To employment in my occupation,

5. As visitors only to my country,

6. To citizenship in my country,

7. Would exclude from my country.

Thus Bogardus devised a list of statements, which represented the varying degrees of social intimacy or distance. He asked the subjects to indicate the classification to which they would willingly admit members of a given group. It has been found that throughout the United States people belonging to different racial groups have given a remarkably similar picture of social distances for the national ethnic groups, which compose the population of United States.

Americans, irrespective of their ethnic group generally asserted that the English and the Canadians were the most acceptable people as citizens, as neighbours, as social equals, and as kinsmen. In other words all the various American groups have the least social distance to the English and the Canadians. On the other hand all of them agree to put at the other extreme the Hindus, the Turks and the Negroes. In between these two groups the Southern and Eastern European nations are placed.

Now this general pattern of the social distance appears to be unaffected by factors like space and time and race in the United States. Students from all parts of the United States give substantially the same picture of the group of the various races. It has also been found that this social distance persists through time. Bogardus obtained the first measure in 1926 and the second measure in 1946. The respondents varied in age from 18 to 35 years and varied in profession, though the people from the skilled and the professional people were somewhat over-represented.

He found “the population groups to which the great nearness was expressed in 1926… maintained this role for the most part in 1946… likewise the groups which were placed at the greatest distance in 1926 maintained this position with only one major exception, the Chinese in 1946. It is likewise true that the groups which occupied the middle positions in the, scale in 1926 were accorded similar positions in 1946”. Hartley and Spoerl also found similar results in 1946 and 1951 respectively.

Thus, we find the operation of the concept of reference group with respect to social distance in United States. Individuals irrespective of their race, income, education and occupation have the same pattern of social distance. The only difference is with respect to the position given by the minority ethnic groups to themselves, for example, the Jewish individuals would give the Jews a high place but for all the other groups they would give the same pattern as the reference group, namely, the White Protestant majority. In the same way an Italian or a Greek would place his group very high but would put all the other groups according to the prevailing pattern.

In 1951 the writer used a modification of Bogardus’ social distance test among the students in Madras State.

The respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they would admit Brahmins, Christians, Harijans, higher caste non-Brahmins, lower caste non-Brahmins, Muslims, Parsis and Sikhs to the following social relationships:

1. To kinship by marriage,

2. To take food in your own dining room,

3. As an intimate personal friend,

4. As a guest in your house,

5. As your neighbour,

6. As an acquaintance.

They were asked to indicate their preferences regarding each group as a whole and not with reference to any particular individual of that group. It was found that 107 subjects out of 591 (18.1%) indicated that they would admit anyone of the groups mentioned to any degree of social intimacy (10.8% women and 21.7% men), 80% of the students indicated varying degrees of social distance and 1.9% did not give any response.

On the basis of the number of times the various groups were admitted to the various social relationships the social distance was calculated. The greater number of “Yes” responses for the, group the nearer is the relationship to it and the smaller the number of “Yes” responses the farther the group. On the basis of the distribution of the preference responses has been drawn up indicating the social distances existing among the groups examined.

We find that each group ranks itself as the first in the order of preference. We further find that in general the higher caste non-Brahmins are given the relatively higher position by all the four groups. As regards the Brahmins we find that the respondents who are not Brahmins have given them a low position so that in the total preference they get only the third position.

On the other hand the Christians get the second position in the group as a whole because they are given high preference by the Brahmins non-Brahmins as well as Muslims. All the groups, except the Christians, give a lower place to the Harijans, than to the lower caste non- Brahmin group. We find that Muslims are given the last place by the Brahmins as-well-as the non-Brahmins with the exception of the non-Brahmin women, who have given the fifth to the Muslims. On the whole we find that the Parsis, the Muslims and the Sikhs are placed at the lower end of the scale. On social distance is given graphically.

The method adopted was first preference and the last preference were fixed at the two ends and the intermediate groups were put in between. This helps us to see how the out-groups are spaced far away from the in-group in each case. We find that the next preferred group after the in-group is far away in every case except among the non-Brahmin men who give a relatively close place to the lower caste non-Brahmins.

Hostile Action:

So far in our analysis of prejudice we have seen that there are two factors operating. We first took up the cognitive factor and showed how there will be a set of beliefs concerning the group towards which there is prejudice. We found that on the basis of the traditions in the group as well as on the basis of personal experiences certain stereotypes developed and we have seen that the beliefs expressed in these stereotypes are very persistent and that they resist any kind of a change.

Secondly, prejudice manifests itself in an attitude unfavourable to the other group. This is of the essence of social distance. The prejudiced group keeps the other groups at varying distances depending upon the intensity of the unfavourableness of attitude towards that group. Here also, personal experiences generally do not alter the social distance. Further, the group pressure will be so great that it is very difficult for an individual to give up social distance.

If he gives up social distance, then he may himself be victimised by the group. This is why for thousands of years the social distance towards the Harijans and the lower caste Hindus have persisted inspite of the attempts particularly by Buddhism, Vaisnavism and Saivism and other such religious groups to discover saints among the Harijans and the lower caste Hindus. Still social distance as well as the stereotype regarding this group have persisted and are active even today in the villages, inspite of the articles of the Constitution, which are against the practice of any kind of discrimination.

We can now proceed to study the third aspect of prejudice, namely, action. Over and above the beliefs, which are enshrined in these stereotypes and the attitudes, which are manifest in social distance, under certain circumstances there will be hostile action towards the prejudiced groups. As we have seen above, neither stereotypes nor social distances necessarily lead to hostile action. Thus prejudice does not inevitably lead to hostility.

Allport has given five steps to describe the range of activities that issue from prejudiced beliefs and attitudes- antilocution, avoidance, discrimination, physical attack and extermination. While one may agree with the last three items it is a matter for doubt whether antilocution, expresses greater hostility or avoidance. The present writer would put avoidance first and antilocution second.

The five degrees of action arising out of prejudice may now be briefly described:

1. Avoidance:

Prejudice leads to social distance. Social distance not only creates a certain distance towards the group but when it is extreme it may lead to avoidance. Thus avoidance may be looked upon as the extreme expression of social distance. As Allport himself notes “the bearer of prejudice does not directly inflict harm upon the group he dislikes. He takes the burden of accommodation and withdrawal entirely upon himself”. Thus, when we dislike a group we may try to withdraw from the group.

This is a mild expression of hostility towards the other group while at the same time it is a manifestation of extreme social distance. However, this is a civilized way of expressing dislike. As we have seen above, the right kind of socialization should enable an individual to have a love towards all the various human groups. But if there is any failure in socialization so that this standard of conduct and feeling is not reached it is possible that the individual may entertain a prejudice against a group.

2. Antilocution:

When we have prejudice against another group, we tend to speak against that group, particularly when we meet like-minded individuals. It is possible that we may speak against the others even when we meet strangers who have nothing to do with either of the groups. In the opinion of the present writer this is a more hostile action than avoidance because there is injury done to the other group by decrying that group in season and out of season.

The Muslim League for instance not only formed itself into a political group against the Indian National Congress but started speaking against the Congress as well as the Hindus who formed the majority in India. We find a similar tendency even in the social relationships of individuals.

3. Discrimination:

When the hostility is greater there may be discrimination. For example, the members of one group may prevent the members of other groups from employment. In some of the southern states of India we find such discrimination being practised among the various caste groups. So long as our cities and towns were small, and so long as there was not much pressure of the populations, the division of housing area worked satisfactorily.

But with the increase in population the discriminatory practices became more pronounced. For example, because there was housing shortage and because the members of the Brahmin caste had houses in the good residential areas of a town or a city the other caste groups realised that there was a practice of discrimination. The present writer asked this question: “To which of the following communities would you let your house if it falls vacant: Brahmins, high caste non-Brahmins, lower caste non-Brahmins, Harijans, Muslims, Christians?” It was found that 43.6% of the Brahmins (188), 54.5% of the non-Brahmins (290) 61.1% of the Muslims (36) and 48.1% of Christians (77) asserted that they would let out the house to anyone. As against this 36.3% of Brahmins, 34.1% of non- Brahmins, 16.7% of Muslims and 6.8% of Christians asserted that they would let out the house only to the members of the same community.

This practice of discrimination in the letting out of houses is one of the important reasons for generating caste tensions between the Brahmins and the other caste Hindus in the last few decades. This has led to discriminations in employment. In many of the southern states of India there has been an attempt to reserve employment opportunities in the Government services to a very large extent among the non-Brahmin castes. This has extended also to the educational facilities.

In the same investigation the following question was asked- “Should admission to colleges be on the basis of caste and creed?” “As we have already seen certain sections of the community took to western education right from its inception in the middle of the last century. But other sections for various reasons did not take to education at all or to education in the western style.

This led to a great disparity in the educational level of the various sections. After the First World War all sections began to feel the need for education. Since the professional colleges and science colleges were few, while a large number sought admission, it was found that the backward castes could get admission only when there was special reservation for them.

In response to this question it was found that the majority of the group as a whole were against admission to the colleges on the basis of caste and creed. Only 17.3% of the group favoured it. The caste and creed breakdown revealed that 97.4% of the Brahmins, 65.9% of the non-Brahmins, 78% of the Christians and 55.6% of the Muslims were definitely against caste and creed being the basis of admission to the college. On the other hand 1.6% of the Brahmins, 24.1 % of the non-Brahmins, 20.8% of the Christians and 36.1% of the Muslims were in favour of caste and creed being the basis for admissions. The rest of the groups either favoured that caste and creed should be the basis for some time or did not give any response at all.

4. Physical Attack:

There may be violence against the members of another group or against their property when there is heightened emotion. For example, during the 1930s and 1940s constantly there was violence and destruction of life and property because of the physical attacks in the communal conflicts. Similarly we find that in the 1940s and 1950s student-groups have been indulging in violent acts against the University property or the public property.

5. Extermination:

This is the most extreme expression of hostility leading to a total extermination of the group as a whole. The Germans under Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews in Germany. Similarly during 1947-48 before and after partition in India the Hindus wanted to exterminate the Muslims and the Muslims wanted to exterminate the Hindus. This is the most violent expression of hostility.

The point that we have to bear in mind is that prejudice against a group or against an individual may lead logically from avoidance and antilocution to physical attack and finally to extermination. This is why indulging in attack against the group has to be restrained. If it is not restrained the continuous attack against a group will lead ultimately to physical action against the group and finally to extermination.

So, the only way of ensuring against violence is to prevent antilocution and antilocution can be prevented only when there is positive resistance to hatred in the minds of individuals. It is difficult to practise love for other people and the humanity as a whole, but it is not so difficult to train ourselves not to hate other individuals and groups. If we do not hate we will not speak against them and if we do not speak against them we will not physically attack them.