Assimilation Destroys the Out-Group

What are some of the impediments of out-group and in-group assimilation? Is it obstruction from within the out-group or is it from the larger dominate group? The in-group members can hinder the out-group based on the idea that the out-group has a preponderance of undesirable characteristics. Surprisingly, a common factor is out-group members trying to assimilate undermining their own standing within both groups. Optimal distinctiveness theory states that in-group distinctiveness must be equalized by assimilation, which is an independent yet opposing motive for group identification (Brewer, 1991, 1999, 2003). By trying to assimilate into the dominate in-group the out-group self cannibalizes. They subvert their own character to ingratiate themselves in an attempt to be accepted.
For acceptance, out-group members confirm negative traits of their group members. This affirms negative stereotypes held by members of the dominate in-group. This also alienates the out-group members from their own group. There are constant examples of out-group members, as part of assimilation, undercutting members of their own group. According to Tajfel and Turner (1986), this group membership alone is enough to induce favoritism (or positive bias) towards the in-group at the expense of the out-group. This sense of in-group favoritism was coined “positive distinctiveness” (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and argued to lead to increased self-esteem. The out-group members are rewarded with acceptance into a small circle of the majority group. Once he or she steps outside of their confines of that circle, they are simply an out group member again and required to constantly reiterate their alter-identity and position with the in-group further damaging the out-group.
“The American exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny, the United States as a beacon, and the American Dream, are powerful stories through which current and past events are framed. From the viewpoint of subordinate groups, America’s legitimizing myths are debilitating, and create a situation where both dominants and subordinates act in concert to maintain majority domination over institutions, wealth, income, and items of positive social value” (Rock 2011).
Individuals in the subordinate group can achieve success without self-immolation however; there are often consequences for subordinates that access resources of positive social value. There is a simple answer but complicated process. Out-group minorities should invest in capitalistic ventures that collectively build their group profile, thereby increasing their social status in America. The out-group should capitalize on the 1.1 trillion dollars of buying power in the country. Let’s face it, in American status and finance are interlinked.

Brewer, M.B. (1991). “The social self: On being the same and different at the same time”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482
Brewer, M.B. (1999). “The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate?” Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429-444.
Brewer, M.B. (2003). “Optimal Distinctiveness, Social Identity, and the Self”. In M. Leary and J. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of Self and Identity. (pp 480–491).
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1986). “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior”. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Rock RJ. “Social Dominance Theory: The U.S. Minority Experience” www.journey24pointoh.com (September 2011) http://journey24pointoh.com/2011/09/04/social-dominance-theory-the-u-s-minority-experience/

Leave a Reply


Skip to toolbar