Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T14:47:50.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Violence or Persuasion? Denial of Recognition and Opportunities for Action in Contemporary Societies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Margarita Sánchez-Mazas
Margarita Sánchez-Mazas*
Affiliation:
Brussels Free University and Haute Ecole de Travail Social, Geneva
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Reference to human rights, not as abstract consensus but as shared object, issue for action and principle of innovation, is ignored in Huntington's theory of the clash of civilizations. The psychosocial processes of relegation to alterity are a form of exclusion which, beyond discrimination and contempt, deny the possibility of a common world. They prevent actors from experiencing their diversity of positioning as a rational diversity and prevent societies from democratically inhabiting the divisions that run through them. The author argues, relying on authors like Etzioni, Moscovici and Crespi, that recognition of minorities’ influence will be the best bulwark against the divisions that undermine contemporary societies’ democratic purpose when they are eliminated or radicalized. She analyses the relations between connected phenomena such as persuasion and the common world, the struggle for recognition in the legal sphere, and the denial of esteem.

Type
Articles
Information
Diogenes , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 94 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2008

References

Crespi, F. (1983) Médiation symbolique et société. Clamecy: Librairie des Méridiens.Google Scholar
Deranty, J. -P. (2003) ‘Mésentente et lutte pour la reconnaissance: Honneth face à Rancière’, in Renault, E. and Sintomer, Y. (eds), Où en est la théorie critique?, pp. 185–99. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Devine, P.G. (1989) ‘Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled Components’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56: 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doise, W. (2001) Droits de l'homme et force des idées. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1984) ‘Cognitive Theories of Persuasion’, in Berkovitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 17, pp. 267–359. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Elias, N. and Scotson, J.L. (2001) Logiques de l'exclusion. Paris: Pocket.Google Scholar
Etzioni, A. (1988) The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Etzioni, A. (2006) ‘The Global Importance of Illiberal Moderates’, Review of International Affairs, 19(3) Sept.: 369–85.Google Scholar
Fraser, N. and Honneth, A. (2003) Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. London / New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Gauchet, M. (2002) La Démocratie contre elle-même. Paris: Gallimard.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gély, R. (2006) Identités et monde commun. Brussels: P. Lang.Google Scholar
Guimond, S. and Dubé-Simard, L. (1983) ‘Relative Deprivation Theory and the Quebec Nationalist Movement: The Cognitive—Emotion Distinction and the Person—Group Deprivation Issue ’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44: 526–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guimond, S. and Tougas, F. (1999) ‘Sentiments d’injustice et actions collectives: la privation relative’, in Bourhis, R. and Leyens, J.-P. (eds), Stéréotypes, discrimination et relations intergroupes, 2nd edn, pp. 201–31. Liège: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Hirschman, A. (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Honneth, A. (1999) ‘Intégrité et mépris. Principes d'une morale de la reconnaissance’, Recherches socio-logiques, 2: 11–22.Google Scholar
Honneth, A. (2002) The Struggle for Recognition. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Honneth, A. (2006) La Société du mépris. Vers une nouvelle théorie critique. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Huntington, S.P. (1997) The Clash of Civilizations. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Hunyadi, M. (2003) ‘La justice distributive au miroir de la reconnaissance’, in Hunyadi, M. and Giugni, M. (eds), Sphères de reconnaissance, pp. 23–60. Paris: L'Harmattan.Google Scholar
Jodelet, D. (2005) ‘Formes et figures de l’altérité’, in Sánchez Mazas, M. and Licata, L. (eds), L'Autre: regardsGoogle Scholar
psychosociaux, pp. 23–47. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
Jost, J.T. and Major, B. (2001) The Psychology of Legitimacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Khosrokhavar, F. (1996) ‘L'universel abstrait, le politique et la construction de l'islamisme comme forme d'altérité’, in Wieviorka, M. (ed.), Une société fragmentée?, pp. 113–51. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Klein, O. and Snyder, M. (2003) ‘Stereotypes and Behavioral Confirmation: From Interpersonal to Intergroup Perspectives ’, in M. P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35: 153–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopmans, R. and Kriesi, H. (1997) ‘Citoyenneté, identité nationale et mobilisation de l'extrême droite. Une comparaison entre la France, l’Allemagne, les Pays-Bas et la Suisse’, in Birnbaum, Pierre (ed.), Sociologie des nationalismes, pp. 295–324. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Lamont, M. (2002) La Dignité des travailleurs. Exclusion, race, classe et immigration en France et aux Etats-Unis. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
Lerner, M.J. (1977) ‘The Justice Motive: Some Hypotheses as to Its Origins and Forms’, Journal of Personality, 45: 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E.A., Kanfer, R. and Earley, P.C. (1990) ‘Voice, Control and Procedural Justice: Instrumental and Non-Instrumental Concerns in Fairness Judgements’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 952–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, B. and Schmader, T. (1998) ‘Coping with Stigma through Psychological Disengagement’, in Swim, J. and Stangor, C. (eds), Prejudice: The Target's Perspective, pp. 219–41. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J.J. (1990) Beyond Self-Interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marková, I. (2000) ‘“Amédée or How to Get Rid of It”: Social Representations from a Dialogical Perspective’, Culture and Psychology, 6(4): 419–60.Google Scholar
Margalit, A. (1996) The Decent Society, transl. N. Goldblum. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J., Brickman, P. and Murray, A. (1984) ‘Moral Outrage and Pragmatism: Explanations for Collective Action ’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20: 484–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D.L. (2000) Introduction to Collective Behaviour and Collective Action. Prospect Heights: Waveland.Google Scholar
Miller, D.T. (1999) ‘The Norm of Self-Interest’, American Psychologist, 54: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, D.T. (2001) ‘Disrespect and the Experience of Injustice’, Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 527–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moghaddam, F.M. (2005) ‘The Staircase to Terrorism. A Psychological Exploration’, American Psychologist, 60(2): 161–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Moghaddam, F.M. (2006) From the Terrorist Point of View. Westport, CT: Praeger Security International.Google Scholar
Moghaddam, F. M. and Marsella, A. J., eds (2004) Understanding Terrorism. Psychological Roots, Consequences, and Interventions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1979) Psychologie des minorités actives. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. and Marková, I. (2000) ‘Ideas and their Development: A Dialogue between Serge Moscovici and Ivana Marková ’, in S. Moscovici, Social Representations (ed. G. Duveen), pp. 224–86. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. and Mugny, G. (1987) Psychologie de la conversion. Etudes sur l'influence inconsciente. Cousset: Delval.Google Scholar
Mugny, G. (1982) The Power of Minorities. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Myrdal, G. (1969) An American Dilemma. The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T.F. and Meertens, R.W. (1993) ‘Le racisme voilé: dimensions et mesure’, in Wieviorka, M. (ed.), Racisme et modernité: actes du colloque ‘3 jours sur le racisme’, pp. 109–26. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Réa, A. (2001) Jeunes immigrés dans la cité. Brussels: Labor.Google Scholar
Renault, E. (2004) L'Expérience de l'injustice. Reconnaissance et clinique de l'injustice. Paris: La Découverte.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runciman, W.G. (1966) Relative Deprivation and Social Justice: A Study of Attitudes to Social Inequality in Twentieth-Century England. Berkeley: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Sánchez Mazas, M. (1996) ‘Minority Influence under Value Conflict: The Case of Human Rights and Xenophobia ’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 35: 169–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez Mazas, M. (1999) ‘Tolérance, rationalisation et xénophobie: une étude sur les jugements des attitudes à l'égard des étrangers ’, Psychologie Française, 44(2): 171–8.Google Scholar
Sánchez Mazas, M. (2004) Racisme et xénophobie. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Sánchez Mazas, M. and Licata, L., eds (2005) L'Autre: regards psychosociaux. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
Sánchez Mazas, M., Van Humskerken, F. and Gély, R. (2005) ‘La citoyenneté européenne et l’“Autre du dedans”’, in Sánchez Mazas, M. and Licata, L. (eds), L'Autre: regards psychosociaux, pp. 309–36. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. (1979) ‘Digression sur l’étranger’ (1st edn 1908) in Grafmeyer, Y. and Joseph, I. (eds), L'École de Chicago. Paris: Champ Urbain.Google Scholar
Snyder, M. and Swann, W.B. (1978) ‘Behavioral Confirmation in Social Interaction: From Social Perception to Social Reality’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14: 148–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stouffer, S.A., Suchman, E.A., De Vinney, L.C., Star, S.A. and Williams, R.M. (1949) The American Soldier: Adjustment During Army Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Steele, C.M. and Aronson, J. (1995) ‘Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of African Americans’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69: 797–811.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tajfel, H. (1975) ‘The Exit of Social Mobility and the Voice of Social Change: Notes on the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations’, Social Science Information, 14: 101–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986) ‘The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior’, in Worchel, S. and Austin, W. G. (eds), The Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (1997) ‘L'interprétation et les sciences de l’homme’, in La Liberté des modernes, pp. 137–94. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Tyler, T.R. (1990) Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T.R. and Huo, Y.J. (2002) Trust in the Law. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Wieviorka, M. (2001) La Différence. Paris: Balland.Google Scholar
Wright, S.C. and Taylor, D.M. (1998) ‘Responding to Tokenism: Individual Action in the Face of Collective Injustice’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 28: 647–67.3.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S.C., Taylor, D.M. and Moghaddam, F.M. (1990) ‘Responding to Membership in a Disadvantaged Group: From Acceptance to Collective Action’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58: 994–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S.C. and Tropp, L.R. (2002) ‘Collective Action in Response to Disadvantage: Intergroup Perceptions, Social Identification, and Social Change’, in Walker, I. and Smith, H. J. (eds), Relative Deprivation: Specification, Development and Integration, pp. 200–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yzerbyt, V. and Corneille, O. (1994) La Persuasion. Neuchâtel / Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar