Minority Responses to Intergroup Situations

The basic classification of minority responses to intergroup situations was developed by C. S. Johnson and includes three major response alternatives acceptance, aggression and avoidance.' Johnson defines acceptance in terms of acquiescence to the (minority) status defined as appropriate by the institutions and customs of the surrounding culture, while aggression is defined in terms of rejection of this culturally ascribed subordinate status. Aggression is further distinguished from acceptance in that the former is manifested via the actual expression of antagonism toward the institutionalized dominant-minority system. Avoidance simply refers to the attempt to limit the scope and frequency of intergroup contacts insofar as possible in order to minimize exposure to discrimination. Various subtypes of each of these three responses are described by Johnson and, more recently, by Simpson and Yinger.2 Other writers generally have felt that a more extensive set of responses is necessary. Thus Davie analyzes the reactions of Negro Americans into seven classes: acceptance, resentment, avoidance, overcompensation, race pride, hostility and aggression, and protest.3 Unfortunately, this classification blurs the distinction between response to the dominant out-group and identification with the in-group. The failure to distinguish these two aspects of reaction to minority status also characterizes Child's threefold classification of the responses of Italian Americans, namely: the apathetic (withdrawing) response, the in-group response, and rebellion (against Italian ways).4 The crux of the problem is that Johnson, Davie and Child are dealing with purportedly unidimensional classification systems (i.e., in Davie's terms, in a given situation an individual

Italian Fascism and Post-war Society · Psychology · Social Psychology

• Psychological Factors for the Black Defendant in a Jury Trial

  Open Access•DEBORAH W DENNO, Deborah Denno•Journal of Black Studies•1981

  Add to list