VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE A SOCIAL IDENTITY APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING THE POLITICS OF PREJUDICE IN INTER-GROUP RELATIONS Rakshi Rath A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 2016 Full metadata for this item is available in St Andrews Research Repository at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/9892 This item is protected by original copyright VIRTUOUS VIOLENCE ~ A social identity approach to understanding the politics of prejudice in inter-group relations Rakshi Rath This thesis is submitted in fulfilment for the degree of PhD at the School of Psychology & Neuroscience, University of St Andrews 28th October 2016 1. Candidate’s declarations: I, Rakshi Rath, hereby certify that this thesis, which is approximately 65,000 words in length, has been written by me, and that it is the record of work carried out by me and that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. I was admitted as a research student in [month, year] and as a candidate for the degree of PhD in September, 2008; the higher study for which this is a record was carried out in the University of St Andrews between 2008 and 2016. Date: 26th October 2016 signature of candidate 2. Supervisor’s declaration: I hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution and Regulations appropriate for the degree of PhD in the University of St Andrews and that the candidate is qualified to submit this thesis in application for that degree. Date: 26th October 2016 signature of supervisor 3. Permission for electronic publication: (to be signed by both candidate and supervisor) In submitting this thesis to the University of St Andrews we understand that we are giving permission for it to be made available for use in accordance with the regulations of the University Library for the time being in force, subject to any copyright vested in the work not being affected thereby. We also understand that the title and the abstract will be published, and that a copy of the work may be made and supplied to any bona fide library or research worker, that my thesis will be electronically accessible for personal or research use unless exempt by award of an embargo as requested below, and that the library has the right to migrate my thesis into new electronic forms as required to ensure continued access to the thesis. We have obtained any third-party copyright permissions that may be required in order to allow such access and migration, or have requested the appropriate embargo below. The following is an agreed request by candidate and supervisor regarding the publication of this thesis: PRINTED COPY a) No embargo on print copy ELECTRONIC COPY a) No embargo on electronic copy Date: 26th October 2016 signature of candidate signature of supervisor Abstract The aim of the thesis is to provide a social identity account of the politics of mobilisation: based on hatred mostly, in contrast with accounts of solidarity. The bulk of the thesis concentrates on exploring how and why is prejudice in the form of hatred mobilised in inter-group relations. Three studies parse the structure of hate discourse of Hindu right-wing groups in India. Study 1 and study 2 are qualitative studies that analyse the production of hate in two mediums of communication, while study 3 is an experimental study demonstrating the reception of hate. The studies analyse the structure of hate discourse with the theoretical lens of a social identity framework to explicate a context of categories and category-relations, while colouring in the contents of the categories with data from India. The first contention is, if a virtuous in-group can be construed as under threat from an out-group, then, the annihilation of the other can be justified as the defence of virtue. In the other words, violence becomes virtuous. The second contention is, the process that motivates out-group hate discourse derives from struggles over intra-group authority. That is, out-group threats are invoked in order to condemn political rivals for in-group power as not representing the group and not defending group interests. This sets up the foil for the leader to position ‘self’ as the ideal leader who protects and represents the in-group, while undermining the credibility of the political rival. Study 4 is a qualitative study analysing counter-hegemonic discourse on mobilisations against the rhetoric of hatred. Taken together, the first 3 studies argue that hatred is not an inherent feature of individuals or a natural fall-out of inter-group processes, it is mobilised for specific political aims. The fourth study looks at the dimensions with which other leaders counteract the politics of hate; when hatred can be mobilised, so can solidarity. The theoretical implications and limitations have been discussed. 2 Acknowledgement I couldn’t have persevered with this PhD without the strength of family in India, friends, colleagues and the support of the University of St Andrews. The resilience that it took came from people who believed in me when I could not. The intervening years have a peculiar sepia tinge, of going back and forth in time and space through the unhurried lanes of quaint St Andrews to the actively engaged environs in India while handling different jobs combined with doing the PhD. At the beginning, Dr. Clare Cassidy, for your thoughtfulness and care, I will always miss you. The community of academic colleagues and friends, Dr. Serap Arslan, Dr. Celeste Lonson, Dr. Oliver Lauenstein, Dr. Zanna Clay, Dr. Guill McIvor, Marija Spasikova, Dr. Alexander Griffiths Moros, Dr. Joanne Weir, Dr. Michael Quayle, Dr. Lucia Botindari and Dr. Yashpal Jogdand for the times at St Andrews, conversations, arguments, discussions, coffees and long walks at St Andrews; Dr. Lina Adinolfi, Sandra Vacca, Sunil D’Monte, Dr. Kanchuka Dharmasri, and Dr. Fergus Neville for tempered words of wisdom in the run up to submission, Prof. Namita Mohanty for her support and belief, Col. RL Sharma, SM for ensuring that at least one port of trustworthy communication would be open at all times, Swagatika Samantaray for your friendship, and Preeti Sushama for long car rides! For the data collection of the studies: Dr. Pratap Kumar Rath, for conducting the experiment in India and for help with statistical interpretation, Maj. S Bose, SM for attending the distinctly uncomfortable Dharm Sansad with me and designing the visual materials of the experiment. I have been extremely fortunate in being accepted as a research scholar by a guide who reposed his confidence in my abilities, Professor Stephen Reicher, for agreeing to supervise my PhD, all those years ago. The analytic skills I have as a researcher and being able to think like a social psychologist, is because of the academic freedom and rigour he insisted on throughout the PhD. “Nullius in verba” - in all those arguments, compelled me to think of better ways to counter, modify and defend arguments without 3 resorting to academic jargon. A heartfelt thanks for his compassion and patience in continued supervision of a student writing up her thesis in exasperatingly derailed attempts. A special thank you to Dr. Clifford Stevenson and Dr. Gozde Ozakinci for their considered questions, time and invaluable input towards the final shape of this thesis. To Bapa and Bou, for their rock solid support through all the upheavals. Shubhrum, life- partner and husband, we navigated our marriage through a PhD and being in the military. For walking together in an inter-continental long-distance relationship, through war zones both physical and mental, unsettling political questions that have hit intensely personal spots… this is as much yours as it is mine. The PhD was funded by a studentship from the School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews. 4 Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Contents ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Prologue ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 1 Introduction: Theory, Model, Context & Research Strategy ............................................ 12 1.1 Theory .............................................................................................................................................. 12 1.2 A Social Identity Model of Collective Hate .................................................................................... 21 1.3 Context: India .................................................................................................................................. 25 1.4 Research Strategy ........................................................................................................................... 35 2 Study 1: Visual Representations of Hate ................................................................................. 40 2.2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 40