Innocent I on Heretics and Schismatics As Shaping Christian Identity
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CHAPTER 14 Innocent I on Heretics and Schismatics as Shaping Christian Identity Geoffrey D. Dunn 1 Social Identity and Conflict At the heart of shaping social identity are the boundaries drawn between us and them. Henri Tajfel points to discrimination against out-groups as the means by which in-groups enhance their self-esteem.1 A process of categorisa- tion, identification, and comparison creates and reinforces the boundaries and determines one’s reactions to them by defining an individual’s (and others’) place within or outside a group.2 This collective identity relates not so much the individual to a group, but concerns relations within and between groups.3 Conflict is an inevitable (necessary but not sufficient, according to Marilynn Brewer)4 component of self-esteem, as positive self-esteem comes through forming a superior distinctiveness from other groups. There are, of course, various degrees of conflict ranging from bias to violence. Recent research has argued that bias is not the automatic result of categorisation, nor is hostility in the intergroup context, and that the transition from categorisation to discrimi- 1 Henri Tajfel, Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 255; and M.A. Hogg and D. Abrams, “Social Motivation, Self-Esteem and Social Identity,” in Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances, ed. D. Abrams and M.A. Hogg (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1990), 28–47. 2 Henri Tajfel and J.C. Turner, “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior,” in Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. S. Worchel and W.G. Austin, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1986), 7–24. 3 Peggy A. Thoits and Lauren K. Virshup, “Me’s and We’s: Forms and Functions of Social Identities,” in Self and Identity: Fundamental Issues, ed. Richard D. Ashmore and Lee Jusim, RSSSI, vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 115. 4 Marilynn B. Brewer, “Ingroup Identification and Intergroup Conflict: When Does Ingroup Love Become Outgroup Hate,” in Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict, and Conflict Reduction, ed. Richard D. Ashmore, Lee Jussim, and David Wilde, RSSSI, vol. 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 19–22, calls this optimal distinctiveness theory. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/978900430�573_0�5 shaping christian identity 267 nation is far from direct. The degree to which differentiation is made distinc- tive determines levels of hostility.5 Social identity theory expresses the idea that a high-status group may be highly discriminatory against a low-status group if they perceive their own superiority as legitimate or under threat.6 John Turner considered the cohe- siveness of in-groups as being based upon a depersonalising willingness to conform and a perception of fewer categorical differences between members of a group but more with other groups.7 When a group develops greater inter- dependence, becomes more highly segmented, or is perceived as threatened, then indifference to an out-group develops into antagonism.8 Whatever its degree, this all may be classified as conflict. Threat is considered an important element in social identity.9 Social psychologists have acknowledged that differ- ences in religious values can be a cause of intergroup discrimination.10 This is certainly true within Christianity. From the New Testament we can tell that from its beginning Christianity grappled with the question of bound- aries. The evangelists, particularly Luke, present Jesus as issuing a universal call to salvation, such that Robert O’Toole can write that membership of a given people can lead to elitism and “[i]t is precisely this elitism that Luke breaks down when he insists that Israel can embrace all humankind.”11 Indeed, a pas- sage like Luke 9:50 (Mark 9:40) that whoever is not against us is for us, would suggest that Christian social identity is to be broad and inclusive and that cat- egorisation is to be avoided. Yet, Luke also used a Q-saying (Matt 12:30; Luke 11:23) that whoever is not with me is against me. Scholars have attempted to 5 J. Jetten, R. Spears, and A.S.R. Manstead, “Group Distinctiveness and Interroup Discrimi- nation,” in Social Identity, ed. N. Ellemers, R. Spears, and B. Doosje (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 107–26. 6 J.C. Turner, “Some Current Issues in Research on Social Identity and Self-categorization Theories,” in Ellemers, Spears, and Doosje, Social Identity, 8. 7 J.C. Turner et al., Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987). 8 Brewer, “Ingroup Identification and Intergroup Conflict,” 32–35. 9 N.R. Branscombe et al., “The Context and Content of Social Identity Threat,” in Ellemers, Spears, and Doosje, Social Identity, 35–58. 10 Mark Rubin and Miles Hewstone, “Social Identity Theory’s Self-Esteem Hypothesis: A Review and Some Suggestions for Clarification,” Personality and Social Psychology Review 2 (1998): 40–62. 11 Robert F. O’Toole, The Unity of Luke’s Theology: An Analysis of Luke-Acts, Good News Studies, vol. 9 (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1984), 112..