Elsevier

Annual Reviews in Control

Volume 37, Issue 2, December 2013, Pages 365-381
Annual Reviews in Control

Barriers to ethical behaviour and stability: Stereotyping and scapegoating as pretexts for avoiding responsibility

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2013.09.013Get rights and content

Abstract

The paper considers the relationship between stereotyping, scapegoating, unethical behaviour and instability and shows how stereotyping and scapegoating can contribute to national and international instability. It presents a revised version of a three-part model of conflict previously developed by the author, with the components of an issue of dispute, a context which favours violence over peaceful resolution, and a trigger event, and shows how some of the theories of scapegoating and the resulting violence fit into this model. It also presents a new three-level model of the factors which lead to stereotyping at the individual, organisational or communal, and wider society levels.

The paper also discusses potential solutions to current vicious cycles in which unethical behaviour, stereotyping and scapegoating promote or lead to instability. The role of multi-loop action learning and organisations such as TECIS (IFAC Technical Committee 9.5 on Technology, Culture and International Stability, formerly SWIIS) are highlighted in providing support for whistleblowing, responsibility and accountability at both the collective and individual levels, a strengthening of both individual and group identities and increasing respect for currently stereotyped and discriminated against out-groups, which will reduce their vulnerability to scapegoating.

Introduction

National, regional and international instability, leading to armed conflict are still very real issues. While the statistics on armed conflicts vary slightly according to the definition used, the data shows that armed conflict continues to be a serious concern, with 37 armed conflicts (more than 25 battle-related deaths in a calendar year) in 30 locations in 2011 and 248 armed conflicts in 153 locations worldwide between the end of World War II and 2011. However, there has been a decrease in the number of conflicts from the peak of over 50 conflicts in the early 1990s (Themnér & Wallenstein, 2012a). There were six major conflicts or wars (at least 1000 battle-related deaths in a calendar year) in 2011, which is considerably less than the peak of 16 in 1988 (Themnér & Wallenstein, 2011). The consequences of these conflicts have also been very serious. For instance, mortality due to war or conflict, including non-combat civilian mortality has been estimated at 50–51 million for the period 1945–2000 and 136.5–148.5 million for the whole of the twentieth century, including deaths in German concentration camps (Leitenberg, 2001, Leitenberg, 2003). Mortality due to national political decision making (Hobsbawn, 1996), including genocide, starvation and deaths in prison camps, as well as conflict has been estimated at 214–226 million for the twentieth century (Leitenberg, 2001). Changes in the nature of conflict have led to recognition by the SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) Yearbook of ‘non-state’ and ‘one-sided’ conflicts involving non-state formally or informally organised armed forces and the intentional targeting of civilians by state or organised groups respectively (Themnér & and Wallenstein, 2012b).

In addition to its costs in lives, war has had significant economic costs and negative impacts on development. For instance, it has been estimated that armed conflict between 1960 and 2007 reduced GDP by $9.1 trillion or 12.5%. To select just a few depressing statistics relating to inadequate development, half the world’s population, nearly 3 million people, live on less than $2.50 a day (Shah, 2013), 21,000 children die each day due to poverty (Shah, 2011) and nearly a billion people were unable to read a book or sign their names at the start of the twenty-first century (UNICEF, 1999). Meeting the millennium goal of providing all children with schooling by the year 2000 would have taken less than 1% of spending on weapons (Brazier, 1997), but 72 million children of primary school age, 57% of them girls, were not even enrolled in school in 2005 (Anon, 2007). To take one example of the costs of armed conflict, in the case of the war in Iraq, violent deaths have been variously estimated as 151,000 and 655,000 between March 2003 and June 2006. In addition, over 3 million people have been displaced as refugees or internally since 2003, basic services such as electricity are still disrupted, public health has deteriorated and unemployment is about 28% (Perlo-Freeman & Solmirano, 2012a).

Although there is no one sufficient condition for international, regional or national stability, ethical behaviour is a clear perquisite or necessary condition. A commitment to ethical behaviour would lead to the development of mechanisms for resolving conflict peacefully, reducing tension and eliminating or at least reducing the salience of the types of social, economic, political and other contexts which encourage moves to violent conflict, as well as external conflict to divert attention from internal problems.

One of the factors that leads to unethical behaviour and also impedes moves towards stability at local, national and international levels is the scapegoating and stereotyping of particular social groups. This includes the use of linguistic and symbolic approaches to construct false narratives which encourage marginalisation and scapegoating. The prevalence of stereotyping and scapegoating acts as a barrier to (more powerful) individuals and social groups examining their own behaviour and taking responsibility for it and its consequences, including on national and international stability. The focusing of attention on the alleged iniquities and negative differences of a particular group can be used to divert attention from government policies or other activities which have a detrimental impact on human rights and/or could lead to violent conflict. This may also lead to attacks on members of the group which is being scapegoated or violent conflict between different communities. In some cases a particular group is built up as a threat to, for instance, peace, civilisation and democracy and this is used to manufacture a situation which leads to armed conflict, which is desired for other reasons. Alternatively, an external enemy is created or an existing dispute magnified to divert attention from internal problems and allow (political) leaders to be re-elected and/or otherwise maintain their power base.

This paper will consider the role of stereotyping and scapegoating in leading to conflict and the promotion of ethical behaviour, as well as other approaches to its avoidance and/or resolution. The terms ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’ are frequently used interchangeably, though the following distinction can be made: morality is concerned with right and wrong conduct and ethics is the philosophical study of morality. Thus ethics can be seen as a framework in which to study moral dilemmas and the ways in which they can be resolved. However, in practice the term morality tends to be used to denote right and wrong conduct and motives in a purely personal context, whereas ethics is used for right and wrong conduct and motives in a professional context and the public sphere (Hersh, 2000). The usage here will be based on this common usage rather than the more formal distinction between the terms discussed above.

The paper is laid out as follows. Section 2 presents a three part model of the causes of conflict, which is an updated version of a model previously developed by the author (Hersh, 1997). Section 3 discusses scapegoating and stereotyping and relates a particular model of scapegoating or the onset of violence to this three-part model. Section 4 considers the relationships between stereotyping, scapegoating and instability and the impact of scapegoating on ethical behaviour and Section 5 presents conclusions.

Thus the focus of the work is the impact of stereotyping and scapegoating on national and international stability and some of the potential mechanisms to encourage ethical behaviour and the taking of responsibility. It includes both a discussion of the causes of conflict and a survey of some of the literature on stereotyping and scapegoating. This review has concentrated on more recent and English language literature and, for instance, ignored the German, Russian and Eastern European literature on scapegoating and stereotyping e.g. (Groshev, 1998, Kahraman and Knoblich, 2000, Shestopal et al., 1999, Tebbutt, 2001). The choice of English language literature has been motivated by the considerations of the probable greater accessibility of this literature to most, though no means all, readers. The focus on more recent literature has been accompanied by a focus on more recent examples, since attitudes and values have changed significantly over the last hundred years, including in ways that may affect stereotyping and scapegoating. In addition, the large body of literature literature on anti-semitism, and in particulary the holocaust, stereotyping and scapegoating e.g. (Fischer, 1998, Glick, 2002) has not been discussed in order to avoid unbalancing the paper.

Section snippets

A three part model of the causes of conflict

In order to discuss the role of ethical behaviour and, in particular, the avoidance of stereotyping and scapegoating, in the prevention or resolution of armed conflict, it is useful to have a model of the causes of conflict. This involves dynamic and interacting processes rather than a number of static causes. The three-component model presented here and illustrated in Fig. 1 is an updated version of the model previously developed by the author (Hersh, 1997). It has the following three

Scapegoating

The term ‘scapegoat’ is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as someone who is blamed or punished for the wrongdoing, mistakes or sins of others. Medical definitions add to this the projection of angry feelings or feelings of hostility through inappropriate accusations of others. Scapegoats may be individuals or groups and scapegoating includes both the ‘approved’ enemies of large groups of people and the scapegoating of individuals by other individuals. Self-deception and lack of full

The impact of scapegoating on ethical behaviour

Scapegoating by both individuals and organisations takes place. It is often easier for organisations to blame human operators or other, generally low level, members of the organisation for systemic failures which have led to serious accidents or other problems, rather than investigating the operation of the organisation, searching out systemic failures and correcting them. For instance, Union Carbide is blaming sabotage for the major accident in 1984 at its Bhopal plant in India (Union Carbide,

Conclusions

The paper has discussed the relationship between stereotyping, scapegoating, unethical behaviour and instability. It has shown that there are currently a number of vicious cycles in operation in which unethical behaviour promotes or leads to instability. In particular, the existence of scapegoating acts a barrier to ethical behaviour, because it allows national and organisational leaders and decisions makers to shift responsibility (and blame) for their decisions to another individual or group.

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Peter McKenna for drawing the figures.

Marion Hersh is a senior lecturer (associate professor) in biomedical engineering at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. Her recent work on engineering and ethics includes papers on whistleblowers (this journal, 2002) and science, technology and values (AI & Society, 2013) and a contributed book on ethics, international and environmental stability (Springer Verlag, 2014). She is convenor of the IFAC working group on ethics and co-chair of IFAC TECIS Technical Committee. Dr Hersh recently

References (144)

  • Anon (2007). Millenium development goals report. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs DESA. ISBN...
  • Anon (2013a). 2003 invasion of Iraq. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq> Cited...
  • Anon (2013b). February 15, 2003 anti-war protest....
  • Anon (undated a). Scapegoat. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.Scapegoat> Cited...
  • Anon (undated b). Stereotype. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.Stereotype> Cited...
  • B.E. Ashforth et al.

    Social identity theory and the organization

    Academy of Management Review

    (1989)
  • Bargh, J. A. (1999). The cognitive monster: The case against the controllability of automatic stereotype effects. In S....
  • Z. Bauman

    Modernity and the Holocaust

    (1989)
  • I.V. Blair

    The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice

    Personality and Social Psychology Review

    (2002)
  • Brazier, C. (1997). State of the world report, issue 287, New internationalist....
  • M.B. Brewer

    In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive motivational analysis

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1979)
  • M. Brusaco-Mackenzie

    Environment and security

  • J. Burton

    Conflict resolution and prevention

    (1990)
  • D.T. Campbell

    Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives

    (1965)
  • D.T. Campbell

    On the genetics of altruism and the counter-hedonic components in human culture

    Journal of Social Issues

    (1972)
  • D. Campbell
    (1998)
  • H. Chestnut

    Reference models of nations for cybernetic understanding

    IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics

    (1985)
  • CIA (2005). CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq. <http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7634313/#.UiUvtq6KXKQv> Cited...
  • D.H. Clark

    Can strategic interaction divert diversionary behavior? A model of U.S. conflict propensity

    Journal of Policitics

    (2003)
  • L.A. Coser

    Some social functions of violence

    Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

    (1966)
  • T.Y.C. Cotton

    War and American democracy

    Journal of Conflict Resolution

    (1986)
  • Greene de, K. B. (1989). Cognitive/affective factors in systems engineering designs for international conflict...
  • M. Deutsch

    The resolution of conflict

    (1973)
  • P.G. Devine

    Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1989)
  • K. Diod et al.

    What is beautiful is good?

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1972)
  • G. Downs et al.

    Conflict, agency and gambling for resurrection: The principal-agent problem goes to war

    American Journal of Political Science

    (1994)
  • J. Duckitt et al.

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2002)
  • N. Dutta

    The face of the other, terror and the return of binarism

    Intervent

    (2004)
  • M.E. Ellenberg et al.

    Scapegoating in an early adolescent girls group

    Journal of Child and Adolescent Group Therapy

    (1998)
  • A. Esmail

    Towards a psycho-anthropological view of religious violence

    International Review of Psychiatry

    (2007)
  • Evans, G. (2012). Responding to atrocities: The new geopolitics of intervention. SIPRI yearbook 2012, armaments,...
  • Fanchini, C. (2012). Global trends in peace operations. SIPRI yearbook 2012, armaments, disarmament and international...
  • J.R. Fegin et al.

    Discrimination, motivation, action, effects and context

    Annual Review of Sociology

    (1980)
  • Fein et al.

    Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1997)
  • Fischer, K. P. (1998). The history of an obsession: German Judeophobia and the Holocaust,...
  • S.T. Fiske

    Controlling other people, the impact of power on stereotyping

    American Psychologist

    (1993)
  • S.T. Fiske

    Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination at the seam between the centuries: Evolution, culture, mind and brain

    European Journal of Social Psychology

    (2000)
  • S.T. Fiske et al.

    A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2002)
  • C. Fleming

    René girard: Violence and mimesis

    (2004)
  • L. Fogassi et al.

    The neural correlates of action understanding in non-human primates

  • Cited by (11)

    • Mobility, inclusion and exclusion

      2017, Mobility of Visually Impaired People: Fundamentals and ICT Assistive Technologies
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Marion Hersh is a senior lecturer (associate professor) in biomedical engineering at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. Her recent work on engineering and ethics includes papers on whistleblowers (this journal, 2002) and science, technology and values (AI & Society, 2013) and a contributed book on ethics, international and environmental stability (Springer Verlag, 2014). She is convenor of the IFAC working group on ethics and co-chair of IFAC TECIS Technical Committee. Dr Hersh recently completed a Leverhulme travel fellowship on travel and mobility issues for blind people, leading to the development of an innovative three-component model of the travel processes of blind, sighted and visually impaired people. She has co-developed the Comprehensive Assistive Technology modelling framework for developing and analysing assistive devices. She has over 160 research publications on topics including the user-centred design of assistive technology, mobility issues, assistive travel technology and modelling the spatial representations of blind people, communication devices for deafblind people, inclusive learning technologies and pedagogies, and accessibility and usability of educational games.

    View full text