Refining the Meaning of the “Collective” in Collective Guilt: Harm, Guilt, and Apology in Australia

doi:10.1017/CBO9781139106931.009

7 - Refining the Meaning of the “Collective” in Collective Guilt: Harm, Guilt, and Apology in Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2012

Craig McGarty and

Ana-Maria Bliuc

Edited by

Nyla R. Branscombe and

Bertjan Doosje

Show author details

Craig McGarty: Affiliation:
Australian National University
Ana-Maria Bliuc: Affiliation:
Australian National University
Nyla R. Branscombe: Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Bertjan Doosje: Affiliation:
Universiteit van Amsterdam

Book contents

Get access

Summary

“ … While going some distance toward reconciliation with the Aborigines, Australia has moved very little to extinguish racism. Australians' traditional optimism and patriotism were only marginally tamed by the new racial tension in a society that seemed irredeemably racist, sexist and xenophobic.”

Barkan (2000, p. 237)

Barkan's chapter on Australia in his book, The guilt of nations, is a rich source of insights. There is, however, one important way that this quote fails to capture important ideas that we explore in this chapter. Specifically, we propose that collective guilt in Australia cannot be understood by assuming that a uniform ideology that can be summarized neatly as racist, sexist, xenophobic, optimistic, or patriotic is widely shared in Australian society. Rather, there are fault lines within Australian society that reflect social conflict. The social conflict is not so much between racial or ethnic groups, but is about these groups. Collective guilt in Australia has very much to do with an ongoing debate that lends itself extremely well to an intergroup social psychological analysis. In this chapter, we consider the political context and social psychology of collective guilt in Australia and discuss some empirical research on this issue. In conclusion, we suggest a theoretical resolution to the paradoxical relationship between social identification and collective guilt.

The Australian context

Before considering the social psychology of the current situation, it is useful to outline the historical and political context of Australia (matters that are discussed in detail by Augoustinos & LeCouteur, this volume, Chapter 13).

Type: Chapter
Information: Collective Guilt
International Perspectives
, pp. 112 - 129

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139106931.009 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (2001). As a matter of fact. Canberra: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission

Barkan, E. (2000). The guilt of nations: Restitution and negotiating historical injustices. New York: W. W. Norton

Bliuc, A.-M, McGarty, C., Reynolds, K. J., & Hendres, D. (2002). Understanding the role of social identification and social identity salience in predicting behaviour of political opinion groups. Unpublished manuscript, Australian National University

Branscombe, N. R., Doosje, B. & McGarty, C. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of collective guilt. In D. M. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup relations: Differentiated reactions to social groups (pp. 49–66). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press

Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R. & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Guilty by association: When one's group has a negative history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 872–886CrossRef Google Scholar

Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (Eds.). (1999). Social identity: Context, commitment, content. Oxford: Blackwell

Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. (1999). Self-categorization, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371–893.0.CO;2-U>CrossRef Google Scholar

Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: Sage

Hopkins, N. (2001). National identity: Pride and prejudice?British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 183–6CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Humphreys, B. (2001). The effects of comparative context and identification on collective guilt. Unpublished honors thesis, Australian National University

Khalaf, A. & McGarty, C. (2001). Natural kinds, entitative categories, and collective qualities: Comparing mental disorders with other categories. Unpublished manuscript, Australian National University

McGarty, C. (1999). Categorization in social psychology. London: Sage

McGarty, C. (2001). Social identity theory does not maintain that identification produces bias, and self-categorization theory does not maintain that salience is identification: Two comments on Mummendey, Klink, and Brown. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 173–6CrossRef Google Scholar

McGarty, C. (in press). Hierarchies and groups: The roles of salience, overlap, and background knowledge in selecting meaningful social categorizations from multiple alternatives. In R. Crisp & M. Hewstone (Eds.) Multiple social categorization: Processes, models, and applications. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press

McGarty, C., Pedersen, A., Mansell, T., Waller, J., Leach, C. W., & Bliuc, A.-M. (2002). Collective guilt as a predictor of commitment to apology. Unpublished manuscript, Australian National University

Mummendey, A. & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158–74CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Reicher, S. D., Hopkins, N., & Condor, S. (1997). Stereotype construction as a strategy of influence. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 94–118). Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Roger, M. S. B. (1999). Collective guilt and prosocial behaviour: An Australian perspective. Unpublished Honors thesis, Northern Territiory University

Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 538–53CrossRef Google Scholar

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.) Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall

Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content. Oxford: Blackwell

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S., (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell

Book contents

7 - Refining the Meaning of the “Collective” in Collective Guilt: Harm, Guilt, and Apology in Australia

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive