Boundary Making Approach and Contact Theory. An underappreciated overlap

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Boundary Making Approach
2.2. Contact Theory

3. Interplay of Contact Theory and Boundary Strategies

4. Discussion

5. Bibliography

1. Introduction

Until now, there has been a huge body of literature either discussing the importance of various boundary making strategies or the meaning of intergroup contact in changing relations between in- and outgroup members. However, I argue that there is a great overlap between both approaches, describing similar phenomena, but giving them different notations. I aim at describing the importance, contact between different groups can have on making, changing or reinforcing the boundaries between them and furthermore, try to prove the existing, but underappreciated overlap between boundary-making approach and contact theory.

To understand those processes, it is first of all significant to give a proper definition regarding the meaning of symbolic and social boundaries. I therefore refer to the commonly cited definition of Lamont and Molnár (2002), who describe symbolic boundaries as means to categorize objects or people into different groups and create memberships. They can, if there is a consensus about them, be transformed into social boundaries, making them a necessary condition of the latter. Contrary, social boundaries can be described as manifested differences, which limit social opportunities and lead to inequality in the access of material and nonmaterial resources for different individuals and groups. Boundaries can be drawn based on various characteristics and in different fields. A broad range of previous literature has discussed boundaries drawn based on racial, moral, cultural and socioeconomic factors, thus distinguishing between ethnic, moral cultural and class boundaries, whose existence could be proved in various countries. For instance, Sachweh (2013) utilized quantitative survey data and conducted qualitative interviews, to analyse the types of symbolic boundaries present in the German society. He found evidence for the existence of moral, socioeconomic and cultural boundaries drawn by different groups. The same is true for the study of Lamont (1992), comparing symbolic boundaries drawn by upper middle class men in France and the USA, demonstrating the varying importance across countries. Lamont and Molnar (2002) have also shown that boundaries are meaningful in different research fields, discussing examples of research in e.g. gender inequality, social and collective identity, professions and science or national identities.

In the remaining of this text, I will first of all give an overview about the boundary making approach and the different strategies it proposes regarding the making and changing of ethnic boundaries. Afterwards, I will give a short description of Allport´s original contact hypothesis, before turning to a number of recent approaches, trying to redefine respectively improve the contact hypothesis. In the second part of the paper, I will turn to the main aim of this paper and demonstrate that both approaches indeed share various similarities and partly propose identical assumptions concerning contact situations between in- and outgroup members. I will end with a short summary of the main findings, trying to give recommendations for future research attempts.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Boundary Making Approach

The boundary making approach, also called the group formation perspective, was coined by Wimmer (2009), and is concerned with the making of ethnic boundaries. Contrary to earlier approaches, the boundary making approach doesn´t recognize ethnic groups as spontaneously emerging, self-evident units of observations, but rather to be a result of social processes of boundary making. Furthermore, its focus lies on the process of group making and regards ethnic boundaries as marked with subjective characteristics, an objective observer would probably not ascribe to them.

However, there already were various studies pre Wimmer, concerned with establishing typologies of different boundary making strategies, which however differ in their extent. Lamont and Bail (2005, cited in Wimmer 2008a) only describe two strategies of boundary making, namely universalizing and particularizing. While the former aims at stressing moral human values to draw boundaries between individuals that meet those values and those that do not, the latter argues for a more favourable reinterpretation of the originally stigmatized group.

Zolberg and Woon (1999, cited in Alba 2005), differentiate three strategy types of ethnic boundary making, as possible outcomes from negotiation processes between in- and out-groups. They state that actors pursuing the strategy of boundary crossing aim at moving from one side of the boundary to the other, without changing the boundary as such, while the strategy of boundary blurring aspires a decrease in the meaning of the original categorizes of differentiation, and stresses the importance of others. Finally, boundary shifting intends to change the boundaries´ location, incorporating former out-group members into the in-group.

As already mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the term boundary making was widely discussed by Wimmer (2008a and b), who established the most detailed boundary strategy typology, also incorporating the strategies proposed by other researchers, but augments them due to their, in his opinion, lacking of comprehensiveness and completeness.

He distinguishes between two general paths of strategies, namely strategies of boundary shifting and strategies of boundary modification, which can further be subdivided into five strategies aiming at establishing, respectively changing ethnic boundaries between in- and out-group members. The first subcategory of boundary shifting is expansion, which is about the redrawing of a boundary, to make it more comprising. Expansion can either be achieved by fusion, meaning by reducing the existing categories and establishing broader boundaries, or by the emphasis shift to lower or higher levels. As examples for such strategies Wimmer (2008b) names Nation-building and Ethnogenesis.

Contrary, the strategy of contraction targets at redrawing boundaries in a way to make them narrower, thus make group members disidentify with their current, by outsiders assigned, category. It can be achieved by either subdividing an existing category into two categories (fission), or by shifting the focus to lower levels.

While both previously described strategies are concerned with the change of the boundary as such, those described in the following, aim at a modification of the boundaries’ meaning. Transvaluation strategies can be subdivided into either normative inversion or equalization. When applying the strategy of normative inversion, the hierarchy of the different ethnic groups is questioned and “turned on its head” (Wimmer 2008b, p. 1037). Former minority groups try to rise in the hierarchy, by setting themselves apart from the majority group through stressing their superiority regarding moral, intellectual or cultural values. Contrary, equalization is a less radical way of challenging the group hierarchy, aiming at the establishment of equal status and power distribution between majority and minority group (Wimmer 2008b).

Unlike transvaluation strategies, positional strategies don´t call into question the hierarchy as such, but only the position of the individual respectively group in this hierarchy. Wimmer distinguishes between individual boundary crossing and collective repositioning, in which an individual or a whole group aims at changing its position. Actors pursuing such strategies neither contest the boundary as such, nor the hierarchy between the different groups, but only their own position in the boundary system. Finally, the last strategy, boundary blurring, stresses the importance of other, non-ethnic, categories and therefore aims at overcoming the original categories meaning (ebd.).

Nevertheless, individuals or groups are not entirely free in choosing which of these described strategies they will pursue, but their choice is dependent on various factors. The institutional framework, the individuals position in the power hierarchy and their accessibility of political networks, will constrain their options and in turn determine the utilised strategies, as well as the interaction and negotiation processes between actors, necessary to gain a consensus and stabilize boundaries (Wimmer 2008a).

2.2. Contact Theory

The contact hypothesis was first established by Allport in his book “The nature of prejudice”, and has since become fundamental and widely used in sociological research. His theory states that contact between members of different groups, the so called in-group and out group, leads to the decrease of prejudice towards the out-group and to the building of trust between those groups. Of particular importance are the favourable conditions, he defined as necessary for intergroup contact to have the desired positive effect on the relation between members of different groups. In total, one can distinguish between four conditions: equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation and authority support (Allport 1958). Albeit later studies, also considered an additional fifth condition, namely acquaintance respectively friendship potential, as necessary for positive contact effects (Pettigrew, 1998; Brown /Hewstone 2006).

However, since its first publication, the contact hypothesis was discussed by a range of other scholars, who aimed at testing and improving its assumptions. One such modification attempt is the Brewer-Miller decategorization model. This particular model argues for interpersonal contact and reduced group salience in contact situations. This interpersonal or de-categorised contact, should in turn lead to a more differentiated and personalized view on the members of the outgroup. In doing so, they claim that the original categories should lose their importance, because the information received during interactions, facilitate future interactions and make the categories dispensable. Furthermore, they connect Allport´s favourable conditions with their own model, by claiming the conditions usefulness and necessity in the process of decategorising contact (Brown/Hewstone 2006).

[...]