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.
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- 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
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This paper aims to demonstrate the significant overlap between the boundary-making approach and contact theory in understanding intergroup relations. It argues that both approaches describe similar phenomena using different terminology. The paper explores how intergroup contact impacts the creation, modification, and reinforcement of boundaries between groups.
- The role of symbolic and social boundaries in shaping intergroup relations.
- Different strategies for making and changing ethnic boundaries (boundary making approach).
- The impact of intergroup contact on boundary formation and modification.
- The underappreciated overlap between boundary-making approach and contact theory.
- Potential applications and future research directions.
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
1. Introduction: This introductory chapter establishes the paper's central argument: that the boundary-making approach and contact theory, while separately studied, share a significant overlap in explaining intergroup relations. It highlights the existing literature focusing on either boundary-making strategies or intergroup contact, emphasizing the need to explore their intersection. The chapter also defines symbolic and social boundaries, drawing upon Lamont and Molnár's (2002) work, and briefly discusses the diverse contexts in which boundaries are drawn, citing examples from research on various societal factors and national identities. The introduction sets the stage for a deeper exploration of the two theoretical approaches and their interplay.
2. Theoretical Background: This chapter provides a detailed overview of the two core theoretical frameworks: the boundary-making approach and contact theory. The boundary-making approach, primarily focusing on ethnic boundaries, is discussed, highlighting its emphasis on the social construction of groups rather than their spontaneous emergence. Different typologies of boundary-making strategies, including those proposed by Lamont and Bail (2005), Zolberg and Woon (1999), and Wimmer (2008a and b), are presented. These strategies cover various approaches to establishing and changing ethnic boundaries, ranging from boundary crossing and blurring to expansion, contraction, and transvaluation. The chapter lays the groundwork for comparing these strategies with the principles of contact theory in subsequent sections.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
Symbolic boundaries, social boundaries, boundary-making approach, contact theory, intergroup contact, ethnic boundaries, group formation, boundary strategies, social inequality, intergroup relations.
Frequently Asked Questions: Comprehensive Language Preview
What is the main argument of this paper?
The paper's central argument is that the boundary-making approach and contact theory, while often studied separately, significantly overlap in explaining intergroup relations. It posits that both approaches describe similar phenomena, albeit using different terminology. The paper explores how intergroup contact impacts the creation, modification, and reinforcement of boundaries between groups.
What are the key themes explored in this paper?
Key themes include the role of symbolic and social boundaries in shaping intergroup relations; different strategies for making and changing ethnic boundaries (within the boundary-making approach); the impact of intergroup contact on boundary formation and modification; the underappreciated overlap between the boundary-making approach and contact theory; and potential applications and future research directions.
What theoretical frameworks are discussed?
The paper focuses on two core theoretical frameworks: the boundary-making approach and contact theory. The boundary-making approach emphasizes the social construction of groups and details various strategies for establishing and changing ethnic boundaries (e.g., boundary crossing, blurring, expansion, contraction, transvaluation). Contact theory, while not explicitly detailed in the provided summary, is presented as a complementary framework for understanding intergroup relations.
What are the chapter summaries?
Chapter 1 (Introduction): Establishes the central argument, highlighting the need to explore the intersection of boundary-making strategies and intergroup contact. It defines symbolic and social boundaries and sets the stage for a deeper exploration of the two theoretical approaches. Chapter 2 (Theoretical Background): Provides a detailed overview of the boundary-making approach and contact theory, outlining different typologies of boundary-making strategies and laying the groundwork for comparing these strategies with the principles of contact theory.
What are the key concepts and keywords?
Key concepts and keywords include symbolic boundaries, social boundaries, boundary-making approach, contact theory, intergroup contact, ethnic boundaries, group formation, boundary strategies, social inequality, and intergroup relations.
What is the purpose of the Table of Contents?
The Table of Contents provides an overview of the paper's structure, including an introduction, theoretical background (covering the boundary-making approach and contact theory), an analysis of the interplay between these theories, a discussion section, and a bibliography.
What is the overall scope of the paper?
The paper aims to bridge the gap between two seemingly disparate theoretical frameworks – the boundary-making approach and contact theory – to provide a more comprehensive understanding of intergroup relations and the dynamics of boundary formation and modification.
- Quote paper
- Annika Frings (Author), 2016, Boundary Making Approach and Contact Theory. An underappreciated overlap, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/438615
