degrees of power and sovereignty in their own land, but clearly there is no single state that makes laws for the whole world. This presents problems and dangers for entities operating in the anarchic world and a need for a system that will guide the actions of these entities. While for neorealists "anarchy" is a determining condition of international system that by itself interprets competition and conflict as endless strong possibilities, and thus the international system a more conflictual than peaceful environment, for constructivists anarchy alone does not make much sense as it cannot by itself bring about a predetermined state of affairs among state actors. Rather, what makes much sense for the constructivist is that under anarchy different social structures and arrangements, cooperative and conflictual, can be formed and defined on the basis of actors' social identities, and accordingly, the way they construct their national interests and security.
who unite in a coalition, the more their interests other than in the immediate purpose are likely to be divergent if not antagonistic." The value of this statement will be seen immediately by anyone who has been involved in a multicultural environment. Groups differ in their interests. When the differences are due cultural/racial diversity, the greater will be the potential for antagonism within the group. A homogeneous group, in terms of race and class, is a potentially less conflictual group than a heterogeneous one. Coser tells us where the solution is be found. "Such a coalition, if it is not to fall apart, must attempt to keep close to the purposes for which it was formed." The only way to keep a culturally diverse group from focusing exclusively on its differences, is by enabling it "to keep close to the purposes for which it was formed." If there is any group that must know up front why it exists, it is a racially/ethnically diverse group
· Fixing water supply · Getting bus started · Joint meals and cooking Robbers Cave Experiments Findings: Decrease in in-group favouring attitudes and outgroup hostility: · Significantly greater % of boys had a best friend in out-group · Name-calling and physical confrontations disappeared · Shared the same bus home, and prizes! Conclusions: Negative intergroup attitudes arise from conflictual group-based relationships Intergroup co-operation and hostility are a consequence of factors external (rather than internal) to individuals Robbers Cave Experiment Group Competition Minimaalsed konfliktitingimused (H. Tajfel, 1971) Küsimus: mis on vältimatult + minimaalselt vaja, et gruppide vahel kujuneksid diskrimineerivad suhted? Tajfeli "Minimal Group Paradigm" · Gruppidevahelise suhtluse puudumine · Ühiste eesmärkide puudumine
• Joint meals and cooking Robbers Cave Experiments Findings: – Decrease in in-group favouring attitudes and outgroup hostility: • Significantly greater % of boys had a best friend in out-group • Name-calling and physical confrontations disappeared • Shared the same bus home, and prizes! Conclusions: – Negative intergroup attitudes arise from conflictual group-based relationships – Intergroup co-operation and hostility are a consequence of factors external (rather than internal) to individuals Robbers Cave Experiment Group Competition Realistic Group Conflict Theory (Sherif, 1966) Key Assumption: – Group members’ intergroup attitudes and behaviour reflect the objective interests of the groups • Compatible group interests à intergroup harmony
annaabi.ee 
