Posted: March 18th, 2022

Genocide Module 5: Conflict

Genocide

Module 5: Conflict
In this module, we address conflict, which is defined as “incompatible or opposing needs or demands” and “fight, battle, or war” (Merriam-Webster, 1995). Although most people perceive the word conflict in a negative way, conflict theorists see it as value-neutral (Christie, Wagner, & Winter, 2001). Conflict does not necessarily imply violence; most conflict is controlled and limited and only occasionally or briefly turns violent (Marger, 2006).
The possibility of conflict is increased when opportunities and resources are distributed unequally to different ethnic groups in a society. The United States and most European countries have become homes for many ethnic groups in the past half-century. The United States has long been a multicultural society, but many European nations that once were culturally homogeneous now also have multiple ethnic communities of guest workers and immigrants. Such immigration is on the increase. With more ethnic groups, opportunities for conflict increase. Differences in political or religious views, culture, wealth, physical appearance, social status, prejudiced views, and acts of discrimination stimulate conflict among ethnic groups.
Conflict theorists traditionally study “who benefits, who suffers, and who dominates at the expense of others” (Schaefer, 2006, p. 15). Conflict theorists see societies continually struggling because of tensions among competing groups. Social unrest, party politics, and community disputes are examples of conflict among competing groups. So are bullying, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, though these conflicts have escalated into violence.
In this module, we examine conflict, beginning at the individual level with bullying among children. We then turn to conflict at the community and national levels, by examining genocide and ethnic cleansing. We look at these issues to understand the roots of such violence, the ways conflict turns into violence and war, and the ways such confrontations can be averted or resolved by more peaceful means. 

Module 5: Conflict
Human Nature
Many have long believed that human nature is beastly and violent. John Dewey, writing in Human Nature and Conduct in 1922 found, “Man’s nature has been regarded with suspicion, with fear, with sour looks, sometimes with enthusiasm for its possibilities but only when these were placed in contrast with its actualities.” Human nature “has appeared to be so evilly disposed that the business of morality was to prune and curb” (p. 1). Humans were thought to be uncivilized, more savage than the great apes, and having no hope of escaping their brutal selves. Biologist Robert Sapolsky has found that view is now supplanted by a new understanding, based on intensive field observation of primates and other animals, that as humans do, all animals have recourse to violence (Sapolsky, 2006).
Today scientists studying the social lives of animals have turned their attention to our interest in this module, the social conditions under which cooperative and peaceful behavior occurs and the conditions under which conflict arises, is resolved, or leads to violence.
Neuropsychology and Human Nature
Some recent neuropsychological research is pertinent to our understanding of human nature. Researchers Mary Wheeler and Susan Fiske report that people instantly categorize faces; these “automatic” responses are to race, gender, and age. She finds “Category-based responses, often known collectively as prejudice, omit the effortful process of getting to know an individual in detail.” She finds such categorizations, which she calls evidence of prejudice and stereotyping, save time yet can also cause harm to the individual and the target person (Wheeler & Fiske, 2005, p. 56).
Wheeler and Fiske used functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) to record the reaction of the amygdala, a portion of the brain that responds with a lightning-fast assessment of danger or “potential threat” (2005, p. 61). The amygdala assesses threat by instantaneously analyzing facial expressions and speech. When different faces (African American and white) were flashed before subjects given different instructions, an interesting finding emerged. Stereotyping and “primitive emotional prejudice” responses occurred in response to seeing an unknown, out-group face—that is, a photo of an individual whose race differed from one’s own—if no efforts at categorization were used. However, when Wheeler and Fiske primed subjects simply to categorize the faces and gave them a bit of information to consider them as individuals, the prejudice response did not occur (Wheeler & Fiske, 2005, p. 61).
Responses depended on the context—that is, the “current social-cognitive goal” of the task. In a separate research report, Fiske suggests we cannot blame prejudice and stereotyping on wiring in the brain because unethical behavior, bias in particular, “depends on both motivation and cognition.” Thus, a response depends not only on what you see, but on what you are thinking about at the time (Fiske, 2004, p. 118).
Control over Human Nature
What does this research finding tell us about human nature? It suggests that there are both automatic and controlled components to our behavior. If we look at people as individuals and are in a setting where we can think about them as individuals, the instantaneous, emotional response to threat, a kind of primitive racism and stereotyping, does not occur. It suggests that we have a capacity to perceive members of different racial groups as threats, but in situations where knowledge about individuals or a certain mindset is provided, this primitive emotional fear response to different racial groups does not occur.
In this module, we take the view that humans are not victims of our “savage” genetic heritage or the way our brains are wired. Genes are not everything, nor are automatic reactions to stimuli; environment and social influences are equally important in creating peaceful or violent individuals, communities, and nations. As humans, we have capabilities for peaceful resolution of conflict as well as savage violence in response to it. The new idea in this module is that social settings, created by humans, can determine social behavior.
Bullying
Bullying means “to treat abusively or to affect by means of force or coercion” (Merriam-Webster, 1995). Bullying is conflict raised to the level of one-on-one violence. It is bullying when a child is “exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students.” The bully is “the person who intentionally inflicts, or attempts to inflict injury or discomfort on someone else” (Olweus, 2003, p. 9). The victim has difficulty defending himself or herself. Most victims of bullying are passive children, but occasionally there are what psychologist Dan Olweus calls “provocative” victims, youngsters who elicit bullying from others. Bullying so damages and demoralizes children that a few, who cannot find adults to help them, commit suicide rather than continue enduring the taunts of a bully (Coloroso, 2003).
Olweus surveyed more than 150,000 students in Scandinavia in the 1980s, finding that around 6 to 7 percent of students were bullies and around 9 percent of students were victims of bullying. When he surveyed 11,000 students in 2001, he found the numbers of bullies had increased 65 percent, and the numbers of victims had increased by around 50 percent, giving rise to his concerns about “negative societal developments” (Olweus, 2003, p. 12). In a 2003 survey, 7 percent of American students ages 12 to 18 reported having been bullied at school within the previous six months (Schäfer, 2005, p. 76).
Bullying and Violence
Bullying becomes violence when victims are physically injured (Prince, 2005) or when victims retaliate because they can no longer tolerate the bully’s mistreatment. Researchers found “two-thirds of 41 perpetrators in recent school shooting incidents described feeling persecuted, bullied, or threatened by their peers” (NASBE Policy Update, 2003, p. 1). A plot by students to kill classmates at their middle school in Alaska was foiled in 2006; the pol
It is important to recognize that not all shootings in schools are carried out by victims of bullying taking revenge. The Columbine massacre in Colorado seems to have been masterminded by a brilliant psychopath―that is, a mentally ill individual who can injure or kill without remorse. A depressed and suicidal student with a raging temper was the accomplice. Their intentions were not revenge, but the staging of a spectacle of death by shooting and bombing unlike any seen in the world before. They did not have revenge in mind nor did they preselect intended victims. However, the mastermind did share one feature with bullies, his extreme contempt for others (Cullen, 2004).
Bullying and Ethnic Minorities
Racist bullying is a subject of concern for children who are members of ethnic minority groups. Racial slurs, racist graffiti, bringing racial literature to school, wearing racial insignia to offend other minority groups, name-calling, and racist jokes are the subjects of concern in a national report in the United Kingdom (Department for Education and Skills, 2006). The Edinburgh Daily News reported in 2003 that race hate and bullying “hit record levels” in secondary schools in Scotland (MacGregor, 2003). There was hope levels would decrease over time because considerable work has been done to reduce race hate and bullying among students in primary schools. The article stressed the need for more work with students in secondary schools.
Social Learning Theory and Bullying
A view of bullying comes from research carried out by social psychologist Albert Bandura between 1963 and 1973. His theory, like all theories in psychology, cannot be “proved,” but there is a considerable body of research carried out by other researchers that supports his ideas (Bandura, Ross & Ross, 1963; Bandura, 1973).
Bandura believed this type of aggression is learned. Children see it modeled for them or they try it out, and that is how they learn it. Bandura found aggression is a social behavior that is learned the same way as any other social behavior. Thus, his theory is called a social learning theory of aggression.
Previous theorists believed the “killer ape” version of human nature, hypothesizing that aggression comes about because of internal states within the individual child (or adult). They hypothesized that aggression is inevitable in humans, happening when a person becomes sufficiently physiologically aroused—that is, sufficiently angry.
Bandura approached the problem from another angle and attempted to explain how aggressive behaviors are learned and how they are maintained and become habitual.
Boy and Girl Bullies
We must pause here and provide a note about gender. Most playground, neighborhood, and school bullies who are physically violent are boys. That is not to say that girls are nonviolent! Girls specialize in more covert, but equally painful, forms of bullying, such as spreading rumors, ostracism (shutting out others from their group), or malicious gossiping.
Learning to Bully
Bandura found a child learns to be aggressive in either of two ways: (1) by observing someone behaving aggressively or (2) by carrying out an aggressive act and not being punished for it. Bandura came to this conclusion in his well-known 1963 study in which he used a Bobo doll, an inflatable, child-sized doll that children can hit. It tips over, but immediately turns itself right side up again. In this experiment, a child who saw an adult beat up the Bobo doll learned the aggressive responses to the doll and was more likely to direct similar acts toward the doll, as long as the child had not seen the adult punished (Bandura, Ross & Ross, 1963).
Bullying Is Rewarding
Bandura used the term reinforcement from psychology to explain how acts of bullying reward the bully. Behavior can be reinforced in two ways. In the first way, a behavior can be reinforced (strengthened, made to occur more often) when it is followed by some kind of reward. That is called positive reinforcement. An example would be when the bully attacks a victim and gains the admiration of classmates. A second way in which behavior can be reinforced occurs when that child is sent to the principal’s office and punished. Although the child is punished, the punishment is still attention, so it may still be experienced as a reward. Some children misbehave because being singled out for punishment is a form of attention that is rewarding. Perhaps certain learning experiences predispose children to become bullies. One report suggests children who become bullies are more likely to have been “forcefully” punished at home, to have viewed more violent TV, and to have fewer adult role models (Schäfer, 2005).
Bandura recognized that a child who is reinforced for aggressive behavior would be more likely to resort to aggression in the future. For example, a preschool child who can overpower his nursery-school classmates and who finds classmates cave in to his forceful demands, will be likely to do this same act of bullying again.
Bullying as Children Mature
As children mature, there are fewer acts of bullying overall. However, as they grow older, a few children who are aggressive carry out most of the conflicts. Thus, a small minority of youngsters become even more frequent participants in fights and other aggressive interactions. By ages 8 through 12, a small minority of youngsters are involved in a large majority of the conflicts.
Bullying declines throughout childhood, yet for the most violent of young adolescents, there is an increase rather than a decline in physical aggression as they progress through their teenage years. The undercontrolled (you would say “out of control”) individuals are growing larger and stronger. Thus they become ever more likely to inflict serious injuries when they act on their aggressive inclinations.
Bullying and Contempt
Parenting expert Barbara Coloroso (2003, p. 20) finds bullies display a sense of “entitlement—giving them the privilege and right to control,” an intolerance and disdain for differences, a belief that others are inferior, and “a liberty to exclude, to bar, isolate, and segregate a person deemed not worthy of respect or care” (p. 21). She finds that bullies exhibit contempt for victims. Contempt means despising, disdaining, “lack of respect or reverence” (Merriam-Webster, 1995).
Lack of reverence for another individual is a good place to conclude our thoughts about what enables the individual bully to so hurt another youngster. It also is a good place to preview our discussion of genocide. Coloroso has spent 10 years studying genocide, and she finds dehumanization and contempt—that is, the ultimate lack of respect or reverence for another human being—to be a fundamental characteristic of those who bully in the classroom, but also of those who carry out crimes such as genocide against ethnic minority groups (Coloroso, 2005).
GENOCIDE
Genocide means “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group” (Merriam-Webster, 1995), and the word first appeared in the dictionary in 1944, an obvious reference to the Nazi Holocaust. At the national level, it is conflict carried to its most evil end. Levene (2000) writes that 187 million people died as a result of political or state-sponsored violence in the twentieth century (p. 305). He describes the twentieth century as a century of genocide because of the emergence of group violence targeted specifically at the extermination of entire ethnic, racial, or religious groups.
Large-Scale Conflict and Genocide
When conflict takes place among larger groups in society, or among nations, larger forces have enabled it to occur. We will consider three types of large-scale conflict: functional, dysfunctional, and structural. These types are suggested in Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century and in other writings by the same researchers (Christie, Wagner, & Winter, 2001; Christie, 1997).
Functional Conflict
Conflict can be functional (constructive) when it facilitates positive outcomes, such as pinpointing issues, developing solutions, and solving problems. Martin Luther King in the 1960s led the nonviolent civil rights movement in the United States that helped focus attention on equality for African Americans. Although others used widespread violence to suppress the movement, the movement began in a nonviolent way. If conflict is not managed properly, it lays the foundation for violence of all types.
Dysfunctional Conflict
Conflict can also be dysfunctional. Conflict that leads to distrust, dehumanization, and depersonalization is highly destructive and sets the stage for violence. Some find dysfunctional conflict to be based on hate. Barbara Coloroso (2005) defines hate as “evil in action” and finds it “destructive to our sense of community” (p. 191). Nazi Germany provides an example of dysfunctional conflict that escalated to hatred and genocide. Defeated and facing the ruinous reparations payments required by the Versailles Treaty that ended World War I, Germany was left humiliated (Wistrich, 2002).
Several factors subsequently led Germany down the path of escalating conflict and violence. Political and social unrest led the economically troubled Weimar Republic to look for a scapegoat in the Jews, an ethnic minority that nevertheless controlled a majority of the financial institutions in Germany (Wistrich, 2002). Rabid anti-Semitism and a rigidly authoritarian society were contributing factors in the atrocities of the Holocaust. Conflict that is dysfunctional and not properly managed, contained, or resolved may erupt into lethal violence, as it did in the Holocaust. Dysfunctional conflict results from continuous and systematic deprivation, inequality, and exploitation.
Structural Conflict
Structural conflicts are caused by barriers that are already built into society and that are accepted by some of its members. Examples of barriers that can cause structural conflict are the exclusion of particular races from certain opportunities in society such as access to specialized education, union membership, or certain types of employment (Christie, 1997).
Navigating through a house on fire illustrates the way in which barriers in society function. Someone yells “Fire!” and you attempt to get out as quickly as possible. How will you leave? Will you exit through a front door, back door, or window? Will you navigate stairs, pass through several rooms, or find your way down a narrow hall to the nearest exit? Does the house have only one or two exits or are there several? Are some doors locked and others open? These barriers affect your ability to leave the house swiftly. Depending on what these structures are and where they are, they can greatly limit your chances of survival.
Structural conflict that may lead to violence occurs when some of the policies, practices, and norms of a society are inequitable and privilege some and disadvantage others. Some get out of the burning house quickly while others are barricaded in. Policies that keep the minimum wage low while executive salaries skyrocket are an example. Segregated schools with unequal funding, lack of access to health care, environmental degradation in slums, homelessness, and poverty in general are examples of barriers whose presence creates conflict that can lead to violence (Christie, 1997).
Galtung (1969) provides another way to understand the impact of structural conflict. He says to count the dead after the fire in the house. In other words, he recommends ascertaining how many people might have lived if the structures or the walls of that house (our society) were arranged differently and if all the doors were unlocked and could be opened for all to exit. How many people might have gotten out of the burning house if everyone had equal access to an unlocked door?
For example, how many Native Americans might have lived if the policy of the European explorers and settlers from the 1500s through the 1800s was not to exploit, remove, and harness as slaves the indigenous people? Christopher Columbus encountered the Taino, an Arawak-speaking people, when he arrived looking for treasure in San Salvador in 1492 (Maynard, 1996). Giving up on gold, Columbus set his sights on developing an agricultural empire on Hispaniola (today’s Haiti and Dominican Republic) using the Taino as slaves. This action immediately engendered conflict between Columbus and the Taino. With plans to develop a colony and to harvest riches for Spain, Columbus brought 17 ships and 1,000 men on his second trip to Hispaniola in 1493 (Maynard, 1996, p. 43). In the next 70 years, the Taino were decimated by exposure to European diseases, principally smallpox and measles, and the stresses of conquest and exploitation. Structuring society to marginalize and dehumanize ethnic minority groups kills bodies, minds, and spirits.
Social Identity Theory and Genocide
Social identity theory provides another way to view conflict from the individual to the most global viewpoint. Applying this theory, researchers investigate the groups we identify with and the consequences of that group membership, in particular, in-group favoritism. Tajfel and Turner (1986) identify three factors that contribute to in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination. These are (1) how strongly the individual identifies with the group, (2) how salient or contrasting the in-group is from the out-group, and (3) the status of the in-group.
Identities
We experience and interact in society as both individuals and as part of larger groups with which we identify. A Mexican immigrant, for example, when required to check a box on a form for race, ethnicity, and language may identify with Hispanic Americans or with Spanish speakers. Group membership can provide benefits that are healthy and life-sustaining such as perceived safety, heightened sense of self and identity, and a common culture, language, and beliefs (Christie, Wagner, & Winter, 2001).
Devaluing the Other Group
When individuals begin to identify strongly with larger groups with a common social class, ethnicity, race, language, religion, or ideology, their view of members of the out-group may change. They may begin to devalue, marginalize, dismiss, or look down upon them. Social unrest can ensue. Sometimes the intense favoring of one’s in-group can lead to the detesting of the out-group. When this occurs, the out-group is perceived as a “threat” to the internal stability of the dominant group or the in-group’s power, resources, and existence.
Today more societies have increasing numbers of ethnic groups, and these groups tend to be highly stratified according to skin color, caste, ethnicity, religion, or language. This stratification increases the likelihood of strong group identification that can create conflicts, especially if other salient factors are present such as inequality, societal instability and unrest, prejudice, and discrimination.
Mass Killing and Genocide
When conflict is dysfunctional and rises to the level that it becomes state-sponsored and group-focused, direct violence can result. It may begin with mass killings. Mass killings are often precipitated by the dominant power and can often take the form of random disappearances. Thousands of people went missing throughout Argentina, Central America, and South America as part of state-sponsored efforts to suppress rebellion and maintain power (Nunca Mas, 1986). Mass killings usually precede genocide and can act as a warning sign of escalating violence.
Depersonalization and Genocide
Ethnic cleansing is a systematic effort to rid a society of a devalued ethnic group. Genocide is a broader term, referring to the same process for any racial, ethnic, or religious group. For either ethnic cleansing or genocide to occur, the despised group must be devalued. The term ethnic cleansing, a synonym for one type of genocide, is worth mentioning just for the evil it suggests, by a cruel use of the positive-valenced word cleansing as a term for mass murder. Just as the bully has contempt for the victim, here a single, dominant group feels contempt, disdain, and a lack of respect or reverence for members of another group. This contempt motivates it to annihilate the other group.
One example of genocide occurred in 1915, when the Turks tried to eliminate the Armenians. Turkish officials targeted for death all Armenians rather than only those the government considered traitors, because “Those who were innocent today might be guilty tomorrow” (Powers, 2002, p. 8). This is stereotyping, an example of a prejudiced viewpoint that took no differences among individuals into account. Remember that “knee-jerk,” instantaneous reaction of the amygdala gland in the brain to an out-group face? This primitive (some would call it “reptilian”) social response was operating.
The same judgment was made more recently in Rwanda, a heavily populated country in central Africa. There, the Hutu government sponsored the extermination of almost 100,000 Tutsis (and moderate Hutus) within 100 days in 1994 (Powers, 2002, p. 357).
Barbara Coloroso, whose parenting expertise has led her to study bullying and genocide, discusses the conditions during the time when the genocide occurred. She believes “A genocidal environment consist[s] of unquestioning obedience to authority, the normalization of cruelty, and the dehumanization of people” and that the “cold hate of contempt” is an essential ingredient of genocide (Coloroso, 2005, p. 233). The Hutu had devalued and depersonalized Tutsis to the degree that the Tutsi were commonly referred to as “cockroaches.” Such attitudes promoted genocide then and now. A decade after the genocide, Coloroso found students in a Rwanda school doing mathematics problems in which they were reminded that the only good “cockroach” was a dead “cockroach” (Coloroso, 2005).
SUMMARY
We began by looking at conflict and its sources in the inequalities among groups in a stratified society. We looked briefly at human nature and found two different elements, one an instantaneous brain response to stereotypes and the other a more thoughtful one in which racism and stereotyping do not occur.
We looked at bullying among students and the means by which a bully is able to make another youngster an outcast by systematically treating the victim as if he or she is not worthy being treated as a person. We found bullying used to emphasize exclusion of ethnic minorities and to carry out violence against others. We discovered that bullying comes about because the bully has contempt for the victim, whether in an American schoolyard or in Rwanda.
We looked at conflict in societies and found barriers to opportunities for different ethnic groups. We also looked at social identity theory, which outlines the risks of strong identification with a given group. The stronger an individual’s identification with a group, the higher the probability of devaluing and denigrating the out-group.
We examined genocide and found a host of now-familiar factors appeared. The perpetrators of genocide have disdain for victims and do not consider they have a right to live. Next came the devaluing and despising of members of an entire out-group and treating the out-group in stereotypical ways, as if they were not individuals. Where there was unthinkable killing there was an ideology that made massacre acceptable and an authority structure that removed the responsibility for the killing from blindly obedient members. Finally, there was a way of treating members of the out-group as if they no longer were human and that somehow justified the killing. These factors made genocide possible.
What can we take from these chilling lessons? In spite of these events, we are not victims of our own “beastly” human nature. In 1935, anthropologist Margaret Mead wrote, “We are forced to conclude that human nature is almost unbelievably malleable, responding accurately and contrastingly to contrasting cultural conditions” (Mead, 1935, p. 279). We have it in our power to establish societies that are aggressive and violent or societies that keep conflict at a thoughtful and constructive level. Social settings that we help construct, whether in a classroom, a community, or a nation, can determine social behavior.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
     Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models.
     Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 3-11.
Choi, C. (2006). Genetic changes from bullying. Scientific American, 294(4). 34–38.
Christie, D. J. (1997). Reducing direct and structural violence: The human needs theory.
     Peace and Conflict Journal: Journal of Peace Psychology, 3, 315–332.
Christie, D. J., Wagner, R. V., & Winter, D. D. (2001). Peace, conflict, and violence:
     Peace psychology for the 21st century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Coloroso, B. (2003) The bully, the bullied, and the bystander. New York: Harper Collins.
Coloroso, B. (2005). Just because it isn’t wrong doesn’t make it right: From toddlers
     to teens, teaching kids to think and act ethically. Toronto: Viking Write my essay for me – CA Essay writer Canada.
Cullen, D. (2004). The depressive and the psychopath: At last we know why the
     Columbine killers did it. Slate, April 20. [Online]. Available:
     https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/slate.com/id/2099203/
Department for Education and Skills, Communications Unit. Bullying by race, gender,
     sexual orientation or disability (2006). Teachernet. [Online]. Available:
     https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/teachernet.gov.uk/ wholeschool/behaviour/tacklingbullying/antibullyingpack/
     pupils/pupils5/
Dewey, J. (2002, rpt. 1922). Human Nature and Conduct. New York: Dover.
Fiske, S. (2004). Intent and ordinary bias: Unintended thought and social motivation
     create casual prejudice. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 117–127.
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of peace research, 3,
     176–191.
Lee, J. (2006) Update 6: Alaska school vows security after arrests. Forbes, 23 April.
     [Online]. Available:
     https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/2006/04/23/ap2690165.html
Levene, M. (2000). Why is the twentieth century the century of genocide? Journal
     of World History, 11(2), 305–336.
MacGregor, F. (2003). Two cases of bullying and race hate every school day. Edinburgh
     Evening News, 3 September. [Online]. Available:
     http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=971552003
Marger, M. (2006) Race and ethnic relations: American and global perspectives. 7th ed.
     Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Maynard, J., ed. (1996). Through Indian eyes: The untold story of Native American
     peoples. New York: Reader’s Digest.
Mead, M. (1935). Sex and temperament in three primitive societies. New York:
     William Morrow.
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. (10th ed.). Springfield, MA: Merriam-
     Webster, s.v. bully, conflict, contempt.
National Association of State Boards of Education. Bullying in schools. NASBE Policy
     Update, 11(10). (2003). [Online]. Available:
     https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/nasbe.org/Educational_issues/Policy_Updates/11_10.html
Nunca Mas: The report of the Argentine national commission on the disappeared. (1986).
     New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux.
Olweus, D. (2003). A profile of bullying at school. Educational Leadership, 60(6).
     12–18.
Powers. (2002). A problem from hell: America and the age of genocide. New York:
     Basic Books.
Prince, C. J. (2005). School bus bullies. CBS News, reprinted from The Christian
     Science Monitor. [Online]. Available:
     https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/18/national/main689037.shtml
Sapolsky, R. (2006). A natural history of peace. Foreign Affairs, 85(1), 104–120.
Schäfer, M. (2005). Stopping the bullies. Scientific American Mind, 16(2), 76–81.
Schaefer, R. (2006). Sociology, (10th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In
     S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (eds.) Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago:
     Nelson-Hall.
Wheeler, M., & Fiske, S. (2005). Controlling racial prejudice. Psychological Science, 16
     (1), 56–63.
Wistrich, R. S. (2002). Hitler and the Holocaust: How and why the Holocaust happened.
     London: Phoenix Press.
Return to top of page
Module 5: Conflict
Being able to define and discuss the following terms will help you pass the midterm and final examinations. Some terms on this list will appear on the midterm and final examinations for you to define. A sample definition has been provided to model a proper response.
conflict
bullying
social learning
contempt
genocide
hate
Sample definition of social learning:
Social learning refers to things learned by watching or imitating others and trying it out oneself. Social psychologist Albert Bandura believed that children learn bullying, or aggressive behavior, by observing others acting aggressively and not being punished for what they did. Today we recognize that social learning is as important as the inborn tendencies we have as humans.

Module 5: Conflict
You may use these questions to assess what you have learned in this module. Questions will be selected from this list and placed on the midterm and final examinations. A sample answer has been provided to model a proper response.
What is bullying? Please provide an example from your experience.
What is structural conflict? Please provide an example.
What is ethnic cleansing?
What is depersonalization and how does it lead to genocide?
Sample answer to question 3:
Ethnic cleansing refers to systematic acts, such as mass murder committed with the aim to destroy, debilitate, or get rid of large numbers of people who share a common language, culture, religion, or nationality. Ethnic cleansing and genocide are closely related in that they are both intentional acts aimed at destroying an out-group of people who are considered less human. An example of ethnic cleansing would be the atrocities that took place in the former Yugoslavia.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Assessment Homework Help Online, Australia essays, Best Ideas for Dissertation Topics, Best Research Paper Topics for Examples, Dissertation Topics & Good Thesis Ideas