Misplaced Pages

#724275

32-410: A number of different definitions and perspectives on hatred have been put forth. Philosophers have been concerned with understanding the essence and nature of hatred, while some religions view it positively and encourage hatred toward certain outgroups . Social and psychological theorists have understood hatred in a utilitarian sense. Certain public displays of hatred are sometimes legally proscribed in

64-407: A certain social group , usually defined by race , gender , religion , sexual orientation , mental disorder , disability , class , ethnicity , nationality , age , gender identity , or political affiliation . Incidents may involve physical assault , destruction of property , bullying , harassment , verbal abuse or insults , or offensive graffiti or letters ( hate mail ). Hate speech

96-424: A dependent relationship is repudiated in a quest for autonomy. Sigmund Freud defined hate as an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness, stressing that it was linked to the question of self-preservation. Donald Winnicott highlighted the developmental step involved in hatred, with its recognition of an outside object: "As compared to magical destruction, aggressive ideas and behaviour take on

128-476: A difficulty in distinguishing motive and intent for crimes, as well as philosophical debate on the validity of valuing targeted hatred as a greater crime than general misanthropy and contempt for humanity being a potentially equal crime in and of itself. The neural correlates of hate have been investigated with an fMRI procedure. In this experiment, people had their brains scanned while viewing pictures of people they hated. The results showed increased activity in

160-429: A liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society. In many countries, deliberate use of hate speech is a criminal offence prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation. It is often alleged that the criminalization of hate speech

192-445: A matter of minutes and that such groups can form even on the basis of completely arbitrary and invented discriminatory characteristics, such as preferences for certain paintings. In neurology , there is an established literature about the innate propensity of the human brain to divide the world into us and them valence categories, where the exact membership of the in-group and out-group are socially contingent (hence vulnerable to

224-466: A positive value, and hate becomes a sign of civilization". In his wake, object relations theory has emphasised the importance of recognising hate in the analytic setting: the analyst acknowledges his own hate (as revealed in the strict time-limits and the fee charged), which in turn may make it possible for the patient to acknowledge and contain their previously concealed hate for the analyst. Adam Phillips went so far as to suggest that true kindness

256-418: Is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. People may for example identify with their peer group , family , community , sports team, political party, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nation. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories

288-404: Is associated with a wide variety of phenomena. The terminology was made popular by Henri Tajfel and colleagues beginning in the 1970s during his work in formulating social identity theory . The significance of in-group and out-group categorization was identified using a method called the minimal group paradigm . Tajfel and colleagues found that people can form self-preferencing in-groups within

320-511: Is called in-group homogeneity. Discrimination between in-groups and out-groups is a matter of favoritism towards an in-group and the absence of equivalent favoritism towards an out-group. Out-group derogation is the phenomenon in which an out-group is perceived as being threatening to the members of an in-group. This phenomenon often accompanies in-group favoritism, as it requires one to have an affinity towards their in-group. Some research suggests that out-group derogation occurs when an out-group

352-494: Is evidence that elements of favoritism are flexible in that they can be erased by changes in social categorization. One study in the field of behavioural genetics suggests that biological mechanisms may exist which favor a coexistence of both flexible and essentialist systems. Antilocution Too Many Requests If you report this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include

SECTION 10

#1732772663725

384-550: Is historically situated and culturally constructed: it varies in the forms in which it is manifested. Thus a certain relationless hatred is expressed in the French expression J'ai la haine , which has no precise equivalent in English; while for English-speakers, loving and hating invariably involve a force, an object, or a person, and therefore, a relationship with something or someone, J'ai la haine (literally, I have hate) precludes

416-431: Is impossible in a relationship without hating and being hated, so that an unsentimental acknowledgement of interpersonal frustrations and their associated hostilities can allow real fellow-feeling to emerge. In legal jargon, a hate crime (also known as a "bias-motivated crime") is a criminal act which may or may not be motivated by hate. Those who commit hate crimes target victims because of their perceived membership in

448-426: Is perceived as blocking or hindering the goals of an in-group. It has also been argued that out-group derogation is a natural consequence of the categorization process. People have been shown to be differentially influenced by in-group members. That is, under conditions where group categorization is psychologically salient, people will shift their beliefs in line with in-group social norms . This generally refers to

480-410: Is sometimes used to discourage legitimate discussion of negative aspects of voluntary behavior (such as political persuasion, religious adherence and philosophical allegiance). There is also some question as to whether or not hate speech falls under the protection of freedom of speech in some countries. Both of these classifications have sparked debate, with counter-arguments such as, but not limited to,

512-418: Is speech perceived to disparage a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group, such as race , sex , age , ethnicity , nationality , religion , sexual orientation , gender identity , mental disorder , disability , language ability, ideology , social class , occupation, appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered

544-532: The fusiform face area (FFA), an area of the fusiform gyrus located in the inferior temporal cortex of the brain linked to object and face recognition, when viewing same race faces compared to other race faces. Lower activity in the FFA reflects a failure to encode outgroup members at the individual level rather than the categorical level, which comes at the expense of encoding individuating information. This suggests out-group or unfamiliar faces may not be "faces" with

576-509: The middle frontal gyrus , right putamen , bilaterally in the premotor cortex , in the frontal pole , and bilaterally in the medial insular cortex of the human brain . Those suffering from Misophonia have been known to express hatred when triggered. Hate, like love, takes different shapes and forms in different languages. While it may be fair to say that one single emotion exists in English , French (haine), and German (Hass), hate

608-620: The neurological level, where in-group favoritism and out-group bias occurs very early in perception. This process can begin by simply viewing a person's face. Research indicates that individuals are faster and more accurate at recognizing faces of ingroup vs. outgroup members. For example, researchers in a cross-race recognition study recorded blood oxygenation level-dependent signal (BOLD) activity from black and white participants while they viewed and attempted to remember pictures of unfamiliar black faces, white faces and objects. They found that participants in this study exhibited greater activity in

640-468: The ancient time sought to describe hatred and today, there are different definitions available. Aristotle , for instance, viewed it as distinct from anger and rage, describing hate as a desire to annihilate an object and is incurable by time. David Hume also offered his own conceptualization, maintaining that hatred is an irreducible feeling that is not definable at all. In-group and out-group In social psychology and sociology , an in-group

672-529: The concept of collective hatred based on religion, which he described as a man-made phenomenon caused by deliberate actions and omissions of hate-mongers. Hatred can also be sanctioned by religion. The Hebrew word describing the psalmist's "perfect hatred" (Ps. 139.22) means that it "brings a process to completion". Religion can employ extreme speech in an attempt convert new adherents and that extreme speech made against other religions or their adherents can result in situations of religious hatred. Philosophers from

SECTION 20

#1732772663725

704-524: The context of pluralistic cultures that value tolerance. Hatred may encompass a wide range of gradations of emotion and have very different expressions depending on the cultural context and the situation that triggers the emotional or intellectual response. Based on the context in which hatred occurs, it may be viewed favorably, unfavorably, or neutrally by different societies. As an emotion , hatred can be short-lived or long-lasting. It can be of low intensity - 'I hate broccoli' - or high intensity: 'I hate

736-399: The game, their versions of what transpired were so starkly different it appeared as though they had watched two totally different games. Some may wonder why in-group favoritism takes place, even in arbitrarily assigned groups where group members have nothing in common other than the group to which they were assigned. Research points to unconscious decision-making processes that takes place at

768-410: The idea of an emotion directed at a person. This is a form of frustration, apathy and animosity which churns within the subject but establishes no relationship with the world, other than an aimless desire for destruction. French forms of anti-Americanism have been seen as a specific form of cultural resentment, registering joy-in-hate. A United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom and religion cited

800-496: The instruments of propaganda ), and the intensity exists along a spectrum from mild to complete dehumanization of the " othered " group (such as through pseudospeciation ). The psychological categorization of people into in-group and out-group members is associated with a variety of phenomena. The following examples have all received a great deal of academic attention. This refers to the fact that under certain conditions, people will prefer and have affinity for one's in-group over

832-565: The out-group, or anyone viewed as outside the in-group. This can be expressed in one's evaluation of others, linking, allocation of resources, and many other ways. How we perceive the actions of others are also affected by in-group favoritism. People may perceive the same action very differently depending on whether the action was executed by a member of the same group or a member of a different group. In fact, people tend to evaluate actions of their own group or team members much more favorably than those of outgroup members. An illustrative example of

864-519: The perception that group members are similar to one another. An outcome of this is the out-group homogeneity effect. This refers to the perception of members of an out-group as being homogenous, while members of one's in-group are perceived as being diverse, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". This is especially likely to occur in regard to negative characteristics. Under certain conditions, in-group members can be perceived as being similar to one another in regard to positive characteristics. This effect

896-497: The same intensity as in-group faces. Prior research has also shown that the devaluation and dehumanization of outgroup members is exacerbated when the initial encoding and configural processing of an outgroup face is impeded. So not only does this initial encoding process dehumanize outgroup members, it also contributes to a homogeneity effect, whereby outgroup members are perceived as more similar to each other than ingroup members. Categorization of people into social groups increases

928-407: The speed of the hand movements. On average participants judged members of their own teams to be faster, although the hand movements were the exact same speed across the board. Similarly, Hastorf and Cantril conducted a pioneering study in 1954, where students of both Princeton and Dartmouth viewed a contentious football game between their two teams. Although they had watched the same motion picture of

960-588: The tendency of groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members, although polarization toward the most central beliefs has also been observed. It has been shown that this effect is related to a psychologically salient in-group and outgroup categorization. In evolutionary psychology , in-group favoritism is seen as an evolved mechanism selected for the advantages of coalition affiliation. It has been argued that characteristics such as gender and ethnicity are inflexible or even essential features of such systems. However, there

992-605: The way this phenomenon takes place can be demonstrated just by arbitrarily assigning a person to a distinct and objectively meaningless novel group; this alone is sufficient to create intergroup biases in which members of the perceiver's own group are preferentially favored. This phenomenon was demonstrated in an empirical study conducted by Molenberghs and colleagues in 2013. In the study, participants were arbitrarily divided into two teams where they watched videos of individuals of competing teams and individuals from their own team perform hand actions. Participants were then asked to judge

Hatred - Misplaced Pages Continue

1024-477: The whole world'. In some cases, hatred can be a learned response from external influences, such as from being abused, misled, or manipulated. As a general rule, hatred is the deep psychological response to feeling trapped or being unable to understand certain sociological phenomena. Robert Sternberg saw three main elements in hatred: The important self-protective function, to be found in hatred, can be illustrated by Steinberg's analysis of 'mutinous' hatred, whereby

#724275