Abstract
The psychology of interethnic relations being very complex, several observation techniques had to be used simultaneously, such as the ‘sociogram’ of Moreno, the interaction process analysis of Bales, the content analysis of Berelson, and Zander's technique of assessment of a group's productivity.
In our opinion, research in social psychology comprises several phases, interdependent and complementary to one another: preliminary phase of exploration of the phenomena studied, phase of systematic observation, and finally phase of experimentation; this last phase cannot be used alone isolated from the two others, or else the psychologist confining himself within his laboratory runs the risk of operating in a more and more artificial context.
In a gestaltist perspective, it seems that the group phenomena are in constant process, and to explain this process, to trace back its genesis, to discover the motivations involved is tantamount to making these group phenomena intelligible. What Goldstein succeeded in bringing out is that this process tends toward an always deeper, more differentiated actualization of a group's inherent potentialities. In turn, Rogers has demonstrated that this process has a chance to express itself in an evolving growth only if an environment favourable to this tendency to actualization is successfully created. He adds, as well, that this environment will only have a chance to be propitious if the growth rate specific to each living human group is taken into consideration. This process of the group must be thought of in terms of dépassement and not, as claimed by the Freudian school and Alexander, in terms of a tendency toward an equilibrium and an homeostasis.
To reach its maturity the evolution of a group phenomenon must comprise four phases whose lengths vary with each group: first individualistic, then ‘subgroup’ collusion, collective infatuation, and last, group in active communication with the outside world. Moreover, two laws seem to be essential to a human group's evolution toward maturity: the first, that individuals should learn to accept themselves as different; the second, that individuals should never consider their integration into the group as definitely completed, but rather as a steady process of actualization.
Let us recall that, in 1952, when undertaking this research on interethnic relations, our specific goal was to assess the possibilities of evolution of social exchanges between conflicting ethnic groups, to determine their optimal conditions, in order to define gradually the essential dynamics.
We have brought together four discussion groups including representatives of the three main ethnic groups in Montreal. French-Canadians, Jewish-Canadians and English-Canadians; teachers, senior law students, jurists with ten years of legal practice, and representatives of the upper-middle class involved in civic action. Simultaneous translation was available at each meeting. All factors being strictly controlled, we have regulated these meetings by a procedure as democratic as possible, remembering Lippitt's principle: “Be directive on the procedure, non-directive on the process.”
In each series of meetings we have observed some constants. First, the participants seem obsessed by accommodation, followed by a phase of aggressive discharge, replaced by a third, the most extensive, of prestige conflicts. Finally, the nearing conclusion seems to have started, in each case, a fourth phase of ‘mutual understanding’ at all costs.
These four attempts compel us to dismiss as too simple Gordon W. Allport's hypothesis that people of similar socioeconomic or occupational level only need to be brought together in order to achieve understanding. Some other conditions seem to us just as necessary, namely, an equal mental level, an equal level of socialization and a certain psychological climate, favourable to exchange.