3.2 System Justification Theory
3.2.2 System Justification Theory
3.2.2.6 Ego and Group Justification
Unlike the theories mentioned above, SJT was presented as a theory that could account for the many limitations of the ego justification and group justification aspects of these
theories, as well as to expand on the work of these key theories (Jost & Banaji, 1994;
Jost & Hunyady, 2002). Ego and group justification had become prevalent in many theories, such as those mentioned above; yet, Jost and Banaji (1994) maintained that these modes of justification could not account for certain behaviours. For instance, ego justification occurs on an individual level, whereby the individual preserves and promotes their self-esteem and identity by justifying themselves and presenting themselves favourably, yet, the limitations of ego justification are that it cannot explain:
negative stereotypes of oneself, stereotyping without the need to justify and the universality of some stereotypes (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost & Hunyady, 2002).
Similarly, group justification occurs by defending the identity of one’s group and the identity of in-group members; however, the limitations of group justification are that it fails to explain why some stereotypes remain the same, not only within, but also across groups and why subordinate groups may hold negative views of their in-group, whereas it was previously believed that all individuals would hold favourable views of their in- group and negative views of the out-group (Allport, 1958; Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost et al., 2004). Research has shown that subordinate groups tend to show out-group favouritism of the dominant group (Dixon, Levine, Reicher & Durrheim, 2012; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). This research will be reviewed in greater depth later on in this chapter under 3.2.4 Out-Group Contact. It is from the limitations of ego and group justification theory that SJT arose as a theory to explain why maintaining the status quo of an existing system holds greater importance than defending individual or group interests.
Within their theory, Jost and Banaji (1994) placed a large emphasis on the role of stereotypes in system-justifying processes, motivating that this added to the existing understandings of ego and group justification. Stereotypes are positive, negative or neutral belief systems “in which psychological characteristics are ascribed more or less indiscriminately to the members of a group” (Jost & Hamilton, 2005, p. 209). Hence, stereotypes account for, legitimise and justify the disadvantage of some groups and the
advantage of others (Jost & Burgess, 2000). Research suggests that stereotypes serve an ideological function, whereby the exploitation of subordinate groups is justified (Jost &
Banaji, 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). To illustrate this by use of an example, the stereotype that women are more communal and less agentic provides an explanation as to why fewer women are managers compared to men, namely, because the stereotype suggests that women make poor leaders or managers (Aycan, 2004; Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Rudman & Glick, 2001). As a result, gender stereotypes further serve to rationalise the division of labour between women and men, while the division of labour simultaneously supports gender stereotypes (Jost & Banaji, 1994). It is the holding of these stereotypes by women and men, for example that cannot be understood through a lens of ego or group justification, since women and men may hold negative stereotypes of themselves and their group (Zimmermann & Gygax, in press).
Tajfel and Turner (1979; 1986) have identified this compliance with the status quo as a social creativity strategy, whereby women, realising that they are unable to change unequal social arrangements, adopt beliefs that justify this system. By doing this women are able to rationalise and justify the disadvantaged position they find themselves in.
There are at least three ways that subordinates can employ social creativity strategies to reconstruct the meaning of their subordinate position. Reicher, Spears and Haslam (2010) aptly summarised that this could be done, either:
(a) by seeking to compare the ingroup with other groups that are even more disadvantaged (e.g., as if to say “we may be poorer than the very rich, but at least we’re better off than the very poor”), (b) by evaluating the ingroup on more flattering dimensions of comparison (“we may be poor but we’re friendly”), or (c) by attempting to redefine the meaning of the ingroup membership (“blessed are the poor”) (p. 51).
Consequently, SJT drew from social creativity strategies and it is, thus, argued that SJT provides a more appropriate theory to understand how stereotypes legitimise the status quo and the existence of inequalities (Jost & Hamilton, 2005; Jost & Hunyady, 2002).
As mentioned, stereotypes are not only used by people in advantaged positions to justify inequalities (Jost & Banaji, 1994). Stereotypes tend to be accepted by subordinates, because they reflect the dominant ideology (Jackman & Muha, 1984). On this point Jost and Banaji (1994) drew heavily from the work of Marx and Engels (1970), who theorised that because dominant groups hold the majority of the power their ideas, beliefs and values influence and determine the ideas, beliefs and values of subordinate groups. These internalisations of what is believed to be false beliefs result in false attributions and stereotypes that are generalisations made by both subordinates and dominants of groups of people who are not necessarily true and lead to, what Jost and Banaji (1994) describe as, false consciousness (Fox, 1999; Jost & Burgess, 2000).
They define this false consciousness as the “holding of false beliefs that are contrary to one’s social interest and which thereby contribute to the disadvantaged position of the self or the group” (Jost & Banaji, 1994, p. 3). There is a great deal of critique and contention on the theory of false consciousness, because one line of thought suggests that people are not dupes of their social world. From this angle it is assumed that subordinate groups are not manipulated, but can think for themselves regardless of the dominant ideology. On the other hand, numerous academics have argued that societal inequalities are internalised by individuals (see Jost, 2011). It is consequently suggested that false consciousness contributes to explaining why discrimination and oppression exist, and therefore false consciousness is considered to be a relevant theory to understand why subordinates accept social inequalities (for example, Fox, 1999;
Harcourt, 2011; Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost, 1995; Jost & Hunyady, 2002; Paprzycka, 2002).
Because “people can be systematically mistaken about their own best interest”
(Harcourt, 2011, p. 29), false consciousness reflects why the acceptance of the dominant ideology and upholding the existing social arrangement is likely to be disadvantageous
to subordinates. Furthermore, research has indicated that when there is opposition of the dominant ideology of a system people will to a greater extent employ stereotypes to support the status quo (Jost & Hunyady, 2002). Through this, the dominant ideology is maintained.
Overall, the effects of system justification suggest that there are fewer benefits of employing system-justifying motives for subordinate groups (Jost & Hunyady, 2002).
Studies cited in Jost and Hunyady (2002) have shown that system justification for dominant groups is associated with increased self-esteem and decreased depression and neuroticism, while the converse applies to subordinate groups, whereby system justification is associated with decreased self-esteem and increased depression and neuroticism. Consequently, these studies, as well as others (for example, Calogero &
Jost, 2011; Jost & Hunyady, 2005), suggest that the psychological implications of system justification for subordinate groups are not in their favour, yet, subordinate groups still provide support for the status quo. The following sections explore how women and men enable system justification to the detriment of women, and how, despite the disadvantage that this brings, women provide support for the status quo.