 |  |  | Greetings, Nick.
You've made an astute observation. However, conformity typically deals with specific group behavior rather than large scale international relations. One factor to consider here is propinquity and salience. In the case of Israel and Pakistan, the two nations are vastly separated. Without the direct contact, forces such as conformity are weakened.
Now, I'm wondering if you meant to type Israel and "Palestine". In this case, there are also distinct cultural and social norms in play along with strong ingroup and outgroup identities. People are less likely to conform to an outgroup. For example, your local community may have some groups present that you wish to be no part of (e.g. if there are any local gangs or criminal elements). Furthermore, in the Israel-Palestine context there is already a precedent for dispute in place with a stubborn retaliatory "tit for tat" response strategy being employed by both sides. Meanwhile, the conflict has become thoroughly engrained in both Israeli and Palestinian society (evidence for this comes from everything from artwork to social symbols to even the stories told by children). This deeply engrained conflict is what we call "intractable," a destructive dispute that is resistant of change or resolution
If you're interested in learning more about the complex psychological factors that influence human cooperation and conflict, esp. intractable conflict, I recommend that you look-up any of the recent research/theories by Robin Vallacher, Andrzej Nowak, and/or Peter Coleman. They've used a dynamic systems perspective to frame conflict as a product of multiple evolving psychological and social processes.
Vallacher, R. R., Coleman, P. T., Nowak, A., & Bui-Wrzosinska, L. (2010). Rethinking intractable conflict: The perspective of dynamical systems - in American Psychologist might be one good starting point.
Hope this helps!
- Jay L. Michaels
| |  | |
Forum Home Page
