AbstractInformal patterns of spatial division often persist in historically divided societies where segregation has been officially dismantled. In this paper, we present a theoretical model that helps to explain why, focusing on the desegregation-resegregation dynamic. The Boundary Transgression Model (BTM) highlights two interconnected pathways— social psychological and human geographic — that shape intergroup relations under conditions of social change, fostering the re-emergence of intergroup distance, division and contact avoidance. It frames resistance to desegregation as a response to constructions of boundary transgression, ‘ruptures’ to the socio-spatial order. The paper develops this argument by drawing on a 25-year research programme conducted in post-apartheid South Africa and post-accord Northern Ireland. It also proposes an expanded integration strategy, complementing the prejudice reduction model of change adopted in social psychology. This aims to transform not only person-person but also person-place relations. It thus brings social psychologists into closer dialogue with researchers working in companion disciplines such as environmental psychology, geography, and urban sociology and with practitioners in fields such as urban design, public policy, and architecture. Keywords: Segregation, desegregation, contact avoidance, boundaries, prejudice, place identity
Indigenous identity threats are fostered and reified through a cyclical process wherein sources of threat for Indigenous people are simultaneously strategies non-Indigenous people employ to manage threat. One contemporary threat for Indigenous people is the omission of their existence and experiences from the public consciousness. Omission threatens Indigenous identity by undermining well-being and fostering intergroup biases. Indigenous people respond by engaging in collective action to address such pernicious representations. As historical and contemporary wrongdoings impacting Indigenous people become visible, non-Indigenous people are confronted with the reality that their group is responsible for and/or benefits from Indigenous oppression. An unintended consequence of Indigenous collective action is that it may further threaten non-Indigenous people's identity. To mitigate this threat, non-Indigenous people omit Indigenous people's existence, which recreates threats for Indigenous people. Interrupting this cycle requires that we actively change the processes embedded in our social institutions and practices that reify Indigenous omission.
Globalisation exposes the striking contrasts (and also similarities) between moral values in various populations, making the plurality of moral viewpoints more conspicuous than ever. Pluralistic approaches to morality can provide insights into the "why" and "how" of variation in different moral-psychological outcomes over historical time and across different regions. In this article, we review recent developments in the study of morality from a pluralistic approach across time and space. We make a case that expanding the scope of moral psychology to study temporal and spatial variation in various moral norms and themes may nuance our understanding of morality beyond contemporary and Western notions of right and wrong. We review the emerging research in the historical psychology of morality and call for the expansion of the remit of moral psychology from an individual-focused approach to the study of norms and values in collectives, both in different populations and different historical eras.
