CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

This section presents a review of the related literature of the study in line with the sub-themes. Both conceptual
and empirical literature will be reviewed as well as a theoretical framework for the study. The review is
done in the following outline:

2.1 Conceptual Background

2.1.1 Conflict
In pieces of literature, scholars across various fields of studies have attempted to define the concept in many
ways but in all, there are many points of convergence. Though, they agreed on two conceptual
approaches (Oludare et al, 2015) to the understanding of conflicts; these are functional and
dysfunctional. The functional approach is a positive interaction conflict that brings about change. This
type of approach could be said to be tolerated and understood as part of life because it leads to questions
being asked, injustice being challenged and corrected, contradictions being resolved as well as
deprivation being addressed. The dysfunctional approach, on the other hand, is a negative interaction
conflict accompanied by violence which results in conflict management such as dialogue, negotiation,
mediation, and adjudication. Thus, the paper sees conflicts as inter-personal, intra and inter-institutional,
societal, national, international, violent, and non-violent amongst others.

2.1.2 Communal Conflict

Adegbulu (2010, p.24) observed that conflict in rural communities and semi-urban centers is due to
misunderstanding differences in ideologies, opinions, and interests between different groups that live in
that location. It is crucial for stakeholders to conscientiously fight towards de-escalating small conflicts
at the appropriate time and not allowing small crises to turn into full-blown conflicts in every sense, and
thus actions must be swift to derail any war or armed conflict as a result of the conflict. Therefore, in the
process leading to conflict, it can be said that five stages lead to conflict. Accordingly, they include the
prelude to conflict; the phase of triggering event; the phase of initiation, the differentiation phase, and
the resolution phase (Buhari, 2018).
2.1.3 Intergroup Relations
Intergroup relations involve the feelings, evaluations, beliefs, and behaviors that groups and their members have
toward another group and its members. Negative intergroup relations typically involve prejudice
(negative feelings and evaluations), stereotypes (beliefs about groups and their members), and
discrimination (unfair treatment). However, intergroup bias does not necessarily require negative
orientations (Brown & Hewstone 2005). Bias may reflect unusually favorable attitudes and beliefs about
members of one’s group and preferential treatment toward them. The nature of intergroup relations is
determined by psychological processes associated with social categorization, by the personalities and
motivations of group members, and by the functional relationship between the groups. These processes
apply to a wide range of groups, including work teams, divisions within an organization, companies, and
countries (Esse et al., 1998).

Social categorization involves identifying people primarily based on overt similarities and presumed group
membership. Because group membership is critical to human functioning and survival, the tendency to
categorize people as members of different groups is fundamental to social perception. This social
categorization process, however, involves more than distinguishing people by group membership. The
recognition of different group memberships initiates several biases that influence intergroup relations in
systematic ways. Social identity theory and, more recently, self-categorization theory address the
fundamental processes associated with social categorization (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).
When people are categorized into groups, even if the groups have no obvious functional relationship or
enduring meaning, actual differences between members of the same category tend to be perceptually
minimized, whereas differences between groups tend to be exaggerated. Moreover, people critically
distinguish between individuals who are members of their group (the in-group) and those who are
members of other groups (the out-groups). In general, when the intergroup boundary between the in-
group and out-group is salient, people remember positive information better about in-group than about
out-group members, discount negative actions by in-group members more than for out-group members,
and ascribe positive attributes more strongly to the character of in-group than of out-group members. In
addition, people behave in more favorable, intimate, and helpful ways toward in-group members.
Feeling more positively about one’s group relative to others can enhance one’s self-esteem. Thus, the
 mere awareness of the existence of different group memberships, when the groups are not
interdependent and group membership is arbitrarily determined, typically produces bias.

These intergroup biases are particularly evident when people’s social identity (their identity based on group
membership) is more salient than their identity (their identity as a unique individual). For example,
people are less trusting and behave more greedily when collective identities are salient than when
personal identities are salient.

In addition to differences in the strength of group identity, individual differences in personality and values can
influence the nature of intergroup relations. The personality variable of authoritarianism has historically
received substantial attention concerning intergroup attitudes and relations. Research in the 1950s
concluded that the authoritarian personality, which is rooted in unhealthy family dynamics, is associated
with unusual respect for authority and hierarchy, as well as strong distinctions between the in-group and
out-group. Recent research has found that people high on right-wing authoritarianism have negative
attitudes toward members of several other groups, particularly when the groups are perceived to violate
society’s morals and standards (Pettigrew & Tropp,2000).

Social dominance theory, an alternative perspective, assumes that people who are strongly identified with high-
status groups and who see intergroup relations in terms of group competition will be especially
prejudiced and discriminatory toward out-groups. People high in social dominance orientation, an
individual difference measure, believe that group hierarchies are inevitable and desirable, see the world
as involving competition between groups, pursue activities and professions that tend to enhance
intergroup hierarchy, and exhibit bias toward a range of other groups.

Whereas social categorization and individual difference approaches to understanding intergroup relations focus
on how the motivations and orientations of people, independent of the actual relationship between
groups, can produce negative intergroup relations, other psychological and sociological perspectives
emphasize that the nature of intergroup relations are shaped substantially by the functional relationship
between the groups. Specifically, cooperation between groups, particularly when it has successful
 consequences, fosters positive intergroup relations; competition between groups, whether for material
resources or intangible qualities such as status, promotes prejudice and discrimination.

Theories based on functional relations often point to competition and consequent perceived threat as a
fundamental cause of intergroup prejudice and conflict. Realistic group conflict theory, for example,
posits that perceived group competition for resources produces efforts to reduce the access of other
groups to the resources. Individual differences, such as the tendency to see intergroup relations as zero-
sum (i.e., when one group gains, the other automatically loses), which is associated with people high in
social dominance orientation, can amplify the effects of competitive group functional relations,
producing particularly adverse effects on intergroup relations.

The functional relationship perspective also emphasizes how changing the nature of intergroup interdependence
can substantially alter intergroup relations. In the classic Robber’s Cave study, for example, two groups
of boys at a summer camp first developed their separate group identities through a series of collective
activities, unaware of the presence of the other group. When the two groups of boys were brought
together under competitive circumstances, negative intergroup relations developed. The boys not only
called each other names but also engaged in hostilities. Simply bringing the groups together did not
improve intergroup relations; in fact, it intensified conflict. However, more harmonious intergroup
relations were created when the groups worked together to attain superordinate goals (objectives that
both groups desired but that could be achieved only jointly through cooperation) and their combined
efforts were successful.

Group status is another aspect of the functional relationship between groups that influences inter-group
relations. In general, members of high-status groups view intergroup relations as more favorable than
members of low-status groups. In part as a consequence, members of low-status groups, particularly
when they see the status difference as illegitimate and unstable, are more motivated to alter the
relationship between the groups than are members of high-status groups. High-status groups, in contrast,
tend to endorse and promote system-justifying ideologies, which are sets of beliefs (e.g., stereotypes
about the different characteristics of women and men) that legitimatize and thus reinforce, the role and
status differences between the groups.
The impact of functional relations on intergroup orientations occurs, in part, by influencing social categorization
processes. For example, whereas competition between the groups of boys at the summer camp
intensified the distinction between the in-group and out-group, between us and, cooperation to achieve
the superordinate goal led them to see each other as members of a common in-group. Thus, social
categorization, individual differences, and functional relationship approaches can be seen as
complementary perspectives rather than as alternative, competing positions. Understanding these
processes also contributes to developing effective interventions for improving intergroup relations, such
as the contact hypothesis.

For more than 50 years, the contact hypothesis has represented psychologists’ most popular and effective
strategy for promoting harmonious intergroup relations. This hypothesis proposes that simple contact
between groups is not sufficient to improve intergroup relations. For contact between groups to reduce
bias successfully, the contact must involve equal status between the groups, cooperative (rather than
competitive) intergroup interaction, opportunities for personal acquaintance between the members,
especially with those whose personal characteristics do not support stereotypic expectations, and
supportive norms by authorities within and outside the contact situation. These conditions of intergroup
contact are prominent elements of specific strategies for improving inter-group relations, such as
cooperative learning and jigsaw classroom interventions, in which students are interdependent on one
another in problem-solving exercises.

Several different processes, related to both the functional relationships between groups and social
categorization, contribute to the positive effect of appropriately structured intergroup contact on inter-
group relations. For example, cooperation can induce greater intergroup acceptance because of
dissonance reduction serving to justify this type of interaction with the other group. Also, when
intergroup contact is favorable and productive, the rewarding properties of achieving success may
become associated with members of other groups, thereby increasing attraction and reducing intergroup
anxiety.
Intergroup contact can also influence how people conceive of the groups and how the members are socially
categorized. Close and personalized interaction between members of different groups can induce people
to think of others more in terms of their identity than as members of another group, thereby weakening
the in-group-out-group distinction. Cooperative, equal-status interaction between groups can induce
people to reconceive themselves primarily as one common group, which can redirect the forces of in-
group favoritism to improve attitudes toward others previously seen only in terms of their out-group
membership. Moreover, developing a common group identity does not require people to abandon their
separate group identities entirely. Retaining original group identities, but in a context that emphasizes
cooperation (e.g., art students and science students working together on a task that requires both types of
skills) or within a complementary common identity (accountants and marketers within the same
company), can reduce the threat to original group identity while creating more positive intergroup
relations.

2.1.4 Intergroup conflict

Intergroup Conflict is a derivative of the ubiquitous phenomenon of conflict which describes a situation
between different groups who are at odds with one another. Intergroup conflict as the term connotes can
be regarded as conflictual disagreements between two or more groups and their respective members. It is
a conflict that arises out of disagreements, rivalries, competition, or incompatible goals between and
among various groups. This form of conflict ranges from large-scale conflicts, such as wars between
countries, terrorism, racial and ethnic discrimination, and conflict among political parties, to relatively
small-scale conflicts involving competition, antagonism, and aggression among rival sports teams,
gangs, and high school clique, has occurred throughout the modern history and is undeniably pervasive
across human societies (MacDonald, et. al 2012).

Fisher argues that intergroup conflicts arise from objective differences of interest coupled with antagonistic or
controlling attitudes or behaviors. Incompatibilities, which can prompt conflict, include economic,
power, or value differences, and even differences in need satisfaction. Oftentimes, intergroup conflicts
have a mixture of these elements. Fisher offers a social-psychological approach to understanding
intergroup conflicts. That is conflicts between people that occur in terms of their group identities. Within
 a society or other social systems, people can conflict when a group perceives the other as a barrier or
threat to the achievement of its own goals or survival. Expressions of such incompatibility among
various groups can be violent exhibitions, such as inter-ethnic conflicts, interreligious conflicts, and
inter-party conflicts.

2.1.5 The Challenges of Communal Conflicts on Nigeria's National Security

With no doubt, the national security of both developed and developing states has been undermined by heretical
groups. This has made nation-states no longer enjoy the peace and safety they desire due to the activities
of these groups. In this regard, national security is said to be challenged when: acts, feelings, and
solutions emanating from competing or contending interests, inequitable distribution of national wealth
and positions, desperations, injustice, sabotage, and disagreements which (sic can) snowball into dissent
capable of undermining the status quo or injurious to the individual and collective national interest (Sule,
2004 cited in Inyokwe, 2015:418).

In Nigeria, for instance, the security situation has become enormous and embarrassing to both the government
and the citizens (Robert-Okah, 2014) due to a large number of communal conflicts across the country.
The toll taken by this kind of conflict vis-àvis security threat has destroyed properties and human
suffering. A heart-rending account of the human debris during the pre-colonial periods in particular has
littered the face of the country as large numbers of communities/families were forcibly broken up, their
members scattered into different parts of the country, and most never seeing one another. Violent crime,
treachery, and banditry became matters of routine for the highway kidnappers and their unfortunate
victims almost dominate the history relating to the conflicts (Ajayi and Akintoye, 2004).

Nigeria is a pluralistic society and was forcibly annexed (no consultations) by the British colonialists in 1914
with the sole aim of easy and effective administration, yet its component units have not ceased to live in
peace and safety with one another. Nigerians live in mutual suspicion and distrust between/among one
another. This act of distrust manifests in terms of host-stranger face-offs (Albert, 2001) in which a
section of the community tags itself as the host and other groups as strangers; thereby threatening the
security of the country when it relates to the issue of employment and socio-political opportunities. The
fall foul of peace and safety across most communities in the country has been so grand that political
 positions, elections, and party formations amongst others have been characterized along communal
identities thereby threatening the security of the country, particularly during election periods. The
aftermath of this menace is that thousands of lives and properties were said to be lost and destroyed
along communal culminations /fondness.

The explosive snapshots of various violent conflicts that engulfed the country's politics during the First
Republic epitomized communal/ethnic identities which resulted in civil war, coupe, and counter-coupe.
In turn, one could therefore say that the political behavior of most Nigerians towards politics is deeply
influenced by one's ethnic identity. If so, the situation gave birth to the emergence of an unstable
national security and political culture anchored on the ideology that might be right with little or no
respect for others' identities.

Arguably, communal conflicts have serious security implications in Nigeria because they threaten the socio-
political and economic base of the country. The security challenge in this manner has made the
government divert its attention from developmental strategies (Ewetan and Urhie, 2014) to fighting
against security challenges. A huge amount of money that is supposed to be channeled towards
developmental programs has been allocated to the security challenges instead of investing in the
socioeconomic and political development of the country. No wonder, national security has become an
issue for the government, prompting a huge allocation of the national budget to security (Robert-Okah,
2014). There is always a great loss when infrastructural amenities and properties (hospitals, schools,
markets, roads, buildings) belonging to the government and individuals are destroyed and innocent lives
are lost and displaced. Poverty, unemployment, and lack of basic amenities amongst others become the
order of the day in the country.

In Nigerian Fourth Republics, communal conflicts vis-à-vis national security threats have become extremely
worrisome. This is due to the high rate and spread of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALWs) to
sophisticated and illicit firearms held in the hands of individual groups in the country. Thus, SALWs
have been a primary tool of violence in almost all conflict zones across the world. The availability and
escalation of these weapons in Nigeria pose a big threat to the national security of the country because
the illegal troops/groups operating with these kinds of weapons have no respect for the government and
 international and humanitarian laws. These weapons have taken a heavy toll on human lives and
destruction of properties at different intervals in the history of communal conflicts in the country. The
porosity of Nigeria's borders has made the movement and utilization of these illicit weapons in the hands
of different groups possible thereby threatening the security of the country within and outside.

2.2 Theoretical Framework

The need to explain the fundamental causal factors responsible for the incessant incidence of conflicts between
tribes and groups in different parts of the country requires the use of a theoretical prism that would bring
to a sharp focus the intricacies of the conflicts between the two groups. The paper adopts the Territorial
Imperative Theory which was developed by Robert Ardrey in 1967 in which he traced the animal origin
of property, nations, and territoriality. In the context of the theory, a territory is described as an exclusive
geographical space carved out, preserved, and defended by an animal or group of animals to preserve
basic needs and interests. These basic needs which include, security of space and food, identity, prestige,
etc. are strategic and defended at all costs with unreserved determination to prevent access to those who
are likely to undermine their interests and needs.

Deriving from this theoretical position, all animals, including man, have the cognate tendency to preserve or
possess territorial space, by employing any means available to them especially when such territories and
possessions are threatened. This is the reason why Ardrey (1967) opined that “if we defend the title to
our land or the sovereignty of our country, we do it for reasons no different, no less innate, no less
ineradicable, than that of lower animals.” In the same manner, Sherif and Sherif (1969) support this view
by arguing that territorial aggression in animals is based on the relatively simple chemical, tactile, and
visual discrimination involved in detecting unfamiliar ‘opponents’ while for humans, the concept of
‘territory’ depends on complex cultural symbolization of ‘property’ or ‘homeland’. People, they pointed
out, are quite capable of territorial loyalty without actually living in the territory itself. Therefore,
conflicts may ensue in an attempt by individuals, groups, or countries to defend their territories, land,
traditions, cultures, and property which they value very much.
This, in part, explains the reasons why various groups fight over land and territory. Indeed, scholars have argued
that territorially concentrated groups in divided societies are more likely to demand self-determination
and to be engaged in violent conflict in its pursuit.

The second theory is Fundamental Diversity. According to this theory, the diverse people of Nigeria during the
pre-colonial period had little or nothing in common. Reasons advanced are that they spoke different
languages, had cultural differences and so had no common ideological orientation; they were not united
by a common religion as they worshipped different gods. Thus, by the amalgamation of 1914 and the
subsequent attainment of independence in 1960, the various groups found themselves as ‘‘strange
bedfellows’’. (Ajayi 2006, pp. 89–101). The above theory stresses that even during the colonial period
the different peoples were never brought together on the principle of Indirect Rule, which emphasized
local particularism. This explains the difficulties of nation-building which has been seen in terms of this
theory of ‘‘strange bedfellows’’.

The third theory is the theory of Unity in Diversity. This theory largely negates the first. It stresses the pre-
colonial coexistence of groups. In other words, common bonds existed among Nigerian peoples, even
though the differences in language and culture were apparent (Ajayi 2006, p. 96). Despite the differences
in language, linguistic evidence has shown that they all originated from a common parentage
(Armstrong 1967, pp. 10–13). In other words, this theory emphasizes that the Nigerian people from the
earliest times had links with one another. However, the nature of the evidence at our disposal is more in
support of the latter theory than the former. Yet, an examination of the pre-colonial history of Nigeria
suggests that peaceful contact loomed larger than stories of wars and conquests.

The fourth theory is the theory of Ethnic Relations. Worthy of note is the fact that a kind of assimilation
characterizes the relations in multi-ethnic and diverse societies. Thus, how does one ethnic group
psychologically perceive the other ethnic groups? This is evident in the inter-ethnic relations of the
Isoko and her neighbors in the Western Niger Delta (Okpevra 2014, p. 19). This informed (Gordon’s
1975) argument that ‘‘Man is apparently and irretrievably a comparer … he makes a judgment about his
own needs and their satisfaction not only based on absolute criteria but based on comparison with
others…’’ (p. 99). In other words, group or ethnicity has some objective dimensions which include
 opinions, attitudes, stereotypes, and prejudices. These are residues of either peaceful and/or conflictual
relationships that members of another ethnic formation hold about themselves and others, on which basis
they are identified and classified.

The fifth theory is the theory of Interdependence. This theory is lately popularised by (Okpeh 2006, pp. 6–7). It
goes on to emphasize the fact that man by nature is a dependent creature/being. He, therefore depends on
his environment and others for food, shelter, and clothing, all of which give him a sense of purpose here
on earth. As a corollary to the above, no ‘‘group’’ can be an island, entirely unto itself. This goes further
to show that each ethnic group consciously or unconsciously relates with other groups to be able to
survive. Arising from this, it is obvious to understand why human groups depend on each other. This
invariably makes contact, interaction, and interdependence not just a fact but also one, which is
universally constant and basic. However, the way and manner this interdependence had been carried out
in the past continues to draw the attention of scholars especially those who are engaged in the study of
intergroup relations. Some have approached the study from the Hobbesian theory of natural anarchy
(Hobbes 1958, p. 107). According to Hobbes (1958), the natural state of man was that of war in which
every man was pitched against every man. In other words, in this state of nature life was said to be
‘‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’’ (p. 107). Nevertheless, subscribers to this theoretical
formulation predicate their assumptions on the fact that since individual interest in society differs,
human society and relationships are marked by antagonism, disagreement, and consequently conflict.
Therefore, what prevails in society is not order, solidarity, or consensus but the struggle between groups
for means of sustenance.
 CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter is concerned with the presentation of methods used in this study to accomplish its purpose
of achieving the research Communal Conflicts and Intergroup Relations among the Eleme and Okrika
people. This chapter presents the research method that was used in carrying out this study which will be
discussed under the following sub-headings:

3.1. Research Design

3.2. Area of the Study
3.3. Population of study
3.4. Sample Size and Sampling Technique
3.5. Method of data collection
3.6. Instrument of data collection
3.7. Validity and Realiabilitibilty of the Instrument
3.8. Method of Data Analysis

3.1 Area of the Study

The study area of this research is Eleme and Okrika Local Government Area in Rivers State. These two
ethnic groups have been known for cat and dog relationships, barely tolerating each other when it comes
to issues bordering on land, but recently have lived in peace.
3.2 Research Design
This research design is the framework that specifies the types of information to be collected, the sources
of data, and the data collection technique, a good design always ensures that the information gathered is
consistent with the study objectives and that the data are collected through the most accurate procedure
(Anyanwu, 1994). This research design is descriptive of Communal Conflicts and Intergroup Relations
among the Eleme and Okrika people.

3.3 Population of the Study

A total number of 300 people were randomly selected from the six selected communities of Alesa,
Alode, Ogale, Wakama, Azaga, and Isara communities in Eleme and Okrika Local Government Areas in
Rivers State respectively. 50 questionnaires were distributed to each community.

3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

The study employed non-probability and probability sampling techniques and six communities of
Wakama, Azaga, Isara, and Alode, Ogale, and Alesa communities in Eleme and Okrika Local
Government Area in Rivers State respectively were purposively selected. This study is both quantitative
and qualitative research using a structured interview schedule to generate quantitative data and an in-
depth interview (IDIS) to elicit information that is often difficult to obtain through the quantitative
method.

3.5 Method of Data Collection

To acquire the needed vital information, an in-depth interview (IDIS) was conducted on purposively
selected key respondents like; present, and past community leaders, aged men and women youth leaders,
women leaders, local chiefs, and some other people in the communities. Also, the researcher administers
copies of the questionnaire directly to the respondents of the two selected communities. The copies of
the questionnaires were handed over to all the respondents and allowed some time for the completion
and return. These allowed the respondents time to study and understand the questionnaire items before
giving their responses. A period of two weeks was used for the distribution and collection of the
questionnaire.

3.6 Instrument for Data Collection

The instrument for data collection for this study was a structured questionnaire developed by the
researcher based on the review of related literature and the research questions guiding the study. The
questionnaire has two sections; sections A and B. Section A contains items on demographic data on the
respondents while Section B contains Communal Conflicts and Intergroup Relations among Eleme and
Okrika people. All the items were structured into the scale of Strongly Agree (GA), Agree (A), Strongly
Disagree (SD), and Disagree (D)

3. 7 Validatibility and Realiabilitibilty of the Instrument

The instrument was subjected to face validity by using two experts. The experts are in the History and
International Relations Department, Rivers State Port Harcourt. A draft copy of the questionnaire
together with the research topic, the purpose of the study, research questions, and hypotheses were given
to them. They were requested to constructively examine the instrument in terms of appropriateness,
wording, suitability of items, and content coverage. Their inputs were used in modifying the items to the
standard which was finally used for data collection.

3.8 Method of Data Analysis

The data collected will be analyzed using the arithmetic mean with SPSS software (version 20). The
level of acceptance or rejection of the questionnaire items was determined based on the mean rating of
items and the cluster mean interpreted relative to real limits of numbers as shown below:

Response Rating Scale Real Limits of Numbers

Strongly Agree (SA) 4 3.50-4.00
Agree (A) 3 3.00-3.49
Disagree (D) 2 2.00- 2.49
Strongly Disagree (SD) 1 1.00-1.49
The Decision rule is calculated as follows:
4+ 3+2+1 10
= = 2.50
4 4
This indicates a mean score of 2.50 and above is accepted while a mean score below 2.50 is rejected.