London residents came under terrorist attack on the morning of July 7 despite the global war on

terrorism. Another group of four men almost struck again on July 21 to underline the fact that
combating terrorism is a very long war, which cannot be decided here or there. It becomes
increasingly difficult to win this war because it is hard if not impossible to identify who the
enemy is. Unlike the Bolsheviks of former Soviet Union, al-Qaeda does not issue out party
registration cards. Now, the terrorists have mostly avoided hard targets such as planes and
government buildings. Instead, they attack nightclubs, hotels and commuter rails as seen in
London and Madrid bombings (Krauthammer, 2005). Several articles have been written and
speeches made by community leaders, politicians and government leaders all over the world after
the London bombings. However, much has not been said to prevent future occurrence.
Nonetheless, this essay will provide guidelines for improving intergroup relations in the UK after
the London bombings by making use of some social psychological theories. The theories to be
used in this essay include; theories of prejudice, social learning theory, realistic conflict
theory/frustration-aggression theory, and theories of improving interethnic relations in that order.
Before then, I will give some insight on what could have gone wrong and these theories will to an
extent help in understanding why the bombers committed those horrible acts of violence and
simultaneously propound ways to improve intergroup relations in the UK after the bombings. In
the end, I will conclude by suggesting some personal views on how to improve on these relations.

It is not easy to understand the mindset of those involved in terrorism. Every analysis so far is
based on hypothesis and has been interpreted in social, political and religious undertones. Ruby
(2002) argues that act of terror is a form of political violence carried out by a group of people
who have no military power to fight in conventional manner. It becomes means to an end o
fighting poverty, an unjust government and principles of inequality. Also, Shaw (1988: 366) in
Hudson (1999, pp 34-35) explains:

Apparently membership in a terrorist group often provides a solution to the pressing needs of which the inability to
achieve a desired niche in traditional society is the coup the grace. The terrorist identity offers the individual a role
in society, albeit a negative one, which is commensurate with his or her prior expectations and sufficient to
compensate for past losses. Group membership provides a sense of potency, an intense and close interpersonal
environment, social status, potential access to wealth and a share in what may be a grandiose but noble social
design. The powerful psychological forces of conversion in the group are sufficient to offset traditional social
sanctions against violence… To the terrorist their acts may have the moral status of religious warfare or political
liberation.

From a more religious point of view, the honour of dying in combat and go to paradise
(martyrdom) is enough reason for misled few to become terrorists (Louis and Taylor, 2002). In
the case of London bombings, it is also assumed that those young men were disturbed by British
government support of American foreign policy in the Middle East, support for Israel, sanctions
and bombing of Iraq; military bases in Saudi Arabia (Louis and Taylor, 2002). The above
hypothesis are not justifiable in any sense to engage in this horrendous act as the theories below
throw more light into improving relations rather than creating more problems.

In Santrock (2003), it is understood that prejudice is “an unjustified negative attitude toward an
individual based on the individual’s membership in a group” (p. 670). The tendency to place
people into categories and separate the world into “us” and “them” creates dichotomy and hatred.
Also, name calling, arrogant nomenclature, hate speech, generalisation, and stereotyping can
advance bigotry and lead to violence. Stereotyping would mean “statements which denigrate out-

1
groups or are used to glorify in-group” (Wetherell, 1996, p. 189). It is very wrong to prejudge
every man with long bears, look Asian or has head tie on the head as a potential terrorist. This
kind of attitude generates unnecessary tension within a community. After all, one of the would be
London bombers is a Jamaican (Krauthammer, 2005). Gerstenfeld (2002) condemned President
George W. Bush statement in the wake of September 11, 2001 terrorist’s attack on the World
Trade Centre. Bush saying that you are either with us or against us in his evil versus good policy
does not help any matters. It is interesting to see that British Prime Minister Tony Blair did not
adopt similar approach after the London bombings. This position helps the fact that those who
witness none prejudice attitudes are less likely to show bias themselves (Wetherell, 1996). In this
manner, hate speech, which usually exacerbates hate crime, is totally avoided.

In social learning theory, it is observed that terrorists are brainwashed and trained to the extent
that their actions become unconscious and show no remorse when confronted. Ruby (2002) posits
that when aggression and violence are rewarded, it has the tendency to proliferate future
occurrence. According to her, it is learned from a political action that is encouraged by social
issues and maintained by intrinsic rewards. Terrorist actions must be condemned by all and
soundry and punished to avoid reinforcement (Santrock, 2003 and Weiten, 1998). Good morals
and behaviours must be rewarded positively and bad behaviours must not be condoned.

Gerstenfeld (2002) helps in the interpretation of realistic conflict theory as group hostility over
scarce resources. One group blames the other group for their misfortune such as unemployment
and poverty in the society. This blame game results in prejudice and hatred among the
community. Similar to this realistic conflict theory is the frustration-aggression hypothesis as a
result of relative-deprivation which include gap between rising expectations and need for
satisfaction. In this wise, frustration leads to aggression (Hudson, 1999). The solution to
combating these two problems of competition of scarce resources and frustration is to share
resources among the general public. Social grants should be made available to the unemployed
rather than putting much money in military capacity building. This will promote common fate
and change people’s perception towards identifying and conforming to British-influenced norms
(Louis and Taylor, 2002).

The theories of improving interethnic relations obviously provide more meaningful guidelines
towards improving intergroup relations in UK. Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues (1961) in
Santrock (2003) observed that “we/they” competition between two groups of 11-year-olds in
Robbers Cave, Oklahoma transformed the groups into opposing “armies”. However, creating
cooperation between groups rather than competition develops positive relationships and increases
interdependence. In essence, people must work together to achieve a common goal. It has to be a
collective effort in trying to know why there was such an attack in UK and at the same time find
ways to avoid future occurrence. It should not be seen as one group (indigenes) competing
against another group (immigrants). The notion of “united we stand and divided we fall” should
be inculcated in the minds of the residence.

Still on theories of improving interethnic relations, intimate contact is another possible way to
break down “in-group/out-group” and “we/they” barrier (Santrock, 2003). People must show
each other that they care and share in the grieves of one another. Freyd (2002, p. 5) suggests,
“tend and befriend” which is an act of caring compassion and unity. People must take care to

2
avoid hiding behind anger by reflecting on what happened, write about and talk about it in
schools and community gatherings. This can be done through vigils, public education campaigns
and discussion groups.

Similarly, it is easy to get British Muslims to agree on one thing, which is viewing US foreign
policy with despair. High profile Muslims have this sense that US is insensitive to the Muslim
views. For example, the plane carrying Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) was diverted to Bangor, Maine
on its way to Washington from London in September 2004 with the simple excuse that his name
turned up on a watch list of people suspected to have ties with terrorists. Also, in July 2005, Zaki
Badawi, a highly and international recognised Islamic cleric was denied entry to US after his
plane landed in New York. These two scenarios were not challenged by British government-
viewed as always supporting US policies even when it is to the detriment of her citizens (Bird,
2005). The British government should reach out to Arabs or Muslims to talk about these issues
and find out other perspectives to what is already believed. Groups have to interact and depend
on one another’s unique strength to address a common concern (Lee, 2002).

In sum, different hypothesis and theories have been applied in this essay to proffer guidelines for
improving intergroup relations in UK after the London bombings. It is a general consensus that
no particular theory can best explain or provide the much needed guidelines in this context as in
any other case. Therefore, it will be advisable to go back to the basis for a long term solution.
Children should be brought together as early as nursery school days to play, study and grow up
together in a multicultural and multiracial environment. This will encourage them to know better
the behaviour of other groups on first hand basis. This methodology will reduce if not eradicate
prejudice and “in-group/out-group” barrier as the children grow up. Moreover, children should be
brought up by their parents on good moral family value systems. The Muslim community have
important role to play in this regard by teaching their children the correct doctrine rather than
allow them to be taught the ones that will make them vulnerable to engage in abominable acts. So
goes the saying that “charity begins at home”.

3
Reference:

Bird, M. (2005). In Both Sorrow and Anger. TIME, July 25/Vol. 166, No. 4.

Freyd, J.J (2002). “In the wake of terrorist attack, hatred may mask fear” Analysis of Social
Issues and Public Policy, 2(1).

Gerstenfeld, P.B. (2002). “A time to hate: situational antecedents of intergroup bias” Analysis of
Social Issues and Public Policy, 2(1).

Hudson, R.A. (1999). “The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who becomes a terrorist
and why?” In A report prepared under an interagency agreement by the Federal Research
Division, Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/Soc Psych of Terrorism.pdf.

Krauthammer, C. (2005). Why That’s Ridiculous. TIME, July 18/Vol. 166. No. 2.

Lee, K.S. (2002). “Building intergroup relations after September 11” Analysis of Social Issues
and Public Policy, 2(1).

Louis, W.R & Taylor, D..M. (2002). “Understanding the September 11 terrorist attack on
America: the role of intergroup theories of normative influence” Analysis of Social Issues and
Public Policy, 2(1).

Ruby, C.L. (2002). “Are terrorists mentally deranged?” Analysis of Social Issues and Public
Policy, 2(1).

Sabtrock, J.W. (2003). Psychology (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Weiten, W. (1998). Psychology Themes and Variations. (1 st ed.). USA: Wadsworth.

Wetherell, M. (1996). Chapter Four: Group conflict and social psychology of racism. In M.
Wetherell (ed.), Identities, Groups and Social Issues. London: Sage.