Intergroup contact theory and the concept of regrouping are two theoretical concepts that consider the relationship of dominance and oppression between groups. While intergroup contact theory describes a process of reducing prejudice (Pettigrew, 1998), the concept of regrouping is one aspect of a description of the relationship of dominant and oppressed groups, with regrouping being considered as a path towards liberation for the dominated group (Apfelbaum, 1979). These two theoretical frameworks share many similarities, but also many differences that I would like to explore.
Intergroup contact theory and the concept of regrouping are very similar in the sense that the end goal of both is essentially changing the status of an oppressed and…show more content… Secondly, the group must rediscover and, in some cases, rewrite their own history (Apfelbaum, 1979). The implication is that the group will be redefined into a new group, outside the umbrella of subordination.
Similar to the concept of regrouping, is the concept of "recategorization" mentioned in Pettigrew 's intergroup contact theory article (1998). In the theory, it is proposed that after an extended time together two or more groups begin to recategorize into a larger inclusive group that accepts similarities (Pettigrew, 1998). How this is similar to regrouping is that it deals with redefining a group, or groups, into a new group. The main difference between recategorization and regrouping is that recategorization deals with an in-group and an out-group coming together to create a new group (Pettigrew, 1998). Regrouping, however, is a solely within-group recategorization (Apfelbaum, 1979).
One of the strengths of the intergroup contact theory is that it was based on early empirical evidence originating from Allport 's own field research (Pettigrew, 1998). Recent empirical evidence stemming from research with African Americans has also been found to be supportive of the theory (Pettigrew, 1998). In support of Apfelbaum 's ideas is the fact that she backed up her claims with nearly 20 pages of sources (Apfelbaum, 1979). Clearly, she wanted to provide the extensive amount of