Sociology Index



Majority group does not refer to a numerical majority. Majority group refers to the group that has power. Majority group is a more dominant group in any State or Situation. Many writers now suggest and use the terms subordinate group" and "dominant group rather than Minority Group" and majority group. Minority may include any group that is subnormal with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power. A minority group refers to a category of people who experience relative disadvantage as compared to members of majority group or a dominant social group. Minority group members often experience prejudice, discrimination, and oppression at the hands of majority group members. A majority-minority area or minority-majority area is a term used in the United States to refer to a jurisdiction in which one or more racial and/or ethnic minorities make up a majority of the local population. The term is used in voting rights law to designate voting districts which are altered under the Voting Rights Act to enable ethnic or language minorities "the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice."

Moral Majority

Falwell, a television evangelist who founded the Moral Majority in 1979, became the face of the religious right in the 1980s. He later founded the conservative Liberty University, which began as Lynchburg Baptist College in 1971, and served as its chancellor. The Moral Majority's stated mission was to reverse the politicization of immorality in our society. In the 1980s, Falwell's group claimed 6.5 million members, raising $69 million for conservative politicians and helping to elect Ronald Reagan president in 1980. Falwell dissolved the Moral Majority in 1989, saying that its political aims had been achieved. In South Africa, the Blacks were the majority group numerically, but a minority in terms of power. All this of course began to change with the inclusion of Blacks in the electoral process and the election of Nelson Mandela.

A Majority Group’s Perspective-taking Towards a Minority Group: Its Antecedents and Impact on Support for Minority Helping
Ali Mashuri, Esti Zaduqisti, Miftahul Ula. March 31, 2017. Abstract: This research investigates the impact of perspective-taking on a majority group’s support for government action to help a minority group. The findings suggest the importance of enhancing inclusive victimhood, given its impact in promoting perspective-taking which is beneficial to the majority’s support for minority helping.

Dimensions of Majority and Minority Groups
Viviane Seyranian, Hazel Atuel, William D. Crano
First Published January 1, 2008. Abstract: Several definitions of majority and minority groups can be found in the social psychological literature. They involve numeric size, power/status, and counternormative position, but size is most commonly used in experimental research to manipulate minority and minority status. Does this practice mirror real-world conceptualizations? To address this question, 77 participants were asked to describe majority and minority groups using a structured openended measure. Content analysis of their responses revealed that majority and minority groups were conceptualized along eight dimensions, which included power, number, distinctiveness, social category, group context, dispositions, and being the source or target of behavior. Although these dimensions were relevant to both majorities and minorities, they often were applied differentially. Also, minorities were associated with more divergent thinking and viewed more negatively than were majorities. On the basis of these findings, a new typology of groups was proposed that could be used in future experimental research to advance our understanding of majorities and minorities.

Majority group opposition to minority political entitlements: The Social Dominance Paradox
Petar Milojev, Nikhil K.Sengupta, Chris G.Sibley. Intercultural Relations, Volume 39, March 2014, Pages 82-92.
Abstract: We propose and test the Social Dominance Paradox of majority opposition to minority political entitlement in a national sample of the European majority group in New Zealand. The paradox arises because for the majority ethnic group, Social Dominance Orientation should simultaneously and differentially predict support for, and resistance to, minority political interests through opposing ideological mechanisms: Color-Blind Ideology and Ethnic System Justification. We argue that for the majority group, Social Dominance Orientation should predict increased ethnic group salience, and should thus predict decreased Color-Blindness. However, Social Dominance Orientation should also lead people to view existing hierarchical arrangements between ethnic groups as legitimate, leading to increased Ethnic System Justification. These dual ideologies should in turn both predict opposition to minority political entitlements.

Majority group belonging without minority group distancing? Minority experiences of intergroup contact and inequality.
Judit Kende, Gülseli Baysu, Colette Van Laar, Karen Phalet. British Journal of Social Psychology. 01 May 2020.
Abstract: As most immigrant-origin minority youth grow up in ethnically diverse social worlds, they develop a sense of belonging to both the national majority and the ethnic minority group. Our study adds to a growing body of research on minority experiences of intergroup contact by (1) including both minority and majority group belonging as outcomes and (2) examining the interplay of majority contact with unequal treatment. We surveyed 1,200 Turkish and Moroccan-Belgian minority youth in 315 classrooms across 65 schools, using multiple measures of intergroup contact, unequal treatment in school, and minority and majority group belonging. Multi-level models showed that minority youth who experienced more intergroup contact, and less unequal treatment, reported more belonging to the majority group. In addition, contact predicted less belonging to the minority group only in the presence of unequal treatment: For minority youth who perceived less unequal treatment, either individually or collectively, intergroup contact was unrelated to minority group belonging. We conclude that majority group contact and belonging need not come at the cost of minority group distancing in the absence of inequality.