In social psychology, there is a well-known theory that explains why individuals show hatred for those who belong to races, religions, sexualities , sports teams, political parties and other groups. This is called the “social identity theory”. Those who share a common category, the ingroup, are more likely to form bonds, while people of the opposite or different category, the outgroup, are negatively represented and often stereotyped by the ingroup. In the dawn of humanity, social identity theory protected humans from unknown threats. The human would see something in the woods and need to decide whether it was a friend or foe. In modern humans, social identity theory encourages unity by establishing an enemy. People feel more connected to each other when there is a common outgroup. The Prince and Christopher Columbus: Excerpts from the Diary are excellent examples of how humans have retained their primal instincts and how such instincts can be used for the benefit of the nation or community. This article will argue that having a common enemy, or outgroup, strengthens bonds between different peoples and helps a ruler consolidate power over his people. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In The Prince, Machiavelli argues that to unite the people, the prince should publicly declare and condemn an ​​enemy. Machiavelli explains that a successful prince will exaggerate the damage an enemy has inflicted on the people and then give "hope to his subjects that the evils they are enduring will not last long." Machiavelli emphasizes the need for an external group, in this case the enemy. Not only should the prince create an outgroup, but he should also encourage “fear of the enemy's cruelty.” Giving the people an enemy will unite them both in spirit and in battle. Here, the prince should create an outgroup so that the prince himself does not become an enemy. Machiavelli warns that if the prince neglects this critical step, the people will rebel against him or simply not take up arms when ordered unless he stops them. It should take “effective measures against those who are too outspoken.” Such individuals are known in social identity theory as outgroup sympathizers. In some situations, sympathizers can help the nation, but here Machiavelli argues that they can limit the growth of a nation and the power of a prince. Furthermore, this behavior will make the prince more favorable to his people because it seems that he holds the key to defeating the enemy. Once an enemy is established and the people incited, the people are equally enraged and consequently more likely to fight as a group. In addition to uniting as a nation, Machiavelli argues that an enemy also unites the people to the prince and under his leadership. . This is a great advantage for the prince as it makes people more willing to fight for the prince and no one else. When the enemy “obviously burns and pillages” the people's homes and cities, “then the prince has less reason to worry.” The reason for the prince's action is that once "the enthusiasm of the people has calmed down", they will be able to assume more power than they had before. The prince must keep them focused on people's hatred of the outgroup. Now, fighting for a common goal, the people "will identify even more with their prince." The leader of the ingroup, according to Machiavelli, not only has the right to incite the ingroup against the outgroup, but has the duty to do so. He states that once the prince has earned thetrust of the people, the people will be more willing to act as a group. This will make them easier to rule and they will be more likely to blindly follow the prince. In this chapter of The Prince, Machiavelli highlights the need to have a common enemy by showing the reader how the creation of an outgroup can positively impact an ingroup. More importantly, creating a common enemy can help solidify a prince's authority and control over his people. To further his own claims, Machiavelli also gives an example of when a prince fails to establish an enemy and how this divides the people. Machiavelli examines why Italy is not powerful and how the princes of Italy failed their people. The first mistake made by the Italian princes was to divide the nation "into several states" due to the war between the nobles, "each of these states became so small that the citizens became princes, but the citizens had no experience in military matters" and they might not establish or defeat a common enemy. Furthermore, the nobility who had control over the citizens were only concerned with fighting each other instead of actual external threats. This “led Italy to slavery and ignominy.” The ingroup, the Italians, has become poor due to too many princes, each with their own agenda, the lack of control over the citizens and the lack of an outgroup. Machiavelli also condemns princes who incite people against each other. He attributes the fall of the Italian empire to “the Church, to increase its temporal authority, supported these revolts” which take the place of a prince. The Church had an ulterior motive to divide Italians against each other and it succeeded. However, as previously mentioned, the citizens were not soldiers and so the Church hired foreign mercenaries to fight for them, who then created their own nations in Italy. The Church's decision to finance the rebellion in Italy led to the Church losing power and contributed to the decline of Italy's reputation and power. Without a strong prince to lead them, the ingroup will suffer as they expend precious energy and resources fighting among themselves rather than against a common external enemy. A legitimate, foreign threat will see Italy as a collection of destroyed city-states that could easily be conquered by a strong enemy. The only way to reverse such a tangled mess is to choose a prince who represents all the nations within a divided Italy. Machiavelli allows this prince to incite the people against a certain external group to protect the entire nation. If a prince fails to pit the ingroup against a particular outgroup, the ingroup will suffer. Christopher Columbus's journal clearly shows that disparate people can be united under the banner of hatred for an outgroup, in this situation the Native American peoples. Traveling to the Americas for the first time, Columbus kept a travel journal and often wrote about the people living on the "newly discovered" islands. His goal was to convince Ferdinand, the Spanish king, to finance and support another expedition to America. To convince him, Columbus stated that the native peoples "have no religion" and consequently "would become Christians very easily". Columbus created a group of godless pagans, clearly the opposite of the fervent Roman Catholic Spanish monarch. After Columbus establishes the enemy, he appeals to the king declaring his plan: "I could conquer them all with fifty men and govern them as I pleased." Conquering an outside group, especially one from new lands, would not only benefit the nation financially, but also socially. Financially, the people of Columbus had the advantage because they could see.