The contact hypothesis, initially proposed by Hahn Tapper, suggests that positive interactions in a structured environment can help resolve intergroup conflicts. While there is evidence supporting its effectiveness, the theory has certain limitations, such as the requirement of ideal conditions, the emphasis on equality, and the influence of societal inequalities on intergroup dynamics.

In my view, this approach oversimplifies the complexities of intergroup conflict. The contact hypothesis assumes that negative perceptions and stereotypes are the primary causes of such conflicts. However, intergroup conflicts are often deeply rooted in historical, social, and structural factors. Take the example of Hong Kong, where the conflict between Hongkongers and Chinese mainlanders is driven by cultural differences and exacerbated by recent political tensions. Merely fostering positive contact cannot adequately address these underlying issues.

Moreover, in certain situations, involuntary intergroup contact can lead to backlash and unintended adverse outcomes. When individuals from conflicting groups are forced to interact, it can amplify feelings of hostility and reinforce existing biases and stereotypes. I don’t necessarily agree with Josephine Kwhali in Whitness: unconscious bias that ‘unconscious’ has not become ‘conscious’ after all the endeavours universities have done in their policymaking is very worrying. Unconscious bias is developed over years based on historical, social, and structural factors, it will take time to revert. For people who are really trying, and especially from a less diverse country, criticising their unconscious actions and not recognising their efforts could lead to a backlash. 

Addressing intergroup conflicts requires a multifaceted approach that considers structural factors, power dynamics, historical contexts, and systemic inequalities alongside interpersonal contact. It is crucial to recognize that intergroup conflict often stems from societal indifference and historical factors, and it is not simply a misunderstanding that can be resolved through positive contact alone. Honest and authentic dialogue is essential for fostering genuine relationships.

“I don’t feel comfortable talking about race. I don’t really know if I should say anything. I am a little worried that I may say something to offend someone,” said a white senior academic in a SoN interview. I think a lot of people share this thought and are worried about being misunderstood, especially in a professional setting. Inviting everyone to join or start a conversion can be tricky. A successful example of implementing the contact hypothesis in real life is the YouTube channel Jubilee’s program called “Middle Ground.” This program invites individuals from opposite views to come together and discuss controversial subjects in a civil and respectful manner. The producers regularly assess the participants and the situation, taking into account their attitudes, behaviours, and intergroup relations to avoid emotional arguments and ensure meaningful conversations.

By acknowledging the complexities of intergroup conflicts and integrating the principles of equality, historical understanding, and genuine dialogue, we can enhance the effectiveness of the contact hypothesis in practice. This approach offers a more comprehensive and nuanced perspective on addressing intergroup conflicts and working towards reconciliation and understanding.