This analysis departs from social identity being part and parcel of the system of social representations a group holds. Additionally, social identity is seen as being affectively laden with religious or other deeply ingrained ideological beliefs. These systems delimit the space of norms and behaviours where people socially construct the objects defining the local world as an objectively given. The local objectifications differ between groups and cultures and pose a problem for interaction and communication between members of different groups. Inter‐group discrepancies must be bridged by establishing a shared representational space and interobjective understanding. This understanding can be reached if both interactants mutually develop meta‐representations that allow them to grossly anticipate what to expect from the other and to orient their actions accordingly. But there is a catch in establishing interobjectivity: even if the interactants manage to overcome semantic and cognitive barriers, their interaction and open‐minded communication will be blocked if the two objectivities are ethically or affectively incommensurable. I illustrate this process by suggesting that native Europeans will feel blocked to establish interobjective acceptance for example with proponents of a slave holder culture whose values are incommensurable with European ideas of human equality. Accepting a slave holder's worldview would threaten the European's identity. A similar process seems to govern devout conservative Muslims living in 'gated communities' and enclaves in European cities who try to maintain their identity by avoiding regular contact with the non‐Muslim majority. Such contact would threaten their identity if their worldview and sharia rules were measured by the standards of human rights. Native Europeans on the other hand, will feel their own cultural objectivity to be incompatible with traditional Islam that does not equally observe human rights. The implications of such processes are discussed in terms of migrants' integration, multiculturalism, and socio‐political psychology.

中文翻译：

---

接触小组：元表示，互客观性和文化不相容性

该分析不同于社会认同是一个群体所拥有的社会代表制度的组成部分。此外，社会认同被认为充满了宗教或其他根深蒂固的意识形态信念。这些系统界定了规范和行为的空间，人们在此社会上构建了将客观世界定义为客观的对象。群体和文化之间的局部客体不同，并给不同群体的成员之间的互动和沟通带来了问题。组之间的差异必须通过建立共享的代表空间和目标间的理解来弥合。如果两个交互者相互发展了元表示，可以使他们大致预期对方的期望并相应地确定其行为，则可以达到这种理解。但是，在建立相互目标方面存在一个难题：即使相互作用者设法克服语义和认知障碍，但如果这两个客观性在道德或情感上无法衡量，则它们的相互作用和思想开放的交流也会受到阻碍。我通过暗示欧洲原住民会感到受阻，例如与那些其价值观与欧洲人类平等观念无法比拟的奴隶主文化的拥护者建立相互对象的接受度，就说明了这一过程。接受奴隶主的世界观将威胁到欧洲人的身份。生活在“门控社区”中的虔诚保守派穆斯林和欧洲城市中的飞地似乎也采取了类似的措施，他们试图通过避免与非穆斯林多数人保持定期接触来维持自己的身份。如果以人权标准衡量他们的世界观和伊斯兰教法，这种接触将威胁到他们的身份。另一方面，欧洲土著人会感到自己的文化客观性与不平等地尊重人权的传统伊斯兰教格格不入。从移民的融合，多元文化主义和社会政治心理学的角度讨论了这种过程的含义。如果以人权标准衡量他们的世界观和伊斯兰教义规则，这种接触将威胁到他们的身份。另一方面，欧洲土著人会感到自己的文化客观性与不平等地尊重人权的传统伊斯兰教格格不入。从移民的融合，多元文化主义和社会政治心理学的角度讨论了这种过程的含义。如果以人权标准衡量他们的世界观和伊斯兰教法，这种接触将威胁到他们的身份。另一方面，欧洲土著人会感到自己的文化客观性与不平等地尊重人权的传统伊斯兰教格格不入。从移民的融合，多元文化主义和社会政治心理学的角度讨论了这种过程的含义。