David Vainer

Communications 4900

Battle of Algiers

In the film, Battle of Algiers many different forces come to play as the movie progresses.

From the very beginning, a very tense dynamic is formed between the FDL and the police force.

At the very foundation the Arabs just wanted freedom, which was clear towards the end of the

film, a simple and innocent concept that may not seem hostile but as the film plays out we begin

to see the lethal ways in which the Arabs try to attain simple liberty. Throughout the movie many

different theories arise but two that were most prevalent to me were intergroup conflicts and

power. A clear intergroup conflict is shown between the French police force and the Arabs,

which may stem from a deeper multicultural conflict. As far as power is concerned I think that

most revolutions and wars have a strong aspect of power that drives tension. Revolutions may be

about people, fairer treatment, and justice but at the core there is always a rivalry between two

power forces.

In the city of Algiers lived two groups of people, the French settlers and the Arabs. The film

jumps straight into the tension that the Arabs have with the French and its government by

shooting police, setting off bombs, and killing pedestrians. It’s important to note the

multicultural differences that exist between the Arabs and the French. The Arabs are very

religious and have a very strict biblical guideline for everyday life. While the French are more

modern in their every day practices and enjoy going out dancing to bars and just seem to have a
more luxurious lifestyle. Being that the two groups are very different culturally, natural tensions

may arise especially when one group displays dominance over the other. The Arabs live in

special quarters within Algiers that are closed off and seem very dull, while the French live in a

more vibrant and lively neighborhood within the city. This type of dominance is what

multiculturalism attempts to offset but also tries to address when conflicts may arise. There are

many different ways to deal with cultural difference but I think one perspective may have helped

given the situation in the film. Being that the French and Arabs are very different, which is

emphasized in the film, a cultural perspective may have been an effective way to resolve the

issues at hand, or at the very least ease the tension that existed which may have resulted in less

lives being lost. The cultural perspective emphasizes the difference between two cultures in order

to come to a resolution. Therefore, in theory, given the cultural norms of the Arabs and the

norms of the French, a resolution should be found based on the differences.

Multicultural conflict is one aspect of the issues at hand but I think the bigger issue is the

intergroup conflict. The intergroup conflict that exists between the Arabs and the French exist on

a social level. The Arabs live a more impoverished life and engage in more manual labor which

is why the strike by the Arabs was very problematic in the short term for the economy. As

mentioned, the French live a more lavish lifestyle holding more elite positions meaning that the

Arabs most likely work for the French to some capacity. The difference in social power,

resources, and life values make Algiers a breeding ground for conflicts. These incompatibles

between the two groups are what causes destructive intergroup conflicts. In order to resolve

intergroup conflicts many skills need to come together including intergroup, group leading, and

analytical skills. After watching the film I think the largest problem was the group leader skills.
The leader of the FDL movement for the Arabs and the head of the French military both lacked

important abilities in order to resolve conflicts effectively. In turn, this led to mass casualties and

a war that lasted longer than needed. Both leaders did not have an understanding for each other’s

groups and did not harmonize misunderstanding or try to understand cultural riffs that existed

between each other. Both leaders did do a good job in rallying their people behind their

respective causes. After all, organizing a revolution is no small task and having all members of

the community have blind trust in the movement is a very impressive. The bigger problem is the

lack of intergroup relationship that existed, there seemed to be no unity or collaboration or any

common ground between the two groups. Without finding a common ground first, no conflict

can even begin to be resolved if both parties can’t find a shared connection.

The second theory that exists is power. At the heart of most wars and revolutions, power is a

driving force for change. The French want to be in control of their territory while the Arabs want

pure freedom. Power between both the leaders of the FDL and the head of the French military

also exists, being that both are considered leaders by their people and it is important they succeed

at all costs. Ali La Pointe, one of the leaders of the FDL had no problem dying for his cause, that

type of selflessness shows his eagerness to succeed at all costs. The French military and their

entire agenda is built on the idea of power and suppressing the Arabs. This overpowering nature

of the French militia is the driving force for destructive conflicts, which is when one group tries

to dominate another culture because of one groups strong belief in their social identification. If

power dominance had not been such a driving force, much of the tension that existed might not

have bene there to begin with and the Arabs might not have carried out some of the attacks that

they did. I think one of the ways that the intergroup conflict even came about is due to the social
dominance orientation. This is when one group has clear social dominance and discrimination

towards another group. The fact that there was a such a clear difference in class, treatment, social

status, and culture between the Arabs and the French shows that the weaker group will at one

point or another try and break out of that and try to rebrand themselves in a different way.

Toward the end of the film the French military asks the Arabs one thing “What do you want?”,

the answer was very simple “Independence, pride, and freedom”. This shows the lengths to

which the FDL was willing to go to in order to obtain what they wanted.

In the end, the root cause of the conflicts where the dominance and oppression that the French

displayed on the Arabs. I think that the issues at hand could have been resolved in many different

ways but at the same time given the nature of the problem the Arabs might have thought that the

only way to attain freedom was through vicious attacks. I think that both parties have some

blame in how they resolved the issue and some of it starts with the leaders. After all, the

revolution had to start with people leading it and members of the military take orders for leader.

Had both leaders began to analyze and understand the needs and ideas of each other’s groups, the

revolution and the violent attacks might not have been necessary, lives might have been saved,

and hostility might not have existed.