Future research

Just a sampling of things I hope to be reading over winter break:

From:

Social Psychology of Identities; Judith Howard
Tajfel, H. (1981). Social stereotypes and social groups. In Intergroup Behavior, ed. Turner, J. C., Giles, H. Oxford: Blackwell.

Frietas, A., Kaiser, S. Chandler, H., Hall, C., Kim, J. W., Hmmidi, T. (1997). Appearance management as border construction: Least favorite clothing, group distancing, and identity – not! Soc. Inq. 67: 323-35.

Hall, S. (1996). Who needs ‘identity’? See Hall & Du Gay 1996, pp. 1-17.

Hall, S., Du Gay, P. eds. (1996). Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage.

Moscovici’s (1981) theory of social representations

Interactionist approach to identity

From:

Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability; Dennie A. Gioia, Majken Schultz, Kevin G. Corley
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

From:

From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory; Leonie Huddy
Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A Self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

From:

A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity; Susan R. Jones, Marylu K. McEwen
Reynolds, A. L., Pope, R. L. (1991). The complexities of diversity: Exploring multiple oppressions. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 174-180.

From:

Forming identities in college: A sociological approach; Peter Kaufman and Kenneth A. Feldman
Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

From:

Gender and thought: The role of the self-concept; Hazel Markus and Daphna Oyserman
Hamaguchi, E. (1985). A contextual model of the Japanese: Toward a methodological innovation in Japanese studies. Journal of Japanese Studies, 11, 289-321.

Markus, H., Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. I, pp. 137-230). New York: Random House.
Also:

Markus, H., Oyserman, D. (1986) Possible Selves.

Other suggestions always welcome.

Gender and thought: The role of the self-concept

Pg 100 – “This chapter has its origins in several general assumptions that derive from psychology’s two basic paradigms – the person as constructor of external reality and the person as constructed by external reality…”

~ I didn’t know these were psychology’s two basic paradigms…but that’s what I’ve been lead to think by all the research I’ve found. I hope to incorporate it into my theory.

Pg 100 – “From our perspective, the self-concept governs one’s perception of reality. It is an important mediator and regulator of thoughts, feelings and actions. Furthermore, both the structure and the function of the self-concept will vary according to the nature of the social environment. The nature of the social environment is determined by its structural features and also by the theories and assumptions of the individuals (including the individual herself or himself) who create this environment.”

~ Self-concept regulates actions. It varies according to social environment. The social environment varies based on who is in it. Or, as I’ve been writing about…identity regulates actions. Actions vary according to culture. Cultures vary depending on who’s in it.

Pg 101 – “A schema here is an affective/cognitive structure that is created to lend meaning and coherence to one’s experience. In a connectedness schema, relations with others are the basic elements.”

~ Definition of schema.

Pg 101 – “We assume that connectedness and separateness self-schemas influence thinking, not just about the self but about all objects, events, and situations. This assumption is compatible with a variety of theoretical perspectives (Baldwin, 1902; Erickson, 1968; Fast, 1985; Jacobson, 1964; Kernberg, 1976) yet it seldom finds expression in studies of social cognition.”

~ So how connected or separate you are influences thinking, but is rarely in studies of social cognition.

Pg 101 – “A sense of self as separate, individuated, and autonomous gives rise to the normative task of knowing, expressing, or realizing this “true” or unique inner self regardless of the constraints of the current social environment. Conversely, a sense of self as interdependent, embedded, and continuous with others is linked with the normative task of being carefully attuned to the immediate social environment and of coming to know and understand the other (for further discussion of the importance of normative life tasks, see Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987; Erikson, 1968; Veroff, 1983).”

~ So according to this, individualization of identity leads to expression while interconnectedness of identity leads to oppression.

Pg 101 – “Self-schemata deriving from a sense of self as connected have a different structure and determine different patterns of perception and through than those deriving from a sense of self as separate. Connected selves should not be viewed as less “good” because they are responsive to the social environment.”

~ Can’t say one is better than the other (separate or connected selves.)

Pg 102 – “The second aspect of our argument derives from the growing literature on culture and selfhood (Geertz, 1975; Harding, 1987; Heela, 1980; Kelly, 1987; Marsella, De Vos, & Hsu, 1985; Shweder & Levine, 1984). This literature claims that different cultures or different social environments may well create and foster the development of divergent idioms and bedrock assumptions about the nature of the self and the nature of others.”

~ I think this is what I’m doing.

Pg 102 – “From this literature comes the idea that individuals can be mutually dependent and that this interdependence or sense of community with others can be a central organizing reality. Individuals thus can develop self-structures in which the primary referent is not the individual himself or herself, but instead the self-in-interpersonal relationships.”

~ Individuals can change to where their global self isn’t their main concern, but how they relate to others they associate with is. (higher level of development)

Pg 102 – “Markus and her colleagues, for example, suggest that individuals develop a system of distinct self-schemata. These schemata are theories about the self – derived from the repeated categorizations and evaluation of behavior by oneself and by others (Markus, 1977; Markus, Crane, Bernstein & Sialdi, 1982; Markus, Smith, & Moreland, 1985). These self-schematas enable perceivers to detect features and higher-order thematic structure in their own behavior and in that of others to which they otherwise would be insensitive. These schemata are focally active in the interpretation and comprehension of the social world (for a review of schema functioning, see Markus & Zajonc, 1985).”

~ So people eventually make a system of schemas based on how they are categorized and behave by themselves and others. (misplaced modifier, I know).

Pg 103 – “All individuals establish some structure in which they conceptualize the self as distinct from others (Hallowell, 1955). An understanding of how the self is different from others (i.e., of one’s “individuality”) is assumed to be essential to healthy functioning. One’s understanding of and participation in the social world depends on this differentiation.”

~ Everyone understands himself as unique. How one knows himself to be unique is how he functions in society.

Pg 106 – “Instead, recent theorists of selfhood stress the influence of culture on perception and thought, where culture is defined as a shared set of meanings that structure one’s perception of the self and the world (for recent discussions, see Cousins, 1987; Miller, 1984; Shweder & Bourne, 1984). From this view, “self” can have multiple conceptual representations depending on the assumptions that are used to create it.”

~ Definition of culture. Also, culture does influence perception and thought. And the self does have multiple conceptual representations.

Pg 106 – Talks about difference between Western men and women, and Western and Eastern trains of thought.

~ I think that this is just kind of interesting.

Pg 109 – “A basic assumption common to these varied perspectives is that all individuals need to define themselves and will naturally look to their ongoing experiences for self-definitions. Where these perspectives differ is in which aspects of the social environment they claim as critical or essential for self-definition. However, self-definition in all these frameworks involves some assessment of similarity with others and difference from others.”

~ Self-definition helps on to understand themselves which helps them to rank their identities and cultures which helps their development which helps them to self-define themselves better.

Pg 120 – “Because the view of the self-as-separate, bounded, and autonomous has been the model for the ideal self in virtually all of Western psychology (Lykies, 1985), it is relatively easy to characterize this model and to speculate about the nature of self-as-separate representations. Much less consideration, however, has been given to the form of the interdependent self or to the nature of self-as-connected representations.”

~ I’m interested in the self-as-connected or interdependent to other selves.

Pg 120 – (about Hamaguchi (1985)) “He describes the Japanese self as being constantly redefined and as including one’s share of the lifespace that is commonly shared by both oneself and other actors. In this theory of “relational” selves, as in all analyses of non-Western selves, however, no separate attention is given to describing the self-structures of women.”

~ Sharing of lifespace is like our society in which cultures and individuals mix. Need to research more on this.

Markus, H., Oyserman, D. (1989). Gender and thought: The role of the self-concept. In Crawford M., & Gentry, M. (Eds.), Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives (100-127). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Gendered influence of downward social comparisons on current and possible selves

Pg 130 – “…We explore gender-specific consequences of downward social comparisons and examine how cultural assumptions about causes of failure and differences in the self-concepts of men and women interact to produce lower levels of academic self-competence in women.”

~ Overview of the study.

Pg 130 – “Social comparisons also serve people’s needs for accurate self-assessment (Festinger, 1954), however, and taking the failure of another person into account may provide diagnostic information about potential dangers and pitfalls facing the self (Trope, 1986).”

~ People compare socially in order to self assess. This is also why people rank their cultures and identities.

Pg 132 – “Generally, individualism as a cultural construct has been associated with a preference for person-focused causal reasoning (Norenzavan, Choi, & Nisbett, 2000; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2000). That is, causes are assumed to lie in fixed dispositions, traits, and characteristics. Conversely, interdependence or collectivism is associated with greater sensitivity to situational and contextual factors and a tendency to conceive of others in terms of their social contexts and relationships (J. G. Miller, 1984; Morris & Peng, 1994; Shweder & Bourne, 1984).”

~ Difference between individualism and interdependence is like the difference between identity and culture.

Pg 143 – “We proposed that gender-differentiated achievement outcomes may be due in part to the interplay between the dominant individualistic cultural frame and gender-specific self-views and preferred processing styles. In Western countries, the dominant cultural focus on individuals and their traits rather than situations, relationships, and circumstances, as the underlying causes of behavior (J. G. Miller, 1984; Morris & Peng, 1994; Schweder & Bourner, 1984), implies that fixed abilities rather than situations and contextual factors are key to understanding individual success or failure. We proposed that this dominant cultural focus can match, or mismatch, with how the self is organized, matching with men’s independence-focused self-schemas and mismatching with women’s interdependence-focused self-schemas (Cross & Madson, 1997; Markus & Oyserman, 1989).”

~ Western vs. Eastern train of thoughts like men vs. women’s trains of thoughts.

Kemmelmeier, M., Oyserman, D. (2001). Gendered influence of downward social comparisons on current and possible selves. Journal of Social Issues, 57(1). Retrieved on October 17, 2008 from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/culture.self/self-concept_and_possible_selves_publications

Possible selves as roadmaps

Pg 131 – “Goals, strivings, and possible selves may serve functions other than self-regulation. They can facilitate optimism and belief that change is possible because they provide the sense that the current self is mutable (Markus & Nurius, 1986). Thus goals or possible selves may simply make us feel good about ourselves, particularly if the goal or future self is vague and carries no specified action plan (Gonzales, Burgess, & Mobilio, 2001).”

~ So possible selves might help cultures with negative stigmas reach more positive stigmas, so it might explain why a culture with extremely negative stigmas continues to have members with developed identities, because of possible selves.

Pg 131 – “By allowing one to feel good about the self and providing hope for a better future, personal strivings, possible selves, and other future oriented aspects of self-concept may fulfill self-enhancement goals.”

~ Why you should think on the bright side.

Pg 132 – “In this sense, possible selves and other self-directed goals can serve to guide and regulate behavior, providing a roadmap connecting the present to the future. The more plans connect self-directed goals to specific strategies; the more likely they are to be carried out (Gollwitzer, 1996).”

~ Possible selves also direct actions. So not only concrete identities are important, but also possible identities, because they also set guidelines and constraints for actions.

Pg 132-3 – “Indeed, some possible selves are quite malleable, shifting in response to feedback either about one s own likely success in attaining the possible self (Kerpelman &Pittman, 2001) or similar others successes and failures in attaining the possible self (Kemmelmeier & Oyserman, 2001).”

~ Possible selves are moldable, like identities.

Pg 144 – “Indeed, in our sample of primarily minority youths from high poverty schools and neighborhoods, those with plausibly self-regulating academic possible selves did have significantly greater chances of academic success. Plausibility of self-regulation was a significant predictor, even after previous academic attainment (in the form of first quarter GPA) and previous level of the specific dependent variable were controlled.”

~ Self-regulation the key to positive improvement, or really any change.

Pg 144 – “Significant improvement occurred only for youths with plausibly self-regulatory academic possible selves.”

~ So possible selves do not matter as much as self-regulatory possible selves. This is a limitation.

Pg 145 – “Our results point to the importance of considering not only the extent to which youths have academic possible selves or whether these possible selves balance positive expectations with concerns but also whether these possible selves are likely to promote self-regulation as opposed to self-enhancement goals.”

~ Self-regulation the key to positive improvement, or really any change.

Oyserman, D., Bybee, D. Terry, K., Hart-Johnson, T. (2004). Possible selves as roadmaps. Journal of Research in Personality, 38. Retrieved on October 17, 2008 from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/culture.self/self-concept_and_possible_selves_publications.

“Who am I?”: The cultural psychology of the conceptual self

Pg 90 – “In the United States, the self, particularly in middle-class and educated contexts, is often understood and presumably experienced as abstract, bounded, private, and separated from others and the social context. In contrast, in Japan, the self is most typically understood as flexible, open, situation- specific, and configured by a constant referencing of the self to the situational setting or context (Ames, Dissanayake, & Kasulis, 1994; Geertz, 1975; Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997; Markus & Kitayama, 1991).”

~ I think the change we’re having in thinking of identities is us thinking more like the Japanese form of idenity.

Pg 91 – “The self is acquired through social interaction and is a product of particular sociocultural environments (Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934; see Markus&Cross, 1990, for a review).”

~ I think this is how identities are formed. So maybe the “self” they are referring to is like the global self.

Pg 91 – “In Western cultures, particularly in the United States, the self is viewed as a more-or-less integrated whole composed of abilities, values, personality attributes, preferences, feeling states, and attitudes (Geertz, 1975; Markus & Kitayama, 1991).”

~ Agreed.

Pg 91 – “Most theories also assume that the self-concept is dynamic; at any given moment, a subset of an individual’s collection of self-representations, the working self-concept, or the conceptual self of the moment, is activated (Markus & Kunda, 1986).”

~ This is how I think of identity, not self-concept.

Pg 92 – “First, the cultural context influences the universe of self-conceptions from which the working self-concept is drawn.”

~ This is what most of the research I have read so far is saying.

Pg 92 – “Second, culture influences the degree of variation in the working self-concept across situations.”

~ Again, this is what most of the research I have read is saying, just not this bluntly.

Kanagawa, C., Cross, S. E., Markus, H. R. (2001). “Who am I?”: The cultural psychology of the conceptual self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(90). Retrieved December 3, 2008 from Sage Publications database.

Forming identities in college: A sociological approach

Pg 465 – “…Interplay among three components of a person’s identity: the person’s felt identity (self-concept), the person’s presentation of his or her identity to others (presented self), and the identity attributed or imputed by others to the person (Goffman, 1959, 1963).”

~ Nice way of explaining interplay of identity with surroundings and cultures.

Pg 466 – “Others, such as Kinney (1993) and Snow and Anderson (1987), substitute the term “personal identity” for felt identity.”

~ If personal identity is “felt” identity. Than what would the opposite be? External identity is “seen” idenity?

Pg 466 – “A symbolic interactionist framework lets us consider not only face-to-face interaction between students and teachers, students and students, and other such encounters (as described by students) but also the feelings, thoughts, and interpretations of students as they experience college…”

~ Symbolic interactionist framework covers actual actions and also what is felt and thought and known through those actions.

Pg 476 – “…We may say that a self-perceived identity of being intelligent and knowledgeable can become a role identity that individuals bring with them into other structural locations…”

~ Idea of role identity and personal identity again.

Pg 480 – “Social networking is generally viewed as a way to make contacts that will allow for the successful achievement of occupational goals…”

~ Importance of social networks/cultures on college students to reach goals.

Pg 480 – “Although we certainly do not refute this function of college, networking may also serve a latent function for individuals in terms of their felt identities. By making ties and contacts with peers and professors, students may not only advance their occupational standing but, additionally, they may form and reinforce their self-perceived occupational identity.”

~ An advance in one section of self (identity of knowing people) advances other sections of self (future occupation).

Pg 480 – “Networking coincides with the development and maintenance of interpersonal relationships, allowing for the identities of students to be constructed, to be felt, and, ultimately, to be imputed by significant others.”

~ Chickering.

Pg 481 – “Such activities may influence individuals’ “possible self” as they pertain to the future occupation of students by providing examples of what they might become, what they hope to become, and what they are afraid of becoming (Markus and Nurius, 1986).”

~ Need to research this!

Kaufman, P., Feldman, K. A. (2004). Forming identities in college: A sociological approach. Research in Higher Education, 45(5). Retrieved November 19, 2008, from http://www.springerlink.com/content/vw54j76260k27168/.

A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity

Pg 405 – “Development of socially constructed identities has received increasing attention within literature and research in psychology and student affairs within the past decade. Racial identity (e.g., Cross, 1995; Helms, 1990, 1992, 1995), ethnic identity (Phinney, 1990, 1992), sexual identity (Cass, 1979; McCarn & Fassinger, 1996), and gender identity (Ossana, Helms, & Leonard, 1992; O’Neil, Egan, Owen, & Murry, 1993) have received primary focus.”

~ Identity is constantly brokendown in studies rather than looked at through the ways identities interact with each other.

Pg 405 – “Yet, most developmental models and related research have addressed only a single dimension of identity, such as race or sexual orientation.”

~ This is the same problem I have with most development models.

Pg 405 – “In terms of models regarding multiple identities, the only frequently acknowledged model is that of Reynolds and Pope (1991). However, Reynolds and Pope’s model concerns primarily multiple oppressions (not identities in general) and possible ways that one can negotiate multiple oppressions.”

~ Interesting that this is the only one out there that exists.

Pg 405-406 – “Reynolds and Pope (1991) drew attention to the importance of multiple identities through their discussion of multiple oppressions. They used several case studies to provide examples of how individuals might deal with their multiple oppressions and then extended Root’s (1990) model on biracial identity development to multiple oppressions. Specifically, Reynolds and Pope (1991), in creating the Multidimensional Identity Model, suggested four possible ways for identity resolution for individuals belonging to more than one oppressed group. These four options were created from a matrix with two dimensions – - the first concerns whether one embraces multiple oppressions or only one oppression, and the second concerns whether an individual actively or passively identifies with one or more oppressions. Thus, the four quadrants or options become:

1. Identifying with only one aspect of self (e.g., gender or sexual orientation or race) in a passive manner. That is, the aspect of self is assigned by others such as society, college student peers, or family.

2. Identifying with only one aspect of self that is determined by the individual. That is, the individual may identify as lesbian or Asian Pacific American or a woman without including other identities, particularly those that are oppressions.

3. Identifying with multiple aspects of self, but choosing to do so in a “segmented fashion” (Reynolds & Pope, 1991, p. 179), frequently only one at a time and determined more passively by the context rather than by the individual’s own wishes. For example, in one setting the individual identifies as Black, yet in another setting as gay.

4. The individual chooses to identify with the multiple aspects of self, especially multiple oppressions, and has both consciously chosen them and integrated them into one’s sense of self.”

~ Interesting model, I don’t necessarily think this is how development of multiple selves exists, though. I think that it still is too focused on breaking down just one identity when they all interact with each other.

Pg 406 – “…Their attention to the possible danger of considering an individual’s identity development too narrowly by only using identity development models that address singular dimensions of one’s identity, and their attention to identity resolution in the context of multiple oppressions.”

~ The problems of focusing too narrowly on one identity is that the others might also be causing issues and they are not being addressed.

Pg 406 – “In addition, theoretical discussions by Deaux (1993), a social psychologist, relate to the conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity presented here. She conceptualized identity as both defined internally by self and externally by others, which provides a foundation for understanding multiple identities. Other recent research (Ferguson, 1995; Finley, 1997; Kiely, 1997) underscored the importance of relative salience, sociocultural context, and overlapping identities. A strength in these studies lies in examining multiple identities; however, none provided a model of multiple identities nor suggested a process by which multiple identities are developed and negotiated.”

~ Foundation to understand identities interplay is external and internal definitions. Also, sociocultural context, salience, and overlap.

Pg 408 – “The key categories that emerged from analysis of data from the interviews with participants were (a) relative salience of identity dimensions in relation to difference; (b) the multiple ways in which race matters; (c) multiple layers of identity; (d) the braiding of gender with other dimensions; (e) the importance of cultural identifications and cultural values; (f) the influence of family and background experiences; (g) current experiences and situational factors; (h) relational, inclusive values and guiding personal beliefs; (i) career decisions and future planning; and ( j) the search for identity.”

~ I am looking into the following: A, C, E, F, G, H, I (?) while trying to do research.

Pg 408 – “At the center of multiple dimensions of identity is a core sense of self. This center, or core identity, is experienced as a personal identity, somewhat protected from view, which incorporates “valued personal attributes and characteristics” (Jones, 1997, p. 383).”

~ Global self is very important. Global self holds only valued attributes or all attributes? Interesting to think about.

Pg 408- “The core was frequently described by participants as their “inner identity” or “inside self” as contrasted with what they referred to as their “outside” identity or the “facts” of their identity. Outside identities were easily named by others and interpreted by the participants as less meaningful than the complexities of their inside identities which they guarded and kept close to themselves and made less susceptible to outside influence.”

~ Inner self is “real” and outer self is “false” relates back to Yoshino and covering. Outside identities are those defined by others while inner self is internally defined.

Pg 410 – “Participants perceived identity dimensions as both externally defined and internally experienced, and also influenced by different contexts. When identities are imposed from the outside, dimensions are not seen as integral to core. However, when interacting with certain sociocultural conditions such as sexism and racism, identity dimensions may be scrutinized in a new way that resulted in participants’ reflection and greater understanding of a particular dimension.”

~ Threat to identity creates better understanding of identity.

Pg 411 – “Personal identity is defined, at least in part, by group memberships, and social categories are infused with personal meaning” (p. 5).” (From Deaux)

~ How personal identity is formed.

Jones, S. R, McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4). Retrieved November 19, 2008, from Muse database.

Mundane consumption and the self: A social-identity perspective

Pg 210 – “Specifically, the self has been modeled as an indivisible entity (rather than as a composite of facets collectively defining a person), and this molar construal masks the underlying relation that people’s possessions have to individual parts of their selves or personalities.”

~ Deals with identity related possession and how people view things. Also, I like the concept of different facets. Like if people were stones each facet would be an identity. And depending on the situation (light) some facets would shine the same reflection back, while others would look totally different.

Pg 210 – “…Whereas the Me is a collection of components-the material (our bodies and possessions), the inner (our attitudes), and the social (our identities as parent, friend, union member)-which can be recognized by ourselves and others.’ Ontologically, the self reflects Sartre’s (1943/1956) three states of existence (being, having, and doing)…”

~ Being/having/doing or material/inner/social thought on ways to think of identity and how it relates to people.

Pg 211-212 – “People’s activities and enabling possessions are organized around their social identities-the multifaceted labels by which their Me is recognized by themselves and members of society. (Identities differ from traits, such as aggressiveness or honesty, in that the latter characterize how someone behaves within an identity.) Social identities (accountant, golfer, parent) are derived from social roles, but they are not the same as roles. Roles are consensual prescriptions, behaviors expected of those occupying a particular position in society (Young, 1991), and in that sense they partition a society. Identities, in contrast, partition a person.”

~ Social identities versus roles. Even though I think that roles are the same things as identities, they are just identities that one takes on during certain times; social identities are always present. And of course identities partition a person, identities categorize people.

Pg 213 – “People normally strive to coordinate their identities. To the extent that the global self maintains some degree of internal consistency, there may be an effect of global self on identity. However, this reciprocal effect should be weaker than the effect of identities on global self because, according to social-identity theory, external social influences are more important than internal processes in determining who we are.”

~ Identity coordination big time! Internal consistency is why people strive for identity coordination. I like the idea of the global self in terms of describing the coordination of all identities and cultures.

Pg 213 – “Each of our identities exists at a “real” level (e.g., what a person actually does when he or she goes fishing) and at an “ideal” one (e.g., how a person would like to be as a fisherman; cf. Sirgy, 1982; Zinkhan & Hong, 1991).”

~ Real identities are actual identities. “Ideal” identities are like Markus’s idea of possible selves.

Pg 214 – “For each identity (and role, etc.) there is an identity schema (role schema, etc.), which represents the person’s store of identity- related knowledge-a collection of what-to-do information (derived from social interaction) when expressing an identity (such as bus driver).”

~ Identity schemas holds identity-related knowledge.

Pg 222 – “This supports the premise that individuals view their possessions through the perspective afforded by an identity, rather than through the global self.”

~ No possession is globally held, all are identity-related in some way.

Pg 223 – “Given some understanding of how a person’s various self-schemas relate to one another, the fact remains that people differ, not only in terms of the identities they ascribe to themselves but also according to the importance or salience they attach to those identities. These differences can make particular identities more or less prominent in people’s self-structures.”

~ People’s global selves delineate which identities will have higher importance, thus relating to the differences in how people react while they are in the same culture with someone else.

Pg 223 – “Identity salience is the relative importance of a given identity in an individual’s self-structure (Callero, 1985; McCall & Simmons, 1978; Stryker, 1968, 1980).”

~ Explains identity salience.

Pg 224 – “So an identity’s salience appears to affect people’s self-schemas (and it influences behavior in some way). Indeed, social-identity theorists (e.g., Callero, 1985; McCall & Simmons, 1978; Stryker, 1968, 1980; Stryker & Serpe, 1982) have argued that people’s identities are organized into hierarchies and that these are linked to identity-related behavior.”

~ Hierarchical identities is like ranking identities, which in turn ranks behaviors of individual. Those behaviors associated with higher ranking identities are viewed of as better. If you want to alter someone’s behavior you need to alter their perception of how important an identity is, not alter the behavior directly.

Pg 224 – “First, the salience of an identity (and its schema representation) has been demonstrated to proceed from the social connections associated with it.”

~ Identity importance comes from cultural affliation.

Pg 224 – “Social connections also account for the stability of an identity’s salience (Serpe, 1987).”

~ The importance attached to a culture (cultural ranking) relates to the importance of an identity.

Pg 224 – “Second, salience derives from the person’s appraisals received from social connections, in the form of identity-related esteem (Hoelter, 1983, 1984; Stryker & Serpe, 1982). Simply put, we give prominence to those identities we perform well (see path B). Identity-related esteem reflects a person’s self- evaluation with respect to a specific identity (Hoelter, 1983, 1984).”

~ Maybe identity ranking doesn’t just come from how other’s view the culture, but also from how well we perform in the culture. Therefore, cultural/identity ranking comes from a mix of positive image of the culture/identity and performance of the individual in culture/identity maybe also desire to be in culture/identity.

Pg 225 – “…Salience proceeds from the extensiveness of one’s identity-related possessions, things an individual has that he or she perceives to be related to the identity’s enactment.”

~ Identity-related possessions kind of fit into the idea of culture. If you think of culture as an identity-related possession it fits into the idea that the higher the level of group identity in a culture, the higher the importance of that culture as an identity related possession. (from Davis and Gandy)

Pg 226 – “Thus, an identity will be more salient when (a) more opportunities exist to enact and receive feedback about the identity (social connections), (b) more identity-relevant possessions and resources are available to enact the identity well (possessions and media connections), and (c) more positive and self-enhancing feedback is received about that enactment (esteem). So salience – what makes one identity more prominent in a person’s self-structure than other identities – is something that derives more from social, than from internal, psychological forces.”

~ Gives reasons on why an identity or culture would reach a higher level of importance. Good info!

Kleine, R. E., Kleine, S. S., Kernan, J. B. (1993). Mundane consumption and the self: A social-identity perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(3). Retrieved November 9, 2008, from JSTOR database.

From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory

Pg 127 – “Postmodern theorists in the humanities have challenged traditional conceptions of identity by arguing that the fixed subject of liberal humanistic thinking is an anachronism that should be replaced by a more flexible individual whose identity is fluid, contingent, and socially constructed (Butler, 1990; Novotny, 1998; Villancourt Rosenau, 1992; Young, 1997).”

~ So, I’m a postmodern theorist.

Pg 130 – “…With social identity theory because they suggest that membership in a salient minority results in ingroup identity and outgroup antipathy.”

~ Ingroup vs. outgroup ideas. This also kind of relates to cultural images.

Pg 131 – “Turner and other social categorization researchers’ view that social identities are highly changeable (Haslam, Turner, Oakes, McGarty, & Hayes, 1992; Hogg, Hardie, & Reynolds, 1995).”

~ Agreed.

Pg 132 – “In reality, there are two distinct branches of social identity theory: the version developed by Tajfel (1981) and Tajfel and Turner (1979), known as social identity theory, and an offshoot developed by Turner and colleagues, referred to as self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987). Both theories acknowledge the origins of social identity in cognitive and motivational factors, although they place differing emphasis on them (Hogg, 1996, p. 67). The earliest versions of social identity theory developed by Tajfel (1981) and Tajfel and Turner (1979) placed key emphasis on the psychological motivations that lead a group member to endorse or disavow an existing group membership. Turner et al. (1987) have described this motive as a need among group members “to differentiate their own groups positively from others to achieve a positive social identity” (p. 42).”

~ Future research: Tajfel and Turner (1979) on the idea of how culture members change or dissolve culture identity. Also Turner relates back to having positive image for the culture one is in.

Pg 132 – “One of the key insights of both social identity theory and self-categorization theory is that principles governing the categorization of everyday objects can be extended to explain the categorization of people, including oneself, into social groupings.”

~ Categorization of people is like categorization of everyday objects.

Pg 134 – “Self-categorization researchers believe that it is one’s perceived similarity to the prototypic group member that plays a key role in the formation and development of social identity (Hogg, 1996; Hogg & Hains, 1996; McGarty, Turner, Hogg, David, & Wetherell, 1992; Turner et al., 1987).”

~ Idea of the prototypic group member is like the idea of the core ideas of the culture relating to the culture’s formation.

Pg 134-5 – “According to Tajfel, a need for positive distinctiveness drives social identity. This means that group identity is likely to emerge among members of a high-status group because membership positively distinguishes group members from outsiders; in contrast, the development of group identity is less certain among members of low-status groups who need to additionally develop an identity around alternative, positively valued group attributes (social creativity) or fight to change the group’s negative image (social change) before membership can enhance their status (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).”

~ Culture with positive image is better than negative. Relates back to ranking cultural affliations.

Pg 135 – “Jackson et al. (1996) found that members of a negative group attempted to change their group’s status by rating an undesirable attribute more.”

~ No one wants to be negative, those in negative cultures try to change more than those in ones with positive images.

Pg 138 – “Salience, one of the key forces behind identity shifts (according to social identity researchers), is a feature of situations, not individuals.”

~ Good information on identity/culture change.

Pg 138 – “Identity choice matters because it is a common feature of social identities outside the laboratory. But it may also enhance the development of ingroup cohesion and outgroup discrimination even within a lab setting. In one of the few social identity studies to examine acquired identities…”

~ People form identities based on cultures. These also influence how the culture views other cultures and its own culture.

Pg 140 – “Groups also differ in the extent to which they allow individuals the freedom to acquire or discard a group identity. Both a group’s permeability and the degree of ambiguity surrounding group membership are likely to influence identity acquisition.”

~ Important info on cultural affliation.

Pg 140 – “Indeed, research by Wright (1997) suggests that boundary permeability need not be very extensive for group members to contemplate individual rather than collective solutions to problems of low ingroup status. This finding hints at the existence of weak group identities among members of permeable groups.”

~ Permability of culture is an interesting concept. The more permeable ones are probably those with negative connotation, while those that are more impermeable are those with positive connotations. While it is harder to leave this culture, it is also harder to be associated with it.

Pg 142 – “In diverse groups, group members may attach different meanings to group identity (Cohen, 1986; Jenkins, 1996). Diverse meanings arise when the same group exists in different regions of a country or when the same group emerges among distinct national subgroups or subcultures. It can also occur when the meaning of group membership is contested, perhaps for political reasons. Such differences in meaning can have a dramatic impact on the consequences of identity…”

~ In the same culture, members’ identities might have them creating different ideas of cultural importance/characteristics of the culture. This also gives good examples of how that would occur.

Pg 143 – “To complicate matters further, the internal meaning of a group can be quite different from its meaning to outsiders (Cohen, 1986). Group members’ attempts to elevate their group’s standing and redefine negative identities play a role in this discrepancy. Group members may even choose to internalize a group identity because their conception of what group membership means is different from that of potential members who fail to adopt the identity.”

~ Internal versus external cultural relations and the ideas of positive and negative groups.

Pg 143 – “As summarized in the earlier overview of social identity theory, identity development seems to be inhibited among groups that are viewed negatively, especially when group boundaries are permeable.”

~ Ranking of groups would have to include whether image is positive or negative and whether the boundaries are permeable or impermeable. Greater identity development at one end and lesser identity development on the other. This would lead to the reasons of why some individuals seem “mature for their age” because of the cultural affliations they have.

Pg 144 – “Self-categorization researchers have highlighted the importance of a group prototype or typical group member in defining group membership. The prototype approach suggests that greater attention should be paid to the types of people who typically exemplify group membership (and give it meaning). According to self-categorization theory, group members’ similarity to the group prototype should enhance identity development.”

~ Culture prototype person creates stereotype that leads to positive or negative imaging that either enhances or not identity development of identities in people.

Pg 144 – “Core values. In addition to the characteristics of typical group members-overt signals that can be expressed in dress, language, and lifestyle-meaning can also be gleaned, according to Barth, via group members’ basic value orientations.”

~ Cultural meaning can be found in both overt and hidden signs.

Pg 145 – “Differences from outgroups. Outgroups do more than signal group boundaries; they also communicate information about what the group is not.”

~ What a culture is is just as important, if not more so, than what the group is not. Relates back to positive and negative images.

Pg 145 – “There is growing recognition among identity researchers that the effects of group membership depend to some degree on identity strength. This evidence is often interpreted as consistent with social identity theory, although I perceive inconsistencies here between an emphasis on identity strength and current thinking among social identity researchers.”

~ Strength of identity leads back into cultural affliation.

Pg 145 – “The loss of individual identity that accompanies the emergence of group identity sounds like an all-or-nothing phenomenon that does not easily accommodate shades of group identity.”

~ Shades of development relates back to the strength of the identity or the core features of a culture.

Pg 146 – “I believe these shades of identity arise from feeling closer to or farther away from a group prototype or key values endorsed by prototypic members.”

~ The group prototype equals the darkest shade, while those in outgroups equal the lightest shade.

Pg 146 – “More important, there is evidence from Branscombe and her colleagues (Noel, Wann, & Branscombe, 1995; Wann & Branscombe, 1990, 1993) that shades of group identity influence the development of ingroup bias and outgroup derogation.”

~ Idea of shades of development. The darker the shade the more developed it is. The lighter, the easier it is to be influenced. Kind of like painting and the way colors mix with each other is the way identities affect each other.

Pg 146 – “There is even some suggestion that the strongest forms of identity may be the least affected by context.”

~ The stronger/higher ranking the identity is, the less it will be affected by situational issues. (Higher level of development)

Pg 150 – “Second, we need to know more about the interrelated processes of identity formation and development. It is important to understand how identities are acquired; it is equally important to understand their progression from weak to strong.”

~ This is partially what I’m basing my theory on.

Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1). Retrieved October 17, 2008 from JSTOR database.

The liminal effects of social movements: Red guards and the transformation of identity

Pg 380 – “This paper draws on Victor Turner’s notion of liminality (Turner, 1969, 1979) to specify these conditions. I will propose that social movements are liminal phenomena. They separate participants from preexisting structural constraints and give them the freedom and power to remold themselves and society. For those involved, the total effect is a threshold effect-the experience becomes a dividing line in personal histories with immediate and long-term consequences.”

~ So social movements affect personal histories more than just culture and identity alone would. In fact, social movements can replace huge chunks of the influence of culture and identity.

Pg 382-3 – “In Turner’s anthropology of the ritual process, the liminal is the second phase of a three-stage ritual process. The first stage, separation, separates the ritual subject from previous structural conditions.3 The second stage, the liminal, is antistructural, where the ritual subject redefines his/her identity under conditions that have “few or none of the attributes of the past or coming state” (Turner 1969:94). The final stage of aggregation marks the subject’s settling back into the social structure.”

~ This is how liminal effects culture/identity.

Pg 383 – “As an antistructure, a liminal condition entails the suspension of normal structural constraints. In this sense, liminality can be seen as in an inverse relationship with bureaucracy.”

~ So liminality can affect how culture and identities typically form guidelines and restraints for actions. It releases/changes those guidelines and constraints.

Pg 383 – “In contrast, a liminal situation is characterized by freedom, egalitarianism, communion, and creativity.”

~ Instead of constraints this is what it gives.

Pg 386 – “Turner argues that all social processes follow the dialectic of structures and antistructures. If liminal phenomena represent antistructures, then social movements may be conceptualized as antistructural processes in a dialectical relationship with such structural entities as institutionalized politics and bureaucracies.”

~ So my theory is very structured.

Pg 397 – “According to Turner (1969), the liminal is the transformative stage in a ritual process. By separating ritual subjects from existing social structures, the liminal stage of the ritual process endows subjects with the freedom and power to transcend structural constraints and to refashion themselves and society.”

~ Not my theory at all, but interesting all the same.

Yang, G. (2000). The liminal effects of social movements: Red guards and the transformation of identity. Sociological forum, 15(3). Retrieved October 17, 2008 from JSTOR database.