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.