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.

Mundane consumption and the self: A social-identity perspective

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 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.