A social identity is an element of a person’s self-concept, which is a derivative of a supposed membership in a certain significant social group. The social identity theory, as at first put together by John Turner and Henri Tajfel in the 70s and 80s, was able to introduce the idea of a social identity as a means in which to give an explanation about inter-group behavior (Kolak & Martin, 1991).
The social identity theory can best be described as a speculation, which is able to predict specific inter-group relationships and behavior based on known group status distinctions, the apparent stability and authenticity of those status distinctions, as well as the perceived capability of moving from one group to the other. As a result, this concept contrasts with incidences where the phrase “social identity theory” is utilized to signify all-purpose theorizing in relation to human social selves.
Furthermore, even though some researchers have been able to treat it in such a manner, social identity theory was on no account intended to be an all-purpose theory of social categorization. It was consciousness of the incomplete extent of social identity theory, which caused John Turner together with his colleagues to come up with another cousin theory known as the self-categorization theory (Kolak & Martin, 1991). This is a theory that builds on the ideas of social identity theory to bring in a more broad explanation of both self and group processes.
The phrase social identity perspective or social identity approach is put forward for describing the combined contributions of both the self-categorization theory and the social identity theory. In psychology, issues of self and social identity are normally visualized at the personal-self level. Even though this tradition lays emphasis on the significance of social interactions and social roles of human beings for the understanding of who one is. These are largely regarded as inter-individual procedures, in relation to how reflected appraisals from other individuals contribute to the true meaning of self.
It may also help in fulfilling a general need to belong to a certain group of people. By using the self-categorization theory and social identity theory, we are able to focus on the variety of conditions in which matters of identity and selfhood are impacted by the groups to which human beings belong (Kolak & Martin, 1991). Consequently, psychologists have been able to develop categories of situations where concerns in distin identity plays a major role, and for that reason, where the social self provides a variety of motives and functions.
Using the two theories, psychologists are able to identify each cell in this taxonomy as well as how these matters of self and social identity impose upon a wide variety of behavioral, affective and perceptual responses. Background and research The following paper introduces the methods and focus of scientific psychodynamic research for professionals in different fields. In addition, it draws particular attention to the concepts of “self and social identity,” the two key models in relation to psychodynamic disciplines.
Human beings have different perceptions of self. As a result, these distinct experiences of self are due to a variety of unconscious overviews on the subject of self-becoming dominant at certain times, in certain cultural or social settings. These conceptualizations, or self-schemes, are explained by a variety of conscious and unconscious efforts, which may be of social or personal origin. For that reason, selfschemes do not need to be consistent with each other.
In fact, their general organization may show a discrepancy from being rather disjointed to well harmonious. A harmonious amount of self-organization shows itself in an instinctive sense of self as expecting, attending and intending in accordance with cohesive outlooks (Kolak & Martin, 1991). A disjointed amount of selforganization, however, shows itself in a mystification of selfhood, together with a loss of emotional supremacy. As expected, the level of self-organization settles on the identity of human being, that is to say, the individual’s intuitive or conscious sense of semblance over a period. In addition, psychodynamic researchers are paying attention to the assessment of the level of self-organization in an individual as well the support of the individual in accomplishing greater levels of self-organization. The paper also presents a variety of methods utilized in such a research proposal, that is, quantitative modeling on the basis of self-report information as well as the analysis of spoken narratives.
Furthermore, an awareness of the following field may alert other researchers handle individuals to the matters of multiple selves and the role of conceptualizations in how human beings think, feel and conduct themselves in a variety of situations. While the primary objective of this research project is to provide insight around self and social identity, this research will not recommend or conclude whether one approach is superior to the other. The data that is collected is descriptive data. First step is to sort the data and get the frequency of those research studies that fit the criteria for data collection.
This research provided information, which would be beneficial to psychologist leaders who are looking to understand theories behind the self and social identity. Literature review As mentioned earlier, the Social Identity Theory was founded by Turner and Tajfel with the intention of striving to understand the psychological foundation of intergroup discrimination. They attempted to identify the conditions that could lead people from a specific generation or social group to behave in a discriminative manner towards another external group, supportive of the in-group in which they were members.
It is regarded as a discursive method. The major principle behind the Social Identity Theory is that human beings usually define and categorize themselves and other human beings into several distinct social groups and make every effort to have their individual group valued more greatly as compared to other groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). According to Tajfel and Turner’s (1979) assertion, it is believed by other known psychologists that social identities are usually formed to advance or boost individual self-esteem and promote a sense of assurance.
With the intention of explaining the trend of how human beings assess themselves and other people as members of either an ingroup or an out-group, the Social Identity Theory recognizes a number of psychological concepts. These concepts are social comparison, social identification and social categorization. Social categorization is connected with human beings giving individuals various social categories so as to fully understand and recognize them. This leads to the society being separated or divided into different social classes (in-group and an out-group).
On the other hand, the social identification concept argues that human beings take on the identity of the social class in which they have classified themselves into. Therefore, this concept also comprises of the development of an emotional attachment to an individual’s identification with the social class; therefore, self-esteem will be very much related to membership in a certain social group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The last concept, social comparison, is associated with an individual being able to compare the social group and identify with other social groups.
This concept argues that in order to hold on to an individual’s self-esteem, their social group is supposed to be seen in a more positive light when compared to other groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Furthermore, several psychological research studies have supported the piece of information that human beings make social categories with the intention of boosting their selfesteem. However, an example of this concept, when human beings learn that their social group is not acceptable to society, they have a tendency to observe the out-group as improper and unacceptable as well.
In response to this, Contrada & Ashmore, (1999) have been able to identify two categories of methods that people use to boost the status of their social group. Haslam argues that social creativity and social conflict are examples of ways that people use to boost their group status. Social conflict stands for social in-group undermining the status of a social outgroup. This can be performed in an aggressive manner or by way of remonstrations. Social creativity on the other hand relates to the in-group laying emphasis on group characteristics that they thrive on, after advertising their strengths.
In accordance with Contrada & Ashmore (1999), if the in-group is not feeling any risks and feels that their social status is greatly safe they will participate in social creativity more willingly than social conflict. Nevertheless, when the elements of the in-group feel that they have been threatened, then they will willingly take part in social conflict. A major principle when it comes to the Social Identity Theory is that an individual’s social identity is usually not fixed and can’t foresee an individual’s behavior.
Another major assumption when it comes to the social identity theory is that human beings are essentially aggravated to accomplish positive individuality or identity. To be precise, people “make every effort for a positive self-perception”. As human beings to contrasting extents may be informed and defined by their personal social identities (as said by the interpersonal-intergroup variety), it is derived in the social identity theory which mentions that “human beings struggle to accomplish or to uphold positive social identities”.
In addition, it should be noted that the exact nature of this struggle for maintenance of a positive self-concept is an issue of discussion. As a result, both the interpersonal-intergroup variety and the theory of positive individuality inspiration took place as results of the discoveries of minimal group studies. Above all, it was established that under specific conditions human beings would support resource allocations which would make the most of the positive individuality of an in-group contrary to an out-group without regard for individual self-interest.
Research questions • What does the social identity theory states? What are the benefits of the social identity theory to the society? • How do prejudices and biases come about in relation to the social identity theory? • Do the privileged persons in the society deserve all these advantages over the underprivileged ones? • What are the advantages of the social identity theory? • How do human beings view themselves on a social background? Hypothesis and methodology We obtain information that gives appearance to our thoughts and problem solving. The technique by which an event is calculated shapes community perceptions of it and the united hard work to influence it.
The purpose of this research is to give an explanation of how self and social identities impact different individuals in the society as well as how different people relate to the social identity theory as developed by Tajfel and Turner. Wealth and success are a measurement for the value that a person is able to bring into the society. People who work harder, struggle more, innovate and invest more into the society are expected to be compensated more through wealth and other resources as compared to the people who do not. In other words, people are usually rewarded according to merit or their hard work and sacrifice.
However, this does not always happen (Arora). Many individuals are born into royal or rich families with many privileges while others are born with practically nothing. The question is, are they more worthy of these advantages than others? In accordance with Namit Arora’s article about equality, there should be fairness in various aspects of life such as, equality within the taxation system, minimal regulation, social safety, opportunity and wealth distribution. (Brewer & Hewstone, 2004). In addition, Arora mentions three approaches that explain distributive economic justice.
These models are the meritocratic, egalitarian and libertarian models. Life should award people according to their ability and contribution to the society and not because of unearned privileges. The libertarian model supports a free market with distinct policies which are meant for all people. According to Arora’s article, all citizens are guaranteed the same basic liberties and rights, as well as the distribution of wealth and income is verified by free market. This type of model supports a formal system of opportunity. In addition, Arora talks about the egalitarian model where it favors equality of all people as well.
In this model, people are expected to get the same rights, and should be equally and with a lot of respect (Arora). In my own personal opinion, this type of model is the best for it comes with a number of advantages. Social inequality can be seen all over the world we live in. it is evident in sports, politics and normal social engagements. It is shown throughout the world from situations of race, ethnicity, gender, and age (Paul, Ellen & Miller, 241). Let us talk a little about various forms of inequality. First, we shall talk about religion. Religion is one of the strongest correlates of social and economic inequalities.
Religious beliefs affect many components of well-being, such as income, wealth and education. According to Karl Marx, a philosopher, religion is a contributing factor to inequality. He bases his argument in the sense that religion masks the truth and misguides believers. It is important to understand the true meaning of meritocracy as well as its examples. Meritocracy refers to a system where the gifted are chosen and develop based on their own achievements (Brewer & Hewstone, 2004). It may also refer to an idealized civilization where unfairness on the basis of age, gender, nationality, race and other aspects does not exist or is low.
Merit is the surrounding value, the vital and ethically approved decisive factor for all social classifications, especially with regard to socioeconomic status and in public systems. The United States is often associated with the meritocratic model which recognizes various inequalities. A concept, that emphasizes societal agreement on the processes of selection for specific roles via a system of sorting, sifting and rewarding talent and skill, provoked by competition for individual qualifications which in turn brings about access to personal satisfaction, prestige, and wealth.
The meritocratic model endorses worthy people despite the social class in which they were born. The question has been raised severally throughout history as to whether a meritocracy which is based on an individual’s natural abilities is fair (Brewer & Hewstone, 2004). Some people might argue that it is fair, for instance, even though people do not deserve their natural advantages it is fair that they obtain the rewards of these abilities for the reason that these people were gifted and when one is gifted then they should acknowledge their gifts.
Therefore, in his article, Arora argues that social status and natural abilities might not be the beginning of distributive economic justice since they are unjust. The people who are naturally advantaged are not supposed to benefit simply because they have more privileges. On the other hand, why make them “pay” for their positive natural talents and advantages? After all, a person does not choose the situation in which they are born.
The minor adjustment of these inequalities in accordance with John Rawls is his difference theory which makes all disparities subject to the idea that the least privileged individuals will gain from them. In order create the rules for a society which is just, Rawls mentioned in his 1971 masterpiece, that we should first imagine all people in an “initial position” before they are born, a position where nobody knows what their own characteristics will be (Arora). They should not know whether they would be poor or wealthy, beautiful or not, smart or not so smart, healthy or sick, talented or not.
Then we would be able to see what kind of social structure that individuals would be in agreement in advance was fair, if they could not know what place they were ordained to dwell in. Rawls brings up a number of great objections in relation to meritocracy (Clark & Ritson, 247). He argues that if everybody knew that a great sum of their money was going to be subtracted from their accounts simply because they are talented or advantaged, then that may make a person that is less advantaged or talented to be as successful as they can be.
Furthermore, this would as well be a motivation for individuals who are not as advantaged or talented to continue doing nothing since they know that they will be successful even if they do not put a lot of effort into anything. This idea however is not fair in any way. Rawls’s second view on the topic of meritocracy was the subject of effort (Arora). People normally believe that a person’s talents originate from how much of their effort is being used in accomplishing something. However, this is not always correct (Brewer & Hewstone, 2004).
For instance, if there are two children where one is excellent or talented in schoolwork while the other has a disability in learning. Even if they are presenting the same level of effort to schoolwork, the child with the disability will not learn as fast as the other one. Therefore, he or she is expected to fall behind. In a society where there are high levels of inequalities, the egalitarian model may be seen as an ideology that applies in life. In its different forms, it refers to the expression of equal opportunity as a desirably vital value of human civilization.
Egalitarianism basically entails an attack on various s inequalities, however, the nature and extent to which this attack operates may vary (Brewer & Hewstone, 2004). For instance, some attacks are concerned with inequalities of power while others on wealth (Arora). In a sense, democratic societies usually have an egalitarian intent concerning power. Theories of fairness can explain and guide our ideas; however, people still have to work to understand how they can transform the game they want to take part in. An open civilization could do this by dynamic public discussion.
The assumptions from the results of this research cannot be generalized to individuals from a variety of cultures. It can be mentioned that the Social Identity Theory is successful in its assertion that human beings have a prejudiced insight of their own social status in comparison to other social groups, that is to say, give an explanation of in-group prejudice. Evidence of this theory can be discovered in the outcomes of Arora’s study into the in-group prejudice proposition. Benefits to the society The social identity theory has a number of advantages to the society.
Building on the discussed elements, the social identity theory features a number of techniques that may be summoned with the intention of accomplish positive distinctiveness. The human being’s preference of behavior is supposed to be dictated greatly by the apparent intergroup correlation. In particular, the option of technique is a product of the apparent permeability of the boundaries that exist between groups as well as the perceived firmness and authenticity of the intergroup social status ladder (Brewer & Hewstone, 2004).
Outstandingly, even though these are regarded from the point of view of a low social status member of a group, similar behaviors can as well be assumed by members of high status groups. The Social Identity Theory combines all clarifications for prejudices, stereotypes as well as discrimination. All of these are seen to come about from a need to have and maintain a positive identity. This theory explains why prejudices exist witn the society and come up with solutions for them.
