Group Identity

In his often cited essay, “The Formation of In-Groups,” Gordon Allport offers his theory on how the groups with which one identifies directly influence the development of one’s individual identity. An “in-group” is a group where members share common traits such as societal status, religion, values or sexual orientation. All the members are alike in some way and that similarity unites them as a group. Allport suggests that one belongs to many in-groups throughout his or her lifetime. Individuals are born into some in-groups, such as one’s family, race or socio-economic level; this Allport terms as an “ascribed status”. People also obtain “achieved status” in a group such as one’s circle

Racial oppression in the United States has been present for almost a century now. Although slavery was abolished in the 1860s, people associated in target groups are still being mistreated by racial oppression in different ways. In the article “Being Poor, Black, and American” written by William Julius Wilson, a sociologist and professor at Harvard University, Wilson shows that political, economic, and cultural forces are the primary forces that contains the distinction between target and agent group positions. From the immigration policies, the workplace policies, and stereotypical views portrayed by society, these all have an impact on how an individual can live their life. Altogether, these forces ultimately keep people in check with society’s rules and regulations on what is right and wrong and keep them from stepping out of their place.

The world has become modern and global. Identification of the self is a complicated, though, an important problem of every individual. Self- identity is based on inner values and reflections on culture, politics and social interactions. The main point is that people label themselves to any particular group in the society (Worchel etc., 1998). According to Ferguson: “Identity commonly refers to which it makes, or is thought to make

Growing up in America, children are taught by their grade school teachers to be proud of being American. They chant “Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492” and harmoniously sing patriotic songs such as The Star Spangled Banner while being utterly oblivious of America’s corrupt political system. It may not be until one is pursing their final years of high school, or perhaps even in college when they are aware of America’s history of possessing a highly restrictive political system. For minorities, America is not the land of the free. It is the land of oppression to progression, yet we still wear our scars and our heads up high. Struggles to expand the breadth of political and civil rights in the United States have been critical to fostering greater inclusion and equality for racial/ethnic minorities in America. Various reforms such as the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Acts were implemented during the civil rights era as they helped promote greater inclusion and equity to, but not limited to, African Americans and Mexican-Americans.

The demands of the American people being met demonstrates the great democracy and progressiveness that many people want to be a part of. However, each group thus far that has chosen to fight for their rights in America, has initially gone through a struggle, in which hope was kept alive only by the strongest of believers. The recognition of these group’s importance and worthiness has especially been important to the people who faced discrimination all of their lives, or fought to death for change. Recognition of their values, beliefs, and traditions by the law, meant greater acceptance from the majority they were, -and still are-, a part of. Once African Americans paved the way beginning in 1865, women and the LGBT community followed suit to

As the American society attempted to protect the minority groups in our communities the majority members of society had to join the minority in creating social changes that allowed for the protection of the minority (Miller, 2003). In fighting for the protection of minority members of the American society there, has been laws and constitutional rights that have been put in place that remove discrimination from the workplace, public educational systems, and in the criminal justice system (Greenhouse, 2000). In the 1960’s, the civil rights movement installed the largest amount of legal protections

1. Randall Kennedy, an African American law professor at Harvard, has written that identity politics is “mere superstition and prejudice.” “I eschew racial pride,” says Kennedy, “because of my conception of what should properly be the object of pride for an individual: something that he or she has accomplished. I can feel pride in a good deed I have done or a good effort I have made. I cannot feel pride in some state of affairs that is independent of my contribution to it. I did not achieve my racial designation” (Atlantic Monthly, May 1997, p. 56). Do you agree? Explain, indicating how you think Kymlicka and Young (Part 4, Chapter 18) might respond.

Social identity theory states that the ‘in-group’ will discriminate against the ‘out-group’ and show favouritism towards their group to boost their self-esteem. Tajfel also proposed that there are 3 mental processes involved in putting people in to the ‘us’ and ‘them’ groups: social categorisation (putting objects in order to understand them), social identification (adopting the identity of the group we categorised ourselves as belonging to) and social comparison (showing favouritism towards the ‘in group’ and hostility towards the ‘out group’; comparing them).

Part of the problem with denying someone’s ability to build an identity, is that people are expected to assimilate to the majority in the country. Since the majority in our country is white, this became the standard by which all other cultures were expected to conform. This is sometimes referred to as the “tyranny of the majority.” It also influenced the kinds of writers that were chosen for publication and the way in which African American history was also overlooked throughout the years.

All individuals are part of cultural groups that shape identity, and because someone is part of a certain cultural group they can be treated unequally. During the lecture there was an example of resumes being tossed out because the names sounded ethnic. This proves that if an individual’s name is associated to their culture and if their culture is not white they will not be treated with respect. This also proves that although labels and groups are important to help shape identity, society will use these labels, and the group’s people are a part of, to discriminate them. The power of the group was also discussed as a means to resist inequality, and in order to do so groups must share similar backgrounds and share a common

Social identity theory is a person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership(s) (Harwood, 2007). “In social identity theory and identity theory, the self is reflexive in that it can take itself as an object and can categorize, classify, or name itself in particular ways in relation to other social categories or classification” (Stets & Burke, 2000). The social identity theory has been known to let individuals find their own niche and group that they want to belong to. This could include what the individuals are active in or involved in. Research has also found that the groups that they classify themselves in can cause the participants to look down upon other groups that they are not involved in (Harwood, 2007). Negative attitudes are more of a complex issue, but interesting ideas come from explanations that emerge for social identity theory (Harwood,

The study of race and ethnicity searches for equality throughout all racial and ethnic groups though we find that inequality is still a common issue. Racial and ethnic groups are expanding and outnumbering the dominant force, however, minority groups still have no rule against the dominant force. A minority is a subordinate group whose members have remarkably less control or power over the dominant force.(pg.4) Groups are ranked by pinpointing unique features of an individual in order to define them within a specific bracket. For example, a minority or subordinate group has five characteristics: unequal treatment, distinguishing physical or cultural traits, involuntary membership, awareness of subordination, and in-group marriage.(Wagley

While we are often unaware of it, Forsyth argues, that our performance and motivation can be directly linked to the groups we have chosen to associate with, which can have a significant impact on the development of our identity and future decisions. The author discusses different social theories that can relate to our understanding of group

Who are you? Who am I? These are questions that we all ponder at some point or another in our lives. As human beings we are seemingly inundated with the desire to classify and categorise. We are constantly defining and analysing the differences that we observe in the world, it seems only natural that we would apply this method of classification to our position within our society. More specifically, we want to understand our social identities and this can be achieved by acknowledging which groups we identify most with.

The dominant groups can play a role in marginalizing other groups based on racial and characteristics involving privilege tends to open doors of opportunity, but oppression tends to slam them shut. The dominant groups has played a role of marginalization to other groups based on racial characters that involve oppression and have emphasized pervasive nature of social inequality woven throughout social institutions. The dominant groups reap advantage and benefit from access to social power and privilege, not equally available to people of color. They receive more money and accumulate more assets than other racial groups, hold the majority of positions of power and influence, and command the controlling institutions in society. The dominant groups restrict the life expectancy, infant mortality, income, housing, employment, and educational opportunities of people of color for economic, social or political power (Adams et al., 2013).