Group Identity Formation

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

The process of Social Identity Theory consists of in-group members who will communicate the positive aspects

It is important to understand that immigration experiences are very personal and unique. There are many different factors that play a role when immigrating to the United States, such as educational challenges, family separations, and acculturation to say the least. Each individual has a different story. However, for the most part the process of adapting to a new culture means creating a new identity in order to feel welcomed into the new culture. There may be specific events that happen to different families or individuals that make the transition and new identity formation more difficult than others.

‘In the age of globalization and of the ever-accelerating intermingling of elements in which we are all caught up, a new concept of identity is needed, and needed urgently. We cannot be satisfied with forcing billions of bewildered human beings to choose between excessive assertion of their identity and the loss of their identity

In addition, identities, whether racial or ethnic or religious, are fluid and changing and reflective of a larger economic and political situation. As a result, to write about these groups as having similar levels of identification with their groups will undermine the complexity of the topic we study. Finally, as a product of what was mentioned above, agencies of the individuals we write about usually get lost and marginalized.

The idea of collective identity as an alternative option for explaining the rise of social movements has been given little attention by contemporary theories. In a progressive, post-industrial, society where collective action no longer culminates around class-based issues and has become a common way of challenging conformist political and societal values, it is important to shed a new light on how social movements emerge and mobilize. I argue that the shared grievances of a collective group of people in which a unifying identity can flourish, explains the emergence and mobilization of social movements. To begin my argument I will first attempt to explain what a social movement entails by briefly comparing various contemporary theories on the

Tajfel (1979): “...Groups give us a sense of social identity”. Tajfel’s “Social Identity Theory” adores the performance of groups, whereby any one individual can elucidate their status by joining a band of individuals for the purposes of identifying with a group in order to enhance group supremacy. This is supported by Dutton. J. E., Dukerich. J. M., & Harquail. C. V., (1994) who in “Administrative Science Quarterly” argued that the work organization strengthens one’s identity within that circle of individuals. Therefore, the stronger one identifies with a group, the more likely they are to develop characteristics attributed for or towards that group.

Although some ethnic identities were founded on “inherent biological, cultural, or racial traits” dividing lines have mostly changed. On the contrary, the characteristics of ethnic groups are enormously personal and have undertaken a “presumed identity” . As much as ethnicity is distinguished by a mutual identity inside a specific group, it is concurrently explained by its differences with other groups. While constituents of an ethnic group take part in an identity founded on a mutual characteristic or opinion, their ethnic attributes (such as language, race, religion) are normally not all the same, and if they are, these characteristics independently are not distinct to that group. The difference in the amalgamation of characteristics that shapes an “ethnic identity” signifies that a person normally shares mutuality with more than one ethnic group. Moreover, what are the fixed dividing lines that determine an ethnic group when its constituents have mutual characteristics with one other, but as well with other groups? “The ethnic label subsumes a number of simultaneous characteristics which no doubt cluster statistically, but which are not absolutely interdependent and connected” .

According to social identification theory, an individual’s personal identity is for an important part derived from his or her (perceived) membership of a social group (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Social identification occurs when one experiences a certain level of oneness with the group, which leads to thoughts, feelings, and expectations that are consistent with the group (Hogg, Terry, and White 1995). Such a group is comprised of individuals who share a common social identification or see themselves as part of the same social category (Stets and Burke, 2000). However, it is not a requirement that group members meet face-to-face for social identification to occur; it can also be developed without any social interaction, for example in the case

The examination of identity should begin with the dynamics between “how we have been represented and how that bears on how we represent ourselves” (Hall & Du Gay, 1996, p.4). Identification and representation can be seen as the different sides of the same coin. If social psychology is to engage with the changing nature of identities in today’s world, the role of representations in the co-construction of identities must be addressed (Howarth,

Simmel expands on this suggesting that outside conflict will strengthen the internal cohesion of the group and increase centralization (Coser 1956). He follows up his idea that outside conflict increases group cohesion by claiming that struggle groups may “attract” enemies in order to help maintain and increase group cohesion, i.e. continued conflict is a condition for group survival (Coser 1956). This would be striving towards the need for identity, however using power and conflict to reach it. He suggests that an actual threat may not even be present but rather that it is only necessary for the members to perceive or be made to perceive a threat to “pull themselves together” as a group (Coser 1956). If an initial conflict brings them together and then is resolved, the group faces the end of the assemblage or they act according to the “law upon which they originally entered the scene” (Coser 1956). An interesting situation being that the organization must disintegrate if it cannot accomplish its purpose but it also destroys itself by accomplishing its purpose, so new purposes must be found (Coser 1956). It this situation it would seem as though the group members are searching for an enemy in order to maintain the structure in which they can live (Coser 1956). There have been references of two types of enemy. 1) Being an actual enemy that they provoke or exaggerate about, involving the self-fulfilling prophecy theory 2) invented enemies (Coser 1956). This search for an enemy is meeting their needs of identity, security, and participation; three out of the four short list needs Burton mentioned, but also includes the negative need for aggression or an enemy that opposes Burton’s theory that there are no negative

The table above provides our factorial predictions as it relates towards our study. As the table shows; we predict there will be a 2-way interaction between groups and induced state. With respects towards our predicted main effects, we predict two will occur. The first main effect will be of salience such that mortality salience conditions take longer to work together than does pain salience. The second main effect will occur of group identity such that it takes longer for out group conditions to work together than does control and ingroup. Furthermore, we believe there will be seven simple effects in which we will go into more depth upon in future assignments.

“In the post-Cold War world,” said Samuel Huntington, “the most important distinctions among peoples are not ideological, political, or economic. They are cultural” (21). Although some of his notions have caused a big controversial debate, his foresight on the importance of culture has been proofed. Homi Bhabha in his The Location of Culture (1994) has paid a special attention to cultural identity, and Stuart Hall in his article, “The Questions of Cultural Identity,” has divided identity into two categories—personal identity and community identity—claiming that the latter one is social or cultural identity. And as far as I am concerned, personal identity in a sense can be counted as cultural identity. Inhabiting in a cultural and social world

The conflict perspective is an attempt to understand the group conflict that occurs by the

Up to this point, I have used the terms “self” and “identity,” including various compound terms for or with them, without attempting to define or distinguish them. Before continuing, and prior to any further discussion of how narrative and memory influence identity, I wish to clarify these terms as best as I am able. As McAdams (2003) notes, both social scientists and laypersons use “self” and “identity” interchangeably in many circumstances. The increasing use of “identity” and explorations of the topic, particularly among anthropologists and sociologists, highlights and exacerbates the difficulty of pinning down a singular, clear, and concise meaning of the term. While endlessly debated, “identity” and “self” still remain useful concepts in the social sciences to talk about “key manifestations of our awareness of ourselves as persons” (Eakin 2008:xii).