Stake Owners Theory

A social identity forms when “an individual ties his or her self-concept to a collective or role” (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). A social identity is one that is shared by members and distinguished by groups, and members define themselves and enable others to define them based on the groups to which they belong (Miscenko & Day, 2015). A person’s social identity relates to their sense of self-worth, as “people attach positive value to their identities” (Miscenko & Day, 2015). An individual uses their social identity to affirm their self-concept through their social peers, seeking confirmation by “expressing identity relevant behavior central to role definition” (Miscenko & Day, 2015). Social identities are also used for self-enhancement by confirming both “positive and negative aspects of identity” and “striving to promote only

IF indivs act towards objects on the basis of the meanings associated with those objects; identities reflect the set of meanings that indivs attach to self as a social object

Each individual possesses an identity that makes him or her unique in their own special way. This identity is considered a marker that helps define and shape the person, even as they develop by means of age or wisdom. In addition to that, various factors, such as ethnicity, gender, religion, language, or culture, contribute to establishing one’s identity. Although each identity is different, Andrew Solomon acknowledges another difference amongst one’s identity. This difference depends on whether someone encompasses a horizontal identity or a vertical identity.

However, identify is argued to no longer be about distinguishing who you are as a person because of how people are struggling to find their true selves. People are left to wander around in the world so that they can go through times that can help them shape who they are, who they want to be, or who should be in the future. We want to be able to have some sense of belonging in the world and we do so by interacting with friends that share the same common interests or self-presentations. This way, we are able to self-realize and reflect on the person we are becoming over time in relation to the roles we previously held in society so we can adjust accordingly. Such individuals are illustrated to be “self-reflective” because this gives them the prerogative to make their own life choices without the influences of others impacting them. On the other hand, we find ourselves letting other people make such decisions for us. We try to deflect these attempts, yet we let it happen anyway as a result of those negative influences because of a sense of not belonging, being accepted, or impressing friends so that they believe you are this type of person. This innately allows us to seek our social identity and what role we want to bring to the group. Indeed, we can state that we can learn and be

“How I know” represents the epistemological dimension, the evolution of assumptions about the nature, limits and certainty of knowledge. “Who am I” represents the intrapersonal dimension, the evolution of how one thinks about ones self identity. And the final question “what kind of relationship do I want to construct” represents the interpersonal dimension, the evolution of how one perceives and constructs ones relationship with others. The epistemological dimension is grounded in the constructive-developmental framework of the Piagetian tradition, which suggests that people construct sets of assumption to account for their experience and that those evolve over time according to regular principles of stability and change. The interpersonal and intrapersonal dimension often referred to as identity or self evolution, described by Ruthellen Josselson as “identity is what we make of ourselves within a society that is making something of us”. This description illustrates the difficulty of separating these two dimensions. Formation of identity is closely tied to the relationships one has with external others in the same way that the relationships one has with external others are mediated by ones identity development. This specific longitudinal study focused on the epistemological dimension during the college years, during the post-college

98). Context, as emphasized by identity theory, is much more important than social identity researchers generally have acknowledged the existence of personal identity. Stets and Burke (2000) suggest that “being and doing are both central features of one’s identity” (p.234). Moreover, such a theory would address assistance and reflection as central aspects of the self, while providing a stronger integration of the concepts of the group, role and the person (Stets & Burke,

“Build your character thoughtfully and painstakingly upon these precepts, and by and by, when you have got it built, you will be surprised and gratified to see how nicely and sharply it resembles everybody else’s” (639). One’s character or identity determines where you fit into society. Identity is who a person is, or is classified as. Most people judge their social identity by comparing themselves to others. They accomplish this by comparing what they have in common, and by what they have accomplished in their lives. People try to find their identity by evaluating all their qualities and beliefs they have. This determines how this makes them similar or different from others.

Every person has groups of people who associate with them throughout their lives. They help by giving them a deeper understanding of who they are. These groups come from friendships, special interest groups, family, cultural groups and peers of the same age. Some might argue that it would be stupid to say that a person gains and develops their identity through the actions and opinions of others. However, it is evident that without the existence of other people, we won’t be able to form a complete sense of themselves. The person’s parents help by introducing them their culture and tradition, as well as help them in realising their own believes and values. For these reasons, there should be no hesitation we form our identity based on the many people and groups we interact with.

In this diverse society, there are many different identities that people develop. Some individuals may have a primary identity or several may have many identities. Most individuals in today’s society identify themselves as being part of more than one group. However, this leads them into a dilemma in deciding which identity matters more in the society or situation. When it comes to identifying oneself with an identity, it is difficult to choose which identity matters more than the other. As not everyone will feel that one identity is them rather it is just part of them and not all them. At the same time, most individuals feel that by revealing one’s own identity, it can affect an individual’s life outcome. When this occurs many individuals become

One could argue that this then inflates our sense of belonging in the world if we feel that there are others who share similar values to us. This then strengthens our resolve by essentially confirming that we are engaging in the right behaviours and holding the right ideals as we associate ourselves with others who feel the same as we do. This then leads them to strengthen our tenacity of in-group favouritism by rewarding our prejudiced behaviours. A positive outcome of this is that it can have a flow on effect to our altruistic nature as human beings and we would be more likely to help those with whom we feel a certain affiliation. It is in this regard that the Social Identity Theory can yield positive results through a framework of philanthropic behaviour and support for in-group members. The converse of this behaviour is that we see an increase in negative behaviours towards those with whom we feel have conflicting goals and essentially belong to an “out group”.

In contemporary identity theory, individuals work to create a single self-structure that reflects a hierarchical “organization of the various identities they hold” (Stets and Serpe 2013) One model of this hierarchy posits that identities are arranged according to identity centrality, or how important the component identities are to people from their own perspectives (Rosenberg 1979). More explicitly, identity centrality is “the subjective value or worth to persons of a given identity relative to that of other identities”(Brenner, et al. 2014). Identity centrality is relatively stable across situations.

Identity without the opinions of others factored into your own opinion of yourself. This pivotal

Self-concept is defined as the “overall idea of who a person thinks he or she is” (A Primer

them,” it is evident that individuals of all cultures begin to figure out what makes them who they are. People who understand that judgement affects growth in others, help create successful members of society. When members of all cultures decide to integrate their own culture with the cultures around them, it boosts that individual’s self-esteem, educational achievement and mental health (Kislev, 2012) and creates a sense of belonging that allows for the healthy development of an intercultural identity. Although it is seemingly impossible not to judge or make assumptions, it is possible to look past ones own cultural frame in order to be more accepting and form new perspectives that allow for less separation and exclusion and more unity. By supporting intercultural interactions, it allows for knowledge to be transferred and thus creates less individuals in society worrying about who they are, what they are meant to do and how they can change themselves to be like the majority or how they can make others be like themselves. These actions will help shape one’s identity in a positive way, where as, making people aware that they are strangers or forcing them to change the values, beliefs etc. actually causes dysfunction in society. This is because individuals spend more time trying to figure out who or what they associate with, that they cannot contribute positively to their surroundings. The inability to find one’s identity has

An individual’s identity is shaped and created by many factors such as family, culture, and friendship groups (Trepte, S. 2206). The individual’s personal identity of “self” may alter when interacting with any of these groups due to the influence and the characteristics these groups possess (Burke, PJ. Sets, JE. 2000). The human desire to feel a sense of belonging is the driving force for individuals to create themselves around particular groups (Trepte, S. 2206). When people find out that their experiences, thoughts and feelings are mirrored by other people, an immediately connection is formed due to the understanding that they are not isolated in their experiences (Rogers, W.S. 2011). The common ground individuals find in others, allows for the formation of groups (Trepte, S. 2206). The “commonality” amongst certain groups of people allow for Social Categorization (Burke, PJ. Sets, JE. 2000). Social