Social Identity Theory And Fees Must Fall Protests Essay

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

“Although humans exhibit strong preferences for equity and moral prohibitions against harm in many context, people’s priorities change when there is an ‘us’ and ‘them’” (Saxe). Within society, many individuals are beginning to identify with various groups that begin to tear each other down, rather than lift each other up. The urge to fit in eventually overpowers the mind of one’s independence. The need to be accepted and to have the approval of others ultimately conflicts with one’s own morals and beliefs. Although individualism is highly praised, one’s surface attributes and appearance may have a negative connotation in that they are categorized as a specific stereotype, therefore these ideas will turn toxic as one is automatically grouped

The third phase of the Social identity theory is comparison. This involves comparing the in-groups that you are a part of with out-groups in order to raise self-esteem (Burke, Stets,2000). Social groups naturally strive to be positively differentiated from other groups (Mummenfey, Kessler, Link, Mielke, 1999). In order to achieve this positive differentiation and boost in self- esteem, the in-group and out-group are judged on factors that represent the in-group to be superior to the out-group (Burke, Stets,2000). To enhance the position and status of the in-group, discrimination and prejudice will be shown towards the out-group.

Throughout our lives, everyone that we share bonds with and interact with on a regular basis, either forms or has some sort of influence on our identity. Consequently, the majority of us naturally find ourselves striving to fit in with these people, especially during the tough transition from childhood to adulthood. It is this part of the human condition that makes us feel as though we must forge ties with something outside of ourselves in order to establish a strong sense of existence and a clear understanding of who we are. Although most individuals are able to make these connections with others naturally, others who stray from the social norm might not be so fortunate, but rather than

Nowadays it is not uncommon that almost everyone has at least one profile on some sort of social networking site. The reason? To not feel left out. We post online to share what we are doing and how we are feeling. However, social media has influenced us in ways that were not initially planned. Our identities, the concept of what makes you, yourself. Identities are constantly evolving due to social media. We are posting online to make good impressions on the people who follow us. We snap photos and add filters to make ourselves look and feel better. Maybe someone will comment! What if nobody does? Do I delete it? These are constant questions and concerns that go through peoples’ minds during the time they post content. I know those questions run through my head each time I click the share button. It’s almost like we need validation from others for us to be ourselves. When I post, I wait to see the reaction of others, will they like it? When others post, I am constantly comparing myself to them. We are constantly comparing and evolving. Exactly like our identity. Our lives are increasingly more public now more than ever.

Stereotyping characteristics are associated with our past experiences of the particular group’s characterization and thus, in essence, we would have to have a certain picture of that group’s social behaviors on our minds. Eventually, such characterization leads to the generalization of the entire group’s social and cognitive behaviors that we believe are inbound or depict the true

Outside influences have a strong capability to influence and alter our personal identity. Both directly and indirectly, the social contexts in which we live can change the way we think and feel, and by extension how we interact with other people and places. Immediate family, friendship groups and the physical environment are all factors which contribute to our ever changing perceptions of ourselves. Sometimes personal identity can be subtly reshaped over a gradual time frame, as our sense of who we are is modified without personal recognition that we are changing. At other times we may be able to notice our personal identity changing, through important life decisions.

Assembly can lead to change or it can lead to horrible circumstances, sometimes planned or sometimes accidental. Over the years people have used and abused their right to assemble, many have died, even more have been arrested. But, many issues have changed because of this right. Violence has been endured, and people’s lives have been changed. The Vietnam War is a perfect example of a group of protests that had many different outcomes. The Kent State shootings and the Democratic Convention of 1968 are examples of protests that went terribly wrong. Sit-ins and singing protest songs against violence are examples of peaceful protest.

This theme of suffering can apply to the social identity theory. The social identity theory proposes that a person's sense of self stems from the groups in which they surround themselves with. According to Tajfel and Turner in 1986, we think well of and act similarly to the groups we belong to, and we are sometimes motivated to go against competing groups (as cited in Harwood, 2007, p. 44). Social identity theory is validated through in-groups (person perceives themselves as part of the group) and out-groups (person does not identify to a group). Through the in-groups and out-groups there lies three processes: social categorization, social identification, and social comparison.

The social identity theory is a theory developed by Henry Tajfel, in which Tajfel believes that who we are socially determines how many positive feelings we have towards ourselves. Basically, if we like where we stand socially, then we will like who we are and display happiness. In this theory, Tajfel labels the “in group” and the “out group” and says that we will always compare our “in group” to another’s “out group.” By comparing these groups, we develop a better personal view on ourselves (King, 2009). A big factor of the social identity theory is that the groups will tend to critique the differences of the groups, and overlook the similarities. A modern day example of the social identity theory would be your everyday high school cheerleaders versus band members. The cheerleaders think of themselves as the queen bees of the school,

George Kelly’s Psychology of Personal Constructs indicates, “The sociality corollary states that people are able to communicate with other people because they can construe those people's constructions” . With the sociality corollary, Kelly introduced the concept of role, which refers to a pattern of behavior that stems from people's understanding of the constructs of others. Each of us has a core role and numerous peripheral roles. A core role gives us a sense of identity whereas peripheral roles are less central to our self-concept.

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 many of previous theories and research, the concept of ‘prototypicality’ has been highly relevant in examining the nature of group membership and inter- and intra-group behaviours (Kleef et al., 2007; Steinel et al., 2010; Ellemers & Jetten, 2013). Based on self-categorisation theory, prototypicality is defined as the position within the group according to the degree to which one represents the group’s most typical characteristics (Oakes, 1996; Gómez, Jetten & Swann, 2014). An individual is considered to be a core member when they possess most of the defining features of the group, and a peripheral group member when they display only some of the features.

uniquely shaped my understanding of myself as a member of this group with how I relate to

Social categorization produces prototype-based depersonalization. the social attraction hypothesis approaches group solidarity and cohesion as a reflection of depersonalized, prototype-based inter-individual attitudes (Hogg, 1987, 1992, 1993). A distinction is drawn between inter-individual evaluations, attitudes, and feelings that are based on and generated by being members of the same group or members of different groups (depersonalized social attraction) and those that are based on and generated by the idiosyncrasies and complementarities of close and endur- ing interpersonal relationships (personal attrac- tion).