Download Introduction

THE SOCIAL IDENTITY
OF WOMEN
edited by
Suzanne Skevington and Deborah Baker.
SAGE Publications
London - Newbury Park - New Delhi
Introduction
Suzanne Skevington and Deborah Baker
This book presents a wide range of work on social identity and gender taking its
original stimulus from social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974, 1978, 1984). It airns
to make the ideas expressed by Tajfel more accessible in the context of research
focused on a topic familiar to everyone, namely their sex group. We intend to
evaluate how far social identity theory can take us in understanding the many
faces of womanhood, and also to look at ways in which studies of women can
and do challenge the boundaries of such a theory.
We hope that the content of this volume will contribute to debates
about the dynamics of intergroup relations between the sexes and the changing
social identities of women in contemporary societies.
This first chapter lays the groundwork for the rest of the book with an
introduction to the main features of social identity theory, followed by a review
of the ways in which this theory has been applied to women. Within this context
we outline how the studies in this book have elaborated upon, developed, or
sometimes rejected the social identity approach. We then review the kinds of
methodologies that have been used by social identity theorists and introduce
those used or recommended by the authors in this volume. Our overall emphasis
here is that social identity can and should be studied using methods which
accommodate the dimensions of real-life situations and the wider social context,
so addressing practical and political as well as theoretical issues.
Social Identity Theory
The essence of social identity theory is its concern with those aspects of identity
that derive from group memberships. Tajfel (1978; Taifel and turner, 1979) stressed
the fact that society is composed of social groups that stand in power and status
relations to one another-, he believed that this group structure has important
implications for identity formation. Tajfel followed Festinger (1954) in thinking
that identity formation rests on the process of social comparison, whereby in order
to evaluate their opinions and abilities people compare
1
themselves with similar others in the course of social encounters.
However, Tajfel stressed the importance of comparisons between social
groups; he theorized that as well as evaluating themselves through
interpersonal comparisons, people also need to assess the value of their
own group in relation to other similar groups, and they do this by means
of intergroup comparison. Here, own group or ingroup is compared with
similar but distinct outgroups; the dimensions that are used to make these
comparisons - that is, to distinguish self and ingroup from other
comparable groups - are called social categorizations. These are by their
very nature stereotypic or consensual constructions since they mark out
the agreed boundaries of group membership. Social identity is founded
on an internalization of these social categorizations.
Turner (1982; Turner et al., 1987) has linked the processes of
intergroup and interpersonal comparison to two essentially distinct
aspects of self concept. He sees the self concept as consisting of all
available constructions of self which fall into two different subsystems:
one of these is made up of social identifications derived from ingroupoutgroup categorizations (such as sex, race, occupation and class); the
other consists of personal identifications - idiosyncratic descriptions of
self which derive from differentiation of self as a unique individual from
other individuals.
The primary motivational factor governing the process of intergroup
comparison is the need for a positive social identity: that is, one which
establishes self and ingroup as positively distinct on the relevant
dimensions of comparison (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Whether this is
achievable or not depends initially on the relative status of groups being
compared. Hogg and Abrams (1988) clearly describe how the power and
status relations between groups bear on social identity: the dominant
groups in society have the power and the status to impose the dominant
value system and ideology which serves to legitimate and perpetuate the
status quo. Individuals are born into this structure and, simply by virtue
of their sex, social class and the like, fall into one social group rather than
others. By internalization of the social categorizations definitive of these
group memberships, they acquire particular social identities which may
have a positive or negative value. Members of dominant and higherstatus groups gain a positive social identity and high self-esteem from
group membership; members of the lower- status or subordinate groups
have a less positive social identity and lower self-esteem.
Here the behavioural consequences of social identification come into play.
Members of low-status groups may seek to change their position and so
attain a sense of positive distinctiveness, whereas members of high-status
groups will act to maintain superiority
(Turner, 1982). The sort of action taken by low-status groups depends
upon their beliefs about the nature of intergroup relations. If individuals
believe that membership of the higher-status group is achievable by
individual effort then they will attempt to move upwards into the
dominant group by these means. This is referred to as individual upward
social mobility (Tajfel, 1978), and as Hogg and Abrams (1988) point
out, it is a very convenient belief as far as dominant groups are
concerned, since it leaves the status quo intact.
However, if individual upward social mobility is impossible and
members of low-status groups see the boundaries between groups as
impenetrable, they may adopt collective strategies to create a more
positive social identity for their group. These strategies are generally
encompassed by the term social change (Tajfel, 1978). There appears to
be a continuum between individual action at one end and collective
action at the other, whereby the more difficult it is for individuals to
improve their own personal position or status by becoming members of
the high-status group, the more likely it is that members of the low-status
group will join together to improve the group's status.
The term 'social change' subsumes three main kinds of activity. Firstly
there is assimilation or merger (Tajfel, 1978) which involves the
adoption of the positive features of the high-status group. by the lowstatus group who wish to join them. This strategy effectively dissolves
the comparison processes which maintain intergroup tensions by
reducing the psychological distance between the two groups, so
increasing the similarity. Such a strategy requires cooperation between
high- and low-status groups rather than differentiation and competition.
2
ts
social identity
theory.(1980,
Let us1981)
now move
to consider
how
this theory
Forofexample,
Skevington
foundon
merger
the most
important
has
been
applied
to
the
study
of
women.
strategy considered by nurses during discussions about changes in the
structure of the nursing profession. By merging the low-status State Enrolled
Nurses (SENS) with the high-status State Registered Nurses (SRNS) through
training, it was intended that the more positive characteristics of the highstatus group would be attributed to all nurses. In this case the SRNs felt
threatened by the potential loss of their highly valued and positive social
identity. They tended to see the inclusion of the low-status members as
having a diluting effect, so watering down the positive distinctiveness of
their group. In contrast, the low-status SENs generally wished for change
and supported the dissolving of status relations through merger.
A second type of action is referred to as social creativity (Tajfel, 1978),
whereby the subordinate group seeks to create a new and positive image for
itself. For example, low-status groups may create brand new characteristics
for the group which effectively make it so different from the group it
compares itself with that it reduces the need for any further comparisons
with the high-status group and hence creates a more positive social identity.
Giles (1978) has provided many instances of how language or dialect has
been used by ethnic minorities such as the Welsh, French Canadians and
American Blacks, to assert their positive distinctiveness from the majority.
Subordinate groups may also reinterpret negative features currently
attributed to the group so that they become positive characteristics that
enhance their social identity. One of the most quoted examples of this type
of activity in recent years relates to the rise in black consciousness in the
1960s, when the negative image of being black was reinterpreted through
the 'Black is Beautiful' slogan.
Finally, rather than compare themselves with the superior group, lowstatus groups may seek comparisons with equivalent or more subordinate
groups to themselves in order to enhance their own social identity.
The third type of strategy for social change is social competition (I'ajfel
and Turner, 1979), when the subordinate group challenges the basis of'the
status hierarchy and seeks to change the relative power and status of groups
by active or passive resistance. Good examples of this form of action are the
American Civil Rights movement and the Black Panthers, both resisting
White domination in the 1960s and 1970s.
These then are the basic tenets of social identity theory. Let us
now move on to consider how this theory has been applied to
the study of women.
3
4