Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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