Las cartillas y los almanaques astronómicos

Social Identity Theory (SIT) was originally developed by Henri Tajfel (1959, 1969) with further extension by Turner in the 1970s (Tajfel & Turner 1979). Tajfel observed that there are multiple layers to creating an identity. The first being personal identity which is a definition of self. This concept is then set in the context of social identity via social categorization that facilitates distinct social groups. From this individuals choose in-groups and out-groups to determine the satisfaction they have with their own social identities by comparing the two – this is known as self categorization (Hogg et al. 1995). These groups are an important source of pride and self-esteem to the individual (McLeod 2008). Tajfel and Turner (1986) assert that self categorization or identification of belonging to an in-group is at the expense of the out-group and that what

results is a need for a positive social identity. Social Identity is achieved through self-categorization, social comparison/identification and inter-group relations (Oakes 2002).

Self-categorization is the way we classify ourselves into groups to understand better the social environment. These categories might be religion, sex, ethnicity, career or any number of identification props. They are useful to understand where people ‘belong’. Castells (2004) argued that it was only with the internalization and construct of meaning around the classification that gives it significance. By adopting the norms and identity of a self-categorized group the individual created Social identification and through this self-esteem grows. Once identification with a specific in-group occurred then, to maintain self-esteem, the group membership needed to be a positive experience (Wann 2006; Oakes 2002). Positive experiences were developed through inter group comparisons.

SIT is based generally on the concept of stereotyping (Spears et al. 1997) and the emphasis is on group membership and non-membership. Buckingham (2008, p. 6) stated that this ‘cognitive simplification’ allowed individuals to distinguish easily between self and other, and to define themselves and their group in positive ways. The communication within the group was how the membership was managed (Taifel 1978) but this communication cannot exist without the context, and the decisions made by the individuals related directly to how they are involved with the group. Individuals communicate information about themselves, consciously or unconsciously, about their social backgrounds and personal characteristics (Fraser 1978), which ultimately situate them into groups that become their social identity (Crabill 2007). Individuals define themselves by how they relate to the group as ‘we’ rather than as ‘I’.

Oyserman (2004, p. 6) saw the self system as ‘an array of self-relevant knowledge, the tool we use to make sense of our experiences, and the processes that construct, defend, and maintain this knowledge… The self-concept functions as a repository of autobiographical memories, as an organizer of experience, and as an emotional buffer and motivational resource’.

Identity can be perceived as a wholly personal construct that we produce, manage and sell to the outside world – something unique. But the reality is more complex: while we manage it to a certain extent it is the interactions with others that allow for full development of who we are.

Without those interactions we have nothing to compare ourselves against and measure our own

success. Buckingham (2008) argues that sharing our identity with a greater audience allows for validation. Swann (1983) and Swann et al. (1989) highlight the importance of identity confirmation by a group, stating that people are more satisfied and more likely to participate in a relationship when it has been substantiated. Social and personal identity are not completely separable, but overlap and interact with one another very closely to guide a person’s perceptions, attitudes and behaviors as well as form a general identity.

SIT closely identifies the link between self-esteem and group membership. The higher the status, for whatever reason, the higher the self-esteem (Morton et al. 2009). According to du Gay et al.

(2007) individuals who belong to a group use the status from their membership to gain and maintain self-esteem, this idea is supported by the work of Derks et al. (2009), and Morton et al.

(2009). Hogg (1993; Hogg & Abrams 1988, 1993; Abrams & Hogg 1990) stated that to maintain the status within the group provided self-esteem for group members because it fulfilled the need for a positive social identity.

Self-esteem and status are elements that are important for a positive identity but are not the whole. SIT has been discussed here as a way of understanding the different approaches to identity and not as a primary focus. The understanding of self-categorization is paramount to understanding self and was described by Redmond (2011, p. 20) as ‘the process of describing oneself. A person may categorize him or herself as an individual or as a member of a group.

Self-categorization theory is the idea is that prior to people’s social identity being activated, they must first believe that they belong to a group (Hewstone et al. 2002; Turner 1985)’.

There are a number of differing views within the context of Social Identity Theory. Both Jenkins and Giddens have contributed substantially to the discourse. Giddens (1991) argued that self-identity is a uniquely modern development where individuals can reflexively construct a personal narrative. This allows the individual to recognize themselves as in control of their lives and future. Jenkins’ concept of social identity is much closer to that of Burke and Stets’ Identity Theory than Tajfel’s SIT. In his most recent edition of the seminal text Social Identity (2008), Jenkins states that it is redundant to have the word social before identity as all identities are social.

‘One’s social identity … is never a final or settled matter’ (Jenkins 2008, p. 17). Jenkins argued that social identities should be seen not so much as a fixed object, but as a social process, in which the individual and the social are related (Buckingham 2008). This relationship between society and identity is negotiable where agreements and disagreements occur. In fact he believes that ‘without social identity, there is in fact, no society’ (Jenkins 1996, p.6). Jenkins (2008) observed that there are three orders to the world that we construct: 1. the individual order made up of individuals and what-goes-on-in-their-heads, 2. the interaction order which is the relationships between individuals and 3. the institutional order which is the established way of doing things.

Jenkins presents Social Identity based on the work of Mead (1934) and Cooley (1902): That the process of identity or self is ongoing and has two related sections – the internal self definition and the external definitions given by others in society (Jenkins 1996). He reiterates the importance of a social context in the development of identity. While individuals are unique they are built through the social context. But it is the internal/external ‘dialectic of identification’

(Jenkins 1996, p. 60) that creates the basic model for identity in Jenkins’ belief – whether that identity is individual or collective.

Following this, he stated that it is not enough to say who you are, you must also have that identity validated by others with whom you interact (Jenkins 2009), while Hogg et al. (1995) claim that Identity Theory and SIT ‘occupy parallel but separate universes, with virtually no cross-referencing’. The literature above shows that there are similarities between the theories and that Jenkins’s version of SIT leans towards the ideals of IT.

Through this discussion on Social Identity Theory we can establish the importance of society on identity formation. The two theories confirm that identity comes from two sources – the self and society. This could be seen in another way, as the actor and the audience. The next section of this chapter discusses the work of Goffman, who in the context of identity formation, uses the stage as a metaphor to help individuals manage the identity or impression they give the outside world.