Individuality and the Group

Advances in Social Identity

Tom Postmes, Jolanda Jetten, Tom Postmes, Jolanda Jetten

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2006
• Print ISBN: 9781412903219, 9781412903202
• eBook ISBN: 9781446234457
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Personality in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Social identity research has transformed psychology and the social sciences. Developed around intergroup relations, perspectives on social identity have now been applied fruitfully to a diverse array of topics and domains, including health, organizations and management, culture, politics and group dynamics. In many of these new areas, the focus has been on groups, but also very much on the autonomous individual. This has been an exciting development, and has prompted a rethinking of the relationship between personal identity and social identity - the issue of individuality in the group.

This book brings together an international selection of prominent researchers at the forefront of this development. They reflect on this issue of individuality in the group, and on how thinking about social identity has changed. Together, these chapters chart a key development in the field: how social identity perspectives inform understanding of cohesion, unity and collective action, but also how they help us understand individuality, agency, autonomy, disagreement, and diversity within groups.

This text is valuable to advanced undergraduate and postgraduate students studying social psychology where intergroup relations and group processes are a central component. Given its wider reach, however, it will also be of interest to those in cognate disciplines where social identity perspectives have application potential.

1

Introduction: The Puzzle of Individuality and the Group

Jolanda Jetten and Tom Postmes

How can we combine that degree of individual initiative which is necessary for progress with the degree of social cohesion that is necessary for survival? (Russell, 1949, p. 11)

The start of Bertrand Russell’s 1949 book Authority and the individual (the text of the first BBC Reith Lecture) is a familiar question. Russell was certainly not the first to ponder about the relationship between the individual and the collective, and his question reflects a classic dichotomy that runs through the social sciences: the distinction between individual and collective interest. Before Russell, many philosophers struggled with this issue, and many had taken the view (like him) that there is a fundamental tension between the two; they appear to stand in opposition. For instance, Hobbes (1650/1931) concluded that the relationship between the individual and the collective is fundamentally conflictual.

More recently, historians and sociologists have identified that self-interested values and morals are – in most eras and in particular in the twentieth century – opposite and contradictory to those that would benefit society at large (e.g., Baumeister, 1991; Putnam, 2000). Some theorizing portrays the group as perverting the performance and wellbeing of individuals; and conversely many have argued that the individual may undermine group cohesion and unity. For instance, Janis’ (1982) archival research into groupthink suggested that cohesion suppressed individual voice and his model argued that disastrous decision-making outcomes were the result of a lack of individuality in ordinary group members. Individuality has similarly been associated with mental health. For instance, it is argued that self-actualization is best achieved by focusing on the individual self and turning away from others and the groups one belongs to (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swindler, & Tipton, 1985; Jung, 1971). In sum, there is a pervasive assumption of antagonism between situations where the self operates individually and autonomously, and situations where self is subsumed in or merged with a group or collective. Moreover, in this antagonistic relationship the individual self is almost invariably seen as supreme – as a more rational, healthier, and authentic self.

This book is concerned with two theories that arose in opposition to such views, social identity theory (SIT) and self-categorization theory (SCT). These theories not only contest the notion that individual self is necessarily inferior, they also undermine the dichotomy between individual and group upon which such evaluative contrasts are based (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Weatherell, 1987). The key problem in the classical analysis, according to these theories, is that group and individual are not independent and separate, but are intimately connected and fundamentally inseparable. Hence, one cannot celebrate the individual without celebrating the “group”, and vice versa.

The core theoretical construct in both theories, social identity, provides a bridge between the individual and the group, by incorporating key group characteristics into “personality” or identity. In this conception, it is social identity that enables the individual to act as a member of their group, even in isolation and on their own. Thus, a core feature of the social identity approach is its interactionist nature – breaching the static distinction between individual and group.

Social identity perspectives and individuality

The perspective on identity provided by the social identity and self-categorization theories has had many consequences, but perhaps the key one has been a rehabilitation of the group. Rather than being treated as the cause of various social ailments, the group is now also seen as part of the solution to faulty decision-making (Postmes, Spears, & Cihangir, 2001), a coping resource in times of organizational challenge (Haslam, 2001; Jetten, O’Brien, & Trindall, 2002), and even as a remedy for intergroup conflict (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). These and other concepts and ideas developed within the social identity approach are increasingly part of mainstream social psychology, but they also find broad acceptance outside this field, in areas such as communication, organizational studies, management, political sciences, sociology, and even theology. The idea that groups and intergroup relations play a crucial role in our self-definitions and our responses to others has become widely accepted.

Notwithstanding this growth and enthusiasm, it is fair to say that social identity theory has also been subject to its fair share of criticism. Most of these critiques relate to a perceived mismatch between empirical research findings and hypotheses that were assumed to flow directly from social identity theory’s core reasoning (e.g., whether there is a correlation between identification and ingroup bias: Hinkle & Brown, 1990), or discussions of the motivations underlying group behaviour (e.g., self-esteem enhancement, uncertainty reduction, achievement of positive distinctiveness: see Hogg & Abrams, 1990). These issues have been dealt with and have led to refinement of the theorizing and further development of the scope of the theory (e.g., Rubin & Hewstone, 1998; Turner, 1999).

The focus of this book is slightly different in that it is not so much concerned with controversies within social identity theory or with the question of what it has achieved so far. Rather, we set out to deal with the more thorny issue of individuality in the group. The key reason for this is that we believe recent advances in thinking about social identity have afforded a much more active and central role for the individual in social identity processes. The individual has become a central player in both intergroup and intragroup behaviour. For instance, even in the most extreme cases of intergroup behaviour (and perhaps especially in those cases, cf. Tajfel, 1978), individuality (in leadership, initiative, skills etc.) remains a key factor. The role of individuality is even more acute in intragroup processes, where strong intergroup dynamics may not be very important, but where social identity processes nevertheless do play an important role.

This new research on the role of individuality in the group is both refreshing and innovative. For one, it is a response to the common assumption that social identity perspectives have something to say about groups, but nothing about individuals. There is some truth to this assumption – the bulk of social identity research has focused on intergroup relations, and the role of the individual has not always been apparent in it. But, as this volume seeks to underline, this seems to be more a matter of empirical focus than of theoretical impotence – after all, both social identity and self-categorization theories were always intended to speak to the dynamic interplay between the individual and the group. Moreover, and more importantly, it extends social identity perspectives into new territory. As the chapters in this volume underline, exploration of this territory enables us to study phenomena such as personality and the subjective experience of individuality and autonomy, it enables us to study different kinds of groups such as cultures, and it enables us to study a different class of processes such as those observed in small group dynamics.

Reasons for the neglect of individuality in social identity

Why is it that the social identity approach has not dealt in as much detail with individuals and individuality as it has with groups? The causes for this limited attention can be traced to a multitude of factors but the most important probably relates to the fact that social identity theory itself is mainly a theory of intergroup relations. Indeed, as the title of the seminal chapter by Tajfel and Turner (1979) suggests, they proposed “an integrative theory of intergroup conflict” and not a theory of intragroup processes and/or the individual. At the same time, it is fair to say that, as a result of this emphasis, the theorizing about the individual in the group remains rather underdeveloped.

To appreciate the origins of the theory, we need to go back to early formulations of social identity theory and understand the issues the theory originally tried to tackle. In an attempt to counter the prevailing individualism in explaining intergroup relations in his time, Tajfel (1978) proposed a continuum with purely interpersonal behaviour at one extreme, and purely intergroup behaviour at the other. The importance of distinguishing interpersonal behaviour from intergroup behaviour cannot be underestimated and has led to important insights regarding the unique nature of intergroup dynamics. However, it does echo the classic contrast between individual and group to a certain extent, and there has been limited attention for the role of the individual. This is despite the fact that, as already noted, the interpersonal–intergroup continuum does not treat the individual self and the group as fundamentally opposed or antagonistic – it was more concerned with the treatment of others as individuals or group members. Indeed, in social identity theory, both individual and group behaviour are perceived as equally valid forms of self-expression. Nonetheless, by putting interpersonal and intergroup at opposite ends of a continuum, they have become each other’s opposites.

A second reason for the limited attention to the role of the individual in the group relates to the way in which SIT and SCT are interpreted and adopted: social identity is sometimes presented in such a way that these theories, intended to theorize the interaction between individual and group, are turned into socially deterministic ones. For instance, a scant reading of social identity (and especially self-categorization) theory literature would easily give the impression that the influence of social identity is fairly mechanistic: when social identity is salient, people will act according to that identity and individual identities cease to exert their influence. Social identity is treated as an “on/off switch”. This may be in part because the literature, which these students have relied on, is somewhat restricted, and in part because warnings in the original writings not to apply the theory mechanistically occasionally got lost along the way. For instance, Tajfel (1978) himself cautioned against this when introducing and discussing the interpersonal–intergroup continuum. With respect to the assertion that all social situations fall between the two extremes, he argued that:

This statement contains its own limitations, and it is important to make them as explicit as possible. There are the extreme outgroup haters who are likely to perceive all (or most) social situations involving the objects of their hatred as being relevant to the relations between the groups involved; but to most people, the simple appearance of members of an outgroup in a social situation does not necessarily classify the situation as being of an intergroup nature and does not therefore necessarily imply that they will engage in the corresponding forms of social behaviour. (p. 43)

In an attempt to do justice to the richness of SIT and SCT, this book aims to open up the discussion about some of these key concepts. In this regard, the reason why an overly mechanistic interpretation of the social identity approach is problematic becomes apparent when one starts applying the theory to a variety of domains. For example, teams and groups do not perform better to the extent that everyone blindly follows company rules or complies with norms. In crowds, the form that collective action takes is not simply “given” by existing social identities, but evolves over time in a dynamic in which intergroup processes and intragroup negotiation play a key role. In intergroup encounters, intragroup processes play a key role in determining a variety of ways in which relevant social identities will be construed, and in influencing a wide range of outcomes. At a more abstract level, any mechanistic interpretation of the social identity approach is challenged by the dynamics of identity change, the heterogeneity of perceptions of social identity, and the ability of individuals to influence the course of group action through communication, negotiation, and strategic and autonomous behaviours.

Aim of this book

The emphasis of the book is firmly on the central theoretical premises of the social identity approach and on exploring the ways in which this approach can take account of both individuality and social structure in its explanation of social behaviour. The book’s theme is one of the key questions in the social identity approach: how to account for individual autonomy, disagreement, and disunity within groups that act in terms of a common identity.

We brought together several scholars at the cutting edge of this field, all of whom have a strong background in social identity theorizing. At the same time, although all contributors started from the same theoretical perspective, there is considerable diversity in the proposed solutions and the way they propose we can improve our thinking about individuality and the group. The result of this is that the theoretical solutions to the puzzle of individuality and the group are rich and varied in terms of their level of analysis, their theoretical starting point and the way the issues are studied.

One important way of ensuring this variety from the outset is by including in this book not only those who self-define as social identity researchers, but also those who work from closely related theoretical frameworks on these important issues (e.g., self-determination theory), and asking them to relate their insights to the wider frameworks of social identity theory and self-categorization theory.

Thus, the aim of this book is to represent the diversity in approaches, with the aim of reinvigorating debate about the individual in the group, rather than to offer clear-cut answers or solutions. Aside from this diversity, it is also important to highlight the commonalities in the chapters of this book. Most importantly, what unites all contributions is that they all move away from a classic distinction between the individual and the group. This is an important step in theory development and opens up the possibility of exploring the myriad ways in which the individual and the group interact, influence and inform each other. Indeed, a clear sense of curiosity and enthusiasm for the ways in which we can advance our theorizing and better understand social identity processes, at both the group and the individual level, emerges powerfully from all chapters.

Moreover, the purpose of the book is to illustrate the applications of this approach to various domains and a diverse range of group contexts. The question of the individual in the group is addressed in a wide variety of group contexts including family and friendship groups, small decision-making groups and teams, organizations, intergroup relations, social categories, and cultural groups. All contributors describe what the implications of their theoretical analysis are for practice in groups in a wider sense. In this way, the emphasis throughout the book is very much on identifying general principles (derived from social identity perspectives), which are then applied to a range of group contexts.

Structure of the book

The topic of individuality and the group is explored in three parts. The first part, about expressing and experiencing individuality in the group, is concerned with the different perspectives on how the interaction between individual and group can be conceptualized. The chapters in this part all propose ways to understand individuality and the group (and their simultaneous occurrence) by focusing on categorization processes and individual needs. Different approaches to studying this issue are sampled to understand categorization and feeling as an individual, individual need satisfaction, and consequences of expressions of individuality in the group.

In their self-categorization analysis of personality, John Turner, Katherine Reynolds, Alex Haslam, and Kris Veenstra discuss how traditional self-categorization theory concepts can inform our thinking about individuality and personality. With an emphasis on categorization processes, personal identity is seen as intrinsically linked to and interdependent with social identity and, like social identity, contingent on social context and social change.

Following this, the chapter by Deborah Prentice addresses the fundamental question of how one can be true to one’s individuality and at the same time emerge the self in a group or larger collective. The proposed solution is concerned with the distinction between acting like an individual and feeling like an individual. In this way, Prentice maintains a firm categorical distinction between personal identity and group identity, and descri...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• 1 Introduction: The Puzzle of Individuality and the Group
• Part 1 Expressing and Experiencing Individuality in the Group
• Part 2 Shaping Individuality through Culture and Social Identity Content
• Part 3 The Individual–Group Dynamic
• Author Index
• Subject Index