170104
Description
Flashcards by jennysullivan182, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by jennysullivan182
over 10 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| INTRODUCTION | Tajfel and Turner’s cognitive social identity theory is traditionally the most dominant experimental approach to the study of groups, which has sought to find cause and effect in the processes of categorisation, identity and behaviour. Here, Billig uses discursive psychological analysis to examine their theory. Billig’s main point is that prejudice is far more fluid, complex , wilfully perverse and irrational than can be explained by social identity theory. |
| TAJFEL & TURNER'S SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY | was formed to understand the psychological basis of intergroup discrimination. It is composed of three elements: • Categorization – we categorize both ourselves and others into groups. • Identification – we identify with groups (our in-groups) this bolsters our self-esteem. • Comparison – we compare our groups with other groups, seeing a favourable bias toward the group to which we belong (as shown by the minimalist group experiments). Tajfel reacted against individualist explanations of group behaviour (eg; Allport) on one hand, and also the tendency to reify the group on the other – he attempted to merge both society and individual. |
| THE MINIMAL GROUP EXPERIMENTS | The minimal group experiments were used by Tajfel and Turner to show how easy it is to create intergroup behaviour, that is, in-group favouritism even when two groups of anonymous people are categorised randomly. These experiments show the crucial connections between group membership and self-esteem, in particular how conflict can occur between groups who occupy different status positions. They postulated that social behaviour exists on a spectrum from the purely interpersonal to the purely intergroup. Where personal identity is salient, the individual will relate to others in an interpersonal manner, dependent on their character traits and any personal relationship existing between the individuals. However, under certain conditions social identity is more salient than personal identity in self-conception and that when this is the case behaviour is qualitatively different: it is group behaviour. Similarly, they argued that prejudice and bigotry would intensify in a continuum, developing from depersonalisation towards dehumanisation. The main point is, that when we are in groups or crowds, our personal identity gives way to our social identity –we act with the interests and values of our group uppermost in mind rather than acting in terms of our own personal motivations and beliefs. |
| DISCURSIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE TAJFEL V BILLIG (CATEGORISATION) | Billig praises many aspects of Tajfels paper – but concerns are: Tajfel assumes that the categories that people self-categorise themselves within are stable, fixed, universal and readily available. Billig argues that fascist movements such as Nazi wax and wane during history, so do definitions of categories which cannot be explained in terms of psychological processes. We actively construct social categories in flexible and complex ways through language. Social categories are dynamic. |
| TAJFEL V BILLIG (SELF-ESTEEM) | Tajfel argues that people identify with groups in order to foster their sense of self-esteem. Billig’s response is that SIT does not provide adequate explanation for extreme prejudice or bigotry (such as the holocaust) not the extreme emotional intensity, hatred nor the motivation for violence. Bigotry and hatred cannot be explained by social identity theory; it is important to include ideological factors, wider social and power relations. Emotions are socially constituted and constructed in hate-talk. Billig also identifies possible unconscious repressed pleasure people may get when they engage in taboo actions of hate. |
| TAJFEL V BILLIG (DE-PERSONALISATION) | Tajfel notes that in the same way as individuals develop their identification with a group along a continuum, so will the group’s depersonalisation of out-groups move towards dehumanisation. But Billig ignores how bigotry is shared stereotyping formed in language – it is through language and talk the depersonalisation occurs, eg; ethnic jokes. De-humanisation is also constructed in talk; eg; blacks have historically been called ‘savages’, jews have been labelled ‘rats’. |
| REICHER & STOTT | Reicher and Stott, using an elaborated social identity theory, argue that identities are inseparable from structural inequalities and power. Reicher and Stott highlight significant historical issues and situated knowledge between the two groups, including the removal of employment support, police abusing their authority when using ‘sus laws’ and closure of many youth clubs; reflecting cultural and political as well as social processes. Mainstream social identity theorists believe that individuals socially categorise themselves and form their group allegiances as they identify with groups and so, are structured by definition. |
| CONCLUSION | Most research in social psychology has assumed that groups have negative influences on the individual. Tajfel and Turner have argued that personal identity gives way to group identity in crowds, group membership is crucial for self-esteem and group membership which leads to conflict – group identification is a rational process. However, Michael Billig criticizes this theory as it ignores the intensity of the hatred and emotions experienced in bigotry which are ideological in nature and linked to political contexts, power and rhetorical discourses. Reicher and Stott take this a step further with their elaborated social identity theory which agrees that individual identity shifts to social identity but argue that identities are inseparable for structural inequalities and power. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.