Social Identity and National Identity

Social identity and national identity.
The social identity approach assumes that social identity depends upon social groups and category membership. Tajfel (1972), for example, described social identity as individual’s awareness of belonging to a group, together with the emotional and evaluative significance of that group membership. The strength of social identity is measured by asking individuals to assess cognitive and affective aspects of their group (for example, Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade & Williams, 1986; Hinkle, Taylor, & Fox-Cardamone, 1989). The social group is defined in terms of psychological processes as a collection of individuals sharing a common social identity (Turner, 1982) and defined by others as a group (Brown, 1988). It is assumed that treating social identity as the basis of the group can be applied to a range of groups or social categories which individuals are affiliated with (Hogg, 1987) such as nationality.
Although a good deal of research in social identity tradition has been based on national identity and national categories formed the basis of much of Tajfel’s thinking about groups in general (Tajfel, 1960; 1978) and his rationale for the basis of the social identity approach. Nonetheless, social categorisation theory (SCT) is not a theory of national identity but it is used to explain national identity processes in terms of psychological group membership. For example, the phenomenon of national stereotyping is argued to rest upon the same processes of categorisation that underpin any other group. National stereotypes are thus inherently flexible and vary depending on the social context. SCT treats self-categorisation as contingent on the social context such that in a particular context wherein nationality becomes salient, national identity will be relevant as a self-categorisation (Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994). Consequently, the meaning of the national identity (self-stereotypes) varies depending on the category it is currently being compared with (Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994).

Limitation of social identity tradition
The social identity approach to national identity has theoretical and methodological flaws which limit its ability to encompass the richness of the context and experience of national identity within and across different nations. Firstly, social identity researchers ignore the contested meaning of national identity. Furthermore, the individuals’ decision to identify as a group member is not addressed; rather social identity theory (SIT) assumes national identity is mechanistic rather than strategic. Huddy (2001) claimed to understand identities, the subjective meaning needs to be addressed. For example, British national identity does not mean the same thing to all British nationals; it is the meaning of the national identity, rather the existence of it that is important. For example, Britishness is synonymous with ‘English’, the ‘other’, which Scottish is defined against. In contrast, ‘Britishness’ is a common ‘ingroup’ in England (Condor & Abell, 2006). When group identities are acquired the group meaning is important in deciding to adopt the identity and the consequences of acquiring it. For example, Britishness has a different meaning to emigrants than to British nationals.
Secondly, social categorisation is taken by SIT and SCT to veridically reflect social reality, thus group membership simply reflects the social organisation of society. This approach tends to deny human agency and hence neglects the role of social action in identity (Reicher et al., 1997). Reicher et al. argue this is a problem for national identity, which is both a consequence of social reality and plays an active role in altering social relations. Rather than treating categories as passive psychological processes, Reicher and colleagues perceive them as active and strategic.
Moreover, Reicher and Hopkins (2001) argued that the passive cognitive processing model implicit in SCT has two consequences; first it assumes nationals in a given situation all share the same stereotypes, which does not address individuals contesting the meaning of identities. Second, stereotypes are tied to reality, but changing reality is not addressed. Reicher and Hopkins argued that social context is a matter of debate rather than assumed and categories should not be ‘read-off’ from the context. The focus should be on the way both the context and categories are contested. It should not be assumed that everyone in a given context share common views of categories, their difference may be relevant in the future and not just in the present. Reicher and colleagues (Herrera & Reicher, 1998; Reicher, 1997; Reicher & Hopkins, 1996a; 1996b; Sani & Reicher, 1998; Reicher & Sani, 1999) argued is it important to consider the rhetorical dimension, which allows for variation from category to category.
Thirdly, in terms of the experimental methods adopted by SIT, social identity is conceptualised on the experimenters’ terms and alternative conceptualisations are by definition excluded from the research. Indeed, subjects who contest the terms of social identification are statistically excluded (Billig, 1976). As Tajfel (1972) points out, poorly conceptualised experiments occur in a ‘vacuum’ whereby subjects are separated from the reality on which they are required to make a judgement. The laboratory situation restricts them from acting upon the reality or those who are being tested. These studies are ahistorical, which does not account for the past or the future of the subject or the social psychological phenomenon (Gergen, 1973). Subjects’ judgements are restricted by the experimenter to ensure the results are suited to statistical analysis (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). They use rating scales to measure the significant difference between conditions, measuring different amounts of the same quantity in different conditions and assuming that the same traits measured in different contexts have the same meaning. In sum, the results are imposed by experimenters rather than how individuals perceive themselves. In terms of national identity then, experimental methods tend to separate the individual from their social contexts, thus the meaning of the behaviour of individuals in their national context cannot be explored. Given the rich historical, cultural, societal and economic context of national identity, this is particularly inadequate for assessing the process in which individuals negotiate their national identities. Moreover, national identity in the social identity tradition is treated as an ‘analysts’ construct’ (Condor & Abell, 2006) rather than a resource that participants use. The following section will explore the social psychological approach to how nationals’ themselves understand and manage their national identities. This approach reconceptualises national identity as a discursive, ideological and historical process in the ‘real’ world of everyday life.