Chapter 5

Identities and Inequalities

Exploring Links Between Self
and Stratification Processes

MATTHEW O. HUNT

INTRODUCTION

Self-concept theory and research (Rosenberg, 1979; Gecas and Burke, 1995; McCall and
Simmons, 1966) takes as a central goal demonstration of the fact that the self "matter s" (i.e.,
is not an epiphenomenon) for social behavior and the organization of society. In this chap-
ter, I explore some ways in which self and identity matter-as both "social product"and
"social force" (Rosenberg, 1981)-for the study of social stratification and inequality. The
goal of this paper is to review some existing research lying at the intersection of the study
of self and stratification, and to suggest several ways in which such scholarship can be fur-
ther developed. Special emphasis is placed on integrating key concepts from "identity the-
ory" (Stryker and Burke, 2000) into our understanding of stratification processes .
We can start with the observation that sociological and social psychological research
into phenomena such as legitimation processes (Della Fave, 1980; Stolte, 1983; Shepelak ,
1987), "stratum identification" and "consciousness" (Gurin, Miller, and Gurin, 1980), and
the determinants and consequences of an array of socio-political attitudes (Kluegel and
Smith, 1986; Schuman, Steeh, Bobo, and Krysan, 1997) has a mixed record regarding the
use of the self-concept. Further, when the "self' is invoked-and particularly when the
focus is on some aspect of "identity"-it is typically used in a relatively rudimentary way
from the standpoint of what has come to be known as "identity theory" within sociologi-
cal social psychology (Stryker, 1968, 1987).1
As developed by Stryker and colleagues (e.g., Serpe and Stryker, 1987), identity
theory conceptualizes "identities" as internalized self-designations based on the mean-
ings (role expectations) attached to positions in social structure (role involvements).
Building on thinkers such as Mead (1934) and James (1890), identity theory views the

'Sec Stets and Burke (2000) for a useful discussion of the differences and similarities between " identity theory"
(i.e., role-identity theory) and its psychologic al cousin, "social identity theory."

71

P. J. Burke et al. (eds.), Advances in Identity Theory and Research

© Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers 2003
72 Matthew O. Hunt

self as a multidimensional construct whose structure reflects the institutionally differenti-

ated nature of societies . Further, the multiple identities comprising the self are held to be
organized into a "salience hierarchy" (Stryker and Burke 2000), having direct implications
for outcomes such as role-choice behavior. While empirical support has been found for
these ideas (Stryker and Serpe, 1982), as well as for the more cognitively-focused aspects
of "identity theory" developed by Burke and colleagues (Burke, 1980; Burke and Reitzes,
1981), most symbolic interactionist research on the self is still subject to the criticism of
having ignored issues of power, inequality, and the stratified nature of modem societies
(Callero, this volume; Gouldner, 1970; Hollander and Howard, 2000; Howard, 2000. For
an important exception, see: Stryker, 1980).
Thus, our knowledge of both social stratification and self/identity could be augment -
ed with greater attention paid to (I) the social structural sources of variation in identity
structures and processes, and (2) the influence of identity structures and processes on strat-
ification-related outcomes such as persons' perceptions of the stratification order and other
socio-political attitudes (Kluegel and Smith, 1986). To this end, after briefly outlining
some ways in which the self has been incorporated into the study of stratification-related
phenomena, I explore a proposed line of research-by way of an extended application of
Thoits (1992) operationalization of "identity structure" (i.e., "claims," "salience," and
"combinations")-conceming how key concepts from identity theory could help expand
our knowledge of the self as both (I) the product of social structural arrangements (Stryk-
er, 1980), and, conceivably, (2) a social force shaping consciousness of, and attitudes
about, social inequalities (Kluegel and Smith, 1986; Hunt, 1996).

HOW HAS STRATIFICATION RESEARCH "CONCEIVED THE SELF"?

Self-Evaluation
A good starting point for answering the question of how self has been incorporated into
research on socially structured inequalities and intergroup relations is the notion of "self-
evaluation" (e.g., self-esteem, self-efficacy)-arguably the most widely researched dimen-
sion of the self-concept (Rosenberg, 1979; Owens, Stryker, and Goodman, 2001). As a
social product, research on constructs such as self-esteem has documented the impacts of
"larger social structural" features of society such as social class (Rosenberg and Pearlin,
1978) and race/ethnicity (Hughes and Demo, 1989; Porter and Washington, 1979), as well
as the effects of interpersonal environments as in the case of the consequences of the racial
homogeneity of classrooms for the self-esteem of black schoolchildren (Rosenberg, 1981).
As a social force, Della Fave (1980) conceptualizes self-evaluation as a key factor
facilitating the legitimation of stratified social orders. Specifically, Della Fave argues that
the congruence between objective status (control over "primary resources") and subjective
status ("self evaluat ion"-understood as the perception of one's own ability to control the
aspects of the larger social and political environment) shapes peoples' sense of just-
deserts in ways supportive of the maintenance of the status quo.? Empirical support for

2Accord ing to Della Fave (1980), advantaged and disadvantaged actors alike perce ive advantaged persons' soci-
etal "contributions," and ability to control their environments, as greater, resulting in higher self-evaluations for
the advantaged than the disadvant aged, and, ultimately, an across-strata consensus that existing inequalities in
reward-levels are legitimate (i.c., lower status actors with low self-evaluations are unlikely to challenge the
legitimacy of inequality).