UNIT 3- IDENTITY AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE

INTRODUCTION:
Identities are sets of meanings people hold for themselves that defines
what it means to be people who they are in what kind of occupations and
as group members. These meanings are what constitutes as identity
standards. The identity standard serves as a reference which persons
compare their perceptions of self-relevant meanings in the interactive
situations. When people’s perceptions match the meanings, standards of
one’s life then we can say that their behaviour seems to be just fine. Their
identities are being confirmed or verified and they continue to act as they
are fine and no changes are required.
When however, there is a disturbance that changes the interactive
situations and thus perceived situational meanings so that they no longer
match the standards people will act to counteract the disturbances that
restore and match in the meanings and standard of life. This is a self-
verification process that seeks to understand that self-identities and social
structures are linked together and are conceived as roles, positions and
are tied to human organisations that are controlled by the same social
structures which acts as implications to the social identity link.
The aspects of identities and social structures are already existent within
the societal structure and are linked to the idea of self that is part of the
larger social arena. Identities are tied to social structure in another way
that can be seen when we take a different view of the nature of social
structure. This other view is more ecologically oriented, and focuses on
the flow and transformation of the resources that sustain us. It suggests
that social structure itself may be conceived as the human organization of
resource flows and transformations (Freese 1988). We are familiar with
the idea that people in some positions in the social structure have more
access to resources, or to different resources, than persons located in
other positions.
This is part of our view of the stratification system. It is not always
recognized, however, that this is the nature of the social system: the
allocation of rights and responsibilities for controlling resources. From this
view, to repeat myself, social structure is the human organization of
resource flows and transformations; social structure is the control of
resources. Another link between identities and social structure is revealed
when we consider the nature of the ties between identities in different
positions within the social structure A social identity based on membership
in a group or category gives one self-meanings that are shared with others
in the group (Stets and Burke 2000). One is tied to many similar others; in
verifying the self as a group member, one receives recognition, approval,
and acceptance from those others. One’s ties to the others are like their
ties among themselves.2 One is verified as a member by being like the
other members. Being verified in terms of a social identity reinforces
group— nongroup distinctions, thus maintaining boundaries and
supporting the continued differentiations and cleavages in the social
structure. In contrast, a role identity is tied to other members of the role
set; verification comes by what one does, not who one is (Stets and Burke
2000).
Verification is tied up in mutual, complementary, and reciprocal
processes. The output of each role is the input to its counter-role. The
verification of each identity depends upon the mutual verification of the
counter identity in a reciprocal process. One is verified not by being like
the other, but by performing in a way that confirms and verifies the other’s
role identity and is matched. Verification of a social identity manipulates
meanings and resources that sustain the group or social category on
which it is based, and if the verification of a role identity manipulates
meanings and resources that sustain the role, we may ask what the
verification of a person identity sustains. The answer must be that it
sustains the individual as a biosocial being. By acting, controlling, and
verifying the meanings of who one is as a person, the person distinguishes
himself or herself as a unique, identifiable individual 3 with qualities that
other individuals can count on and use to verify their own person identities
(or group or role identities). Individual names may set each of us apart
and identify us in relatively unique fashion, but our meaningful traits and
characteristics make us who we are: levels of dominance or
submissiveness, levels of energy, being tense or easy going, emotional
or stoic, and so on.
When the person identity is confirmed by verification of the social or role
identity itself because of shared meanings, there is less need to find
mechanisms such as the establishment of personal relationships for the
confirmation of person identities in that context. Role performance
requires appropriate counter-role performance. Further, the more
connections a person with a particular role identity has with others
because of that role—that is, the greater the person’s commitment to the
role identity—the greater the number of people who must agree on the
meanings involved if communication and coordination are to take place.
Innovation is a second source of change in identities, even when others
are depending on a particular set of meanings. For example, finding a
new, resourceful way to accomplish an important part of a role (thus
verifying one’s own role identity more easily) may change the expectations
associated with the role.
Such an innovation may spread and become part of the meanings and
expectations for that role, especially if it also helps to verify the counter-
role identity involved. In that case, the role partner also may endorse the
change in the role expectations. Identity verification is the process by
which the social structure itself is produced and reproduced (Serpe and
Stryker 1987). Verifying a role identity helps to sustain the role and the
counter-roles to which it is attached. Verifying a group identity helps to
sustain the group and to maintain the division between ingroup and out-
group.

Positive and Negative poles of Identity:

Identity is a core construct in psychology because it refers to how a
person addresses issues dealing with who that person is. Adolescents
who can cultivate a clear and positive identity after their developmental
struggles during adolescence often advance more smoothly into
adulthood. Identity can be meaningfully organized into general, physical,
psychological, social, and spiritual domains.
Identity formation also involves dynamic processes as identity evolves
along with persons development throughout their life span. Identity is
amenable to extra-personal influences like environmental changes and
life experiences as well as intrapersonal identity processes, including
exploration, commitment, and reconsideration. Identity basically refers to
how a person answers the question “Who am I?” “Identity is an umbrella
term used throughout the social sciences to describe an individual’s
comprehension of him or herself as a discrete, separate entity”.
Sociologists use most commonly use the term “identity” to describe
“personal identity” or the idiosyncratic things that make a person unique.
Identity can be assessed on both a personal level and a social level.
Global identity is conceived to be made up of identity in different
domains such as physical appearance, athletic competence, scholastic
competence, social acceptance, behavioural conduct, and global self-
worth. Negative identity is an identity that is formed by identifying with
roles opposed to societal expectations. That is why most people only
focused more consistently on positive identity. This aims to understand
the importance of the concept of negative identity in contemporary
society, the frameworks for on negative identity formation, and the way
in which youth develop a sense of a negative identity in their lives. In
particular, it proposes that the concept of negative identity highlights the
importance of sociocultural contexts that restrict positive identity
development, especially for marginalized youth. The development of
clear and positive identity/identities involves building self-esteem,
facilitating exploration of and commitment to self-definition, reducing
self-discrepancies, and fostering role formation and achievement. The
one form of externalization of self-identity that is healthy is when young
adults directly their focus in improving their energies onto helping others
and also themselves. Healthy self-identity is built when youths are not
preoccupied with themselves and experience the intrinsic rewards of
improving the lives of others as well.

Social Comparisons:
Social comparison is a pervasive and fundamental feature of group life.
People compare themselves with fellow group members, they compare
themselves with people in other groups, and they compare their own
group with other groups. From these comparisons emerge group norms,
group structure, and intergroup relations, which in turn provide the
framework for group-based social comparisons. Social identity theory; a
theory of the social group that originated in Europe in the very early
1970s, and that now has a significant and still burgeoning profile in
contemporary social psychology.
Social identity theory is a theory that rests on people making social
comparisons between in-group and out-group, or between self as in-
grouper and other as out-grouper, in order to construct a sense of who
they are and how they are evaluated. The outcome of such comparisons
is status differentials and the entire edifice of intergroup behaviour. The
theory, particularly its more recent emphasis on self-categorization
processes, also deals with intragroup comparisons; group-membership-
based comparisons among people who belong to the same group.
It describes historically how social identity theory has incorporated social
comparison notions and how it has modified such notions. It describes
some of the basic social identity findings relating to group membership
based social comparison, largely intergroup comparisons. It also
describes the role of social comparison in self-categorization theory, and
from there present some new ideas on the motivational underpinnings of
social identity processes and social comparison in group contexts.
People are motivated both by self-evaluation and self-enhancement
needs. Self-evaluation is satisfied by making comparisons with people
who are generally similar but slightly better than oneself (upward
comparisons; predicated on the notion, described above, of a
unidirectional drive upward) and self-enhancement by comparisons with
people who are worse than oneself (downward comparisons) the idea
that people may make comparisons to feel better than others rather than
to feel confident about the veracity of opinions. It also recognized that
people may make comparisons with dissimilar others. Some
circumstances when may occur that are (1) when people are simply
trying to establish the range of abilities within which they fall, or (2) when
the primary motive is self-enhancement. extreme upward comparisons
do not harm self-esteem because the comparison other is so much
better than self as to fall effectively in a different and incomparable
category and extreme downward comparison really makes one feel
good. The social comparison process has been associated with
numerous consequences. For one, social comparison can impact self-
esteem (Tesser, 1988), especially when doing well relative to others. For
example, having the best final score in a class can increase your self-
esteem quite a bit. people naturally engage in mental comparisons with
the people around them during the course of daily life. These
evaluations can impact our motivation and feelings.
We compare our performance not only to evaluate ourselves but also to
benchmark our performance related to another person. If we observe or
even anticipate that a specific person is doing better than us at some
ability then we may be motivated to boost our performance level. It is
also worth mentioning that social comparison and its effects on self-
evaluation will often depend on personality and individual differences.
Another individual difference is whether one has a “fixed mindset” or
“growth mindset” (Dweck, 2007). People with fixed mindsets think that
their abilities and talents cannot change; thus, an upward comparison
will likely threaten their self-evaluation and prompt them to experience
negative consequences of social comparison, such as competitive
behaviour, envy, or unhappiness. People with growth mindsets,
however, are likely to interpret an upward comparison as a challenge,
and an opportunity to improve themselves.
Negotiating Identities:
Identities are seen as a process circumscribed by the continuous
struggle between the individual need for self-fulfilment and the demands
of social structure and collective consciousness. Identities are
considered as subjected to constant negotiations that are here assessed
through an articulation of theories, perspectives, concepts and
categories in order to create a comprehensive examination of this
practice of identity. “The concept of negotiation is defined as a
transactional interaction process whereby individuals in a intercultural
situation attempt to assert, define, modify, challenge, and/or support
their own and others’ desired self-images”
People in all cultures form their reflective self-images such as cultural
identity and ethnic identity via their enculturation process (socialization).
These identities shape their thinking, emotions, and communication
patterns”, so in order to understand a person and communicate with
him/her we need to understand this background. - “Individuals in all
cultures and ethnic groups have the basic motivation needs for identity
security, trust, inclusion, connection, and stability on both group-based
and person-based identity levels”, so identity negotiation can be applied
outside Western societies given some necessary adjustments even
when other conceptions of self and identity are considered. - “Individuals
tend to experience identity security in a culturally familiar environment
and experience identity vulnerability in a culturally unfamiliar
environment” - “Individuals tend to experience identity trust when
communicating with culturally similar others and identity distrust when
communicating with culturally dissimilar others” - “Individuals tend to feel
included when their desired group membership identities are positively
endorsed and experience differentiation when their desired group
membership identities are stigmatized” - “Individuals tend to desire
interpersonal connection via meaningful close relationships and
experience identity autonomy when they experience relationship
separations” - “Individuals perceive identity stability in predictable
cultural situations and detect identity change or chaos in unpredictable
cultural situations” - “Cultural, personal, and situational variability
dimensions influence the meanings, interpretations, and evaluations of
these identity-related themes” - “Satisfactory identity negotiation
outcomes include the feeling of being understood, respected, and
supported” therefore we can say that identity can be defined as the
result of a negotiation process involving culture/context, individualized
self-conception and interaction/communication.
People negotiate their identities in order to establish them in ways that
will increase the probability of coherence. Taking into consideration the
fact that negotiating identities is the first thing done while in interaction,
we can consider it responsible for how interpersonal relationships
develop; it is therefore a convenient framework to analyse identity,
relationships, and emotions.
A person’s perception of his individual self - one’s self-identity or as
defined in Freudian psychology the ego - is inseparable from social
relationships, and identity negotiation theory acknowledges this fact as a
guiding principle; “Just as identities define people and make them viable
as humans, identity negotiation processes define relationships and make
them viable as a foundation for organized social activity”
We can sum up by saying that Anthony Giddens also reflects upon the
insecurity of one’s identities, he says there is indeed a discontinuity and
instability about identities today. identities are a complex combination of
elements that are for the most part non-natural, provisional, and even
conflicting, but nevertheless are somehow able to coexist within every
person.

Identities in Practice:
There is a need to consider identity not only as a category of analysis
but also as a category of practice. Brubaker and Cooper (2000: 4),
following Bourdieu, define categories of practice as ‘categories of
everyday social experience, developed and deployed by ordinary social
actors, as distinguished from the experience-distant categories used by
social analysts. It suggests is that more traditional forms of resistance
failed those who were excluded and discriminated against in identity-
based terms (even if this was in addition to their class position) and saw
the potential for resistance in forging particular identity claims.
While such means of resistance were legitimate and, in some instances,
successful, the concept of identity principally served to bolster a sense
of stability to particular personal and social understandings. It therefore
suggests that, as opposed to challenging the status quo, ‘certain
contemporary forms of identity politics positively reinforce elements of
neoliberal ideology, especially where they converge in their promotion of
cultural relativism, freedom of expression and the celebration of
difference and diversity’.
It is this point of convergence and its implications that is worthy of
greater study and reflection, therefore effectively argues for greater
attention to and critical consideration of identity itself, as a category of
practice. ‘The use of the term identity to express essentialist
understandings of individuals and groups only came at a point in history
when those very essentialist understandings were significantly
challenged or emphasised via their politicisation and commercialisation’
Identity in its contemporary sense is shaped by its context. The
understandings of identity, through the concept, wider society, are
particularly well-suited to neoliberalism and to consumption, that ‘it has
reached a time when identity operates primarily to facilitate consumption
on a global scale, while at the same time informing a version of politics
that remain compatible with the architecture of neoliberalism’

Conclusion:
Identities in practice can be recognized as a matter of sustaining enough
mutual engagement in pursuing an enterprise together to share some
significant learning” Interaction not only with people but artefacts such as
texts, computer programs, documents. The language and tools used
shape the community. Becoming ourselves, governing and/ through
identities. We can only perceive such a project of the self as being about
autonomy if we perceive power as a repressive and denying force with
the discourse on the practices of our diversified identities.
The concepts of self and identity as they related to networks of
interaction. Modern societies are highly differentiated, with relatively
uncorrelated socially salient dimensions and a preponderance of weak,
unidimensional (as opposed to strong, multiplex) ties. multiple-identity
enactments (especially of salient self-identities) are quite rare. But where
they occur, they are important indicators of potential social change.
Social change occurs, very rarely, when these forces operate to change
the cultural meanings of identity labels. society shapes self which then
shapes social interaction.
Society does shape selves. It also shapes interactions through the
ecology of encounters. But in much of everyday life, selves do not
dominate as the central sense of one’s being. Instead, the social
environment (especially its network connections) shapes both the self
and social interaction, and creates a somewhat spurious correlation
between the two. Thus, understanding the relational differences, the two
is important in the formation of identities within our social worlds.