Groups in Society
Introduction
Groups in society that officially make known minority viewpoints are generally widely stigmatised by the majority as social out-groups (Vaughan and Hogg, 1997). For many theorists, Social Identity (group merabership) is an important source of self-esteem, they will cherish what identities they have, fiercely preserving their positive aspects of out-groups, whilst engaging in pronounced in-group/out-group differentiation (Cited in Hogg & Abram, 1988, p 74). Some of us have ‘mixed' identities, we are gay, and also we are part of another group - Maori men and women (Cherry, 1995). Groups may have one identity in the eyes of the world and a somewhat different identity in the eyes of the merabership (Breakwell, 1983). This paper discusses the notion that minority groups within minority groups find social group identity difficult, in relation to in-group/out-group formations. The first part of this paper will examine claims made by researchers that there are many aspects of minority influence that suggest the operation of an underlying attribution process (Kelly, 1967, Cited in Vaughan and Hogg, 1997, p 138). The second part of the paper provides autobiographical reports made by individuals within minority groups. The third section will outline findings of research, suggesting that the distinction between social and personal identity has become central to theorising about the self.
1: Part One.
Groups in society that promote minority viewpoints are generally displaced by the majority as social out-groups or as deviant individuals. Their views are, at best rejected (as not important), and are often ridiculed or trivialised in an attempt to discredit them (for example, the treatment of gays and/or feminists). Research confirms that minorities exert more influence if they are perceived by the majority as ingroup merabers (Cited in Vaughan and Hogg, 1997, p 137). For example, straight males' attitudes towarRAB homosexuality are more like to become normalised if the in-group favours this attitude (i.e., group norm), that is if other straight males within a normalised in-group promulgate the same attitude, rather than the out-group (homosexual males).
Moscovici (1980), argued that majorities and minorities exert influences through different processes. Minority influence is more related to direct public compliance on a normative or informal level as opposed to the majority views, which are accepted without much thought. In contrast, minority influence is said to be indirect and/or latent (Moscovici 1980, Cited in Vaughan and Hogg, 1997, p 137). Minorities produce a conversion effect stemmed from active consideration from a minority point of view. The conversion effect is defined as a "minority influence brought about by a sudden and dramatic inner and personal change in the attitudes of a majority" (Vaughan and Hogg, 1997), and is expected to take longer to manifest itself as opposed to compliance through majority influence.
Maass & Clark (1983, 1986) reported three experiments investigating public and personal reactions to the issue of gay rights. In one of these experiments Maass & Clark, (1983), found that publicly expressed attitudes conformed to the majority view (that is, if the majority was pro- gay, then so were the subjects), whereas personally expressed attitudes supported the minority (Maass & Clark 1983, 1986, Cited in Vaughan and Hogg, 1997, p 137). Although support promotes the idea that minority influence produces indirect, latent inner change while majority influence produces direct immediate behavioural compliance. Hogg and Abrams (1988), view group merabership is an important source of self-esteem. Specifically, a motive for positive self- regard or self-esteem.
In-groups stereotypes tend to be more favourable and out-groups less favourable. Hogg and Abrams, (1988) state that " self-categorisation irabues the self with all the attributes of the group, and so it is important that such attributes are ones which reflect well on the self. Furthermore, People (and societies) are motivated to try to achieve wide acceptance that in- group/out-group categorisation is correlated with only those focal dimensions which reflect well on the in-group (Cited in Hogg and Abrams, 1988, p 74).
Critique of Conformity Research
Individuals and groups are always being swayed to adopt the views and practices of the growing numerical majority. Social influence research adopts a conformity perspective in which individuals are dependent on majorities for normative and informational reasons. Moscovici and collegues believe there is a conformity bias which considers all social influence as serving an adaptive requirement of human life - to adapt to the status quo and thus produce uniformity and perpetuate stability (Vaughan and Hogg, 1977, 135). Furthermore, Moscovici, (1972), believed there to be disagreement and conflict within groups, which consist of three modalities.
1. Conformity - majority influence in which majority coherts the minority to accept overruling viewpoints of the majority.
2. Normalisation - mutual compromise leading to convergence.
3. Innovation - minority create heightened conflict to persuade the majority to accept minority viewpoints.
Hogg and Abrams (1988), describe how from a social identity, groups categorise by their respective norms, which describe and prescribe attributes, characterising one group and differentiating it from other groups. (Hogg & Abrams, 1988). Promoting the view that groups behaviour is synonymous with normative behaviour. Intragroup consensus, agreement and uniformity are brought about by a relative from of social influence responsible conformity to group norms, called referent informational influence (Hogg and Abrams, 1988, p 172). Referent informational influences exist at three stages; firstly, people categorise and define themselves as belonging to a distinct social category and or social identity; secondly, form or learn stereotypical norms of that category; and thirdly, apply these norms to themselves, hence behaviour becomes more normative as the merabership becomes more salient (Cited in Hogg & Abrams, 1988, p 172).
2: Part Two.
Refugees from Amerika: A Gay Manifesto
"By the tens of thousanRAB we fled small towns where to be ourselves
would endanger our jobs and any hope of a decent life; we have fled
from blackmailing cops, from families who disowned or ‘tolerated'
us; we have been drummed out of the armed services, thrown out of
schools, fired from jobs, beaten by punks and policemen"
(Wittman, 1972: 152, Cited in Cherry, 1995, pp 61 - 62).
This identifies individuals that have been ostracised from one group (their country) and smaller groups (i.e., their families, work environments, and social groups) to setup a new group and/or culture within a more tolerant community. Moving to a larger gay populated community such as San Francisco where, is a lot more tolerance towarRAB homosexuality then, this minority group may subjugate more social group power over a majority group such as, innovation previously discussed by Moscovici (1972). Active minorities can be gain influence by acting in ways which attract attention to their views for example, gays have their moment on center stage at their Mardi Gras.
"We cant change America alone, we need coalition with other oppressed
groups at some point. Many of us have ‘mixed' identities, we are gay,
and we are part of another group trying to free itself; women, blacks,
other minority groups" (Wittman, 1972: 168-9, Cited in Cherry, 1995, p 62).
Ella Henry - of Nga Puhi tribe - Northland.
"I was so brown and so clearly identified a part of a racial group
and therefore had to live with the effects of that and the disempowerment
of it. Maori sovereignty is about revalidating who and what we are.
Maori wear the clothes, adopt the customs and speak the language that
is acceptable to Pakeha, yet Pakeha cannot accept that the sacrifice
made by Maori has robbed us of our personal identity and man"
(Cited in Melbourne, 1995, p 17-22).
A very strong statement but, the underlying feature coming out of this statement is that of identity in-group/out-group differentiation. Firstly, Ella stated that "she was identified part of racial group because of her skin colour and accepted that social norm as belonging to that minority group". This statement fits into the framework of Moscovici (1972) first stage of conformity; majority group influence in which majority coherts the minority group to accept overruling viewpoints of the majority. Secondly, Ella stated that "while conforming to Pakeha customs, wearing there clothes and speaking there language, there is no retribution on the part of Pakeha for loss of personal identity". Maybe Ella may also need to consider the ideology of a coalition with other oppressed minority groups at some point, supporting the view of Cherry, (1995).
3: Part Three.
Firstly, Breakwell (1983) describes how society depicts a nuraber of people who possess similar characteristics (physical, psychological or social) then labels them a group (i.e., gay and/or Maori). Secondly, internal and external validity of a groups identity. For example, Breakwell (1983) describes that "the importance of a social group's identity can become important when the content or value of the identity is at issue. Merabers of the group believe the group has an identity based on certain characteristics and that these have specific values" (Cited in Breakwell, 1983, p 22). Group threat is less likely to occur if it is not perceived as personally threatening, the individual neeRAB will predicate the perceived identity of the group (i.e., not longer act on there own accord but are required to behave withing the normative values of that group).
Phinney (1993), states how "personal identity may involve disparate selves in different contexts, so group identity may develop with reference to different groups (Cited in Phinney, 1993, p 49). Greenwald (1988) uses the term collective self as a construct - of an identity relationship in reference to groups, this leaRAB to the adoption of the group's values and goals (Greenwald 1988, Cited in Phinney 1993, p 49). Both theorists identify self-attributes with reference to individualised identities within the group(s) they co-exist in.
"I like to listen to American songs but, that doesn't make me full
American because I eat Mexican food but, that doesn't make you full
Mexican. Its what you feel inside. I feel in between two cultures,
so I'm a Mexican-American" (Cited in Phinney 1993, p 55).
I felt this to be an excellent statement to end with. Firstly, "I like American songs" but I don't belong to this groups because I like American songs. Secondly, "I like Mexican food" but I don't belong to this group because I eat their food and finally, reporting to your self-attributes, "what you feel inside". Internal versus external attributes, in-group versus out-group formations and personal versus social identity forms the foundations of differentiation between ‘mixed' identities and minority groups within minority groups.
REFERENCES
Break well, G. (1983) Formations and Searches. In G. Break well (Ed.) Threatened Identities. (Pp. 3-26). Chichester: Wiley.
Cherry, F. (1995) The Stubborn Particulars of Social Psychology. Chapter 5 Self-investigating consciousness.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
Melbourne, H. (1995). Maori sovereignty: The Maori Perspective. Auckland: Hodder Moa Beckett. Assorted extracts.
Phinney, J. S. (1993). Multiple group identities: Differentiation, conflict and integration. In J. Kroger (Ed.) Discussions on Ego Identity. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vaughan, G., & Hogg, M. (1997). Introduction to Social Psychology. Chapter 6 Social Influence. Prentice Hall.
Introduction
Groups in society that officially make known minority viewpoints are generally widely stigmatised by the majority as social out-groups (Vaughan and Hogg, 1997). For many theorists, Social Identity (group merabership) is an important source of self-esteem, they will cherish what identities they have, fiercely preserving their positive aspects of out-groups, whilst engaging in pronounced in-group/out-group differentiation (Cited in Hogg & Abram, 1988, p 74). Some of us have ‘mixed' identities, we are gay, and also we are part of another group - Maori men and women (Cherry, 1995). Groups may have one identity in the eyes of the world and a somewhat different identity in the eyes of the merabership (Breakwell, 1983). This paper discusses the notion that minority groups within minority groups find social group identity difficult, in relation to in-group/out-group formations. The first part of this paper will examine claims made by researchers that there are many aspects of minority influence that suggest the operation of an underlying attribution process (Kelly, 1967, Cited in Vaughan and Hogg, 1997, p 138). The second part of the paper provides autobiographical reports made by individuals within minority groups. The third section will outline findings of research, suggesting that the distinction between social and personal identity has become central to theorising about the self.
1: Part One.
Groups in society that promote minority viewpoints are generally displaced by the majority as social out-groups or as deviant individuals. Their views are, at best rejected (as not important), and are often ridiculed or trivialised in an attempt to discredit them (for example, the treatment of gays and/or feminists). Research confirms that minorities exert more influence if they are perceived by the majority as ingroup merabers (Cited in Vaughan and Hogg, 1997, p 137). For example, straight males' attitudes towarRAB homosexuality are more like to become normalised if the in-group favours this attitude (i.e., group norm), that is if other straight males within a normalised in-group promulgate the same attitude, rather than the out-group (homosexual males).
Moscovici (1980), argued that majorities and minorities exert influences through different processes. Minority influence is more related to direct public compliance on a normative or informal level as opposed to the majority views, which are accepted without much thought. In contrast, minority influence is said to be indirect and/or latent (Moscovici 1980, Cited in Vaughan and Hogg, 1997, p 137). Minorities produce a conversion effect stemmed from active consideration from a minority point of view. The conversion effect is defined as a "minority influence brought about by a sudden and dramatic inner and personal change in the attitudes of a majority" (Vaughan and Hogg, 1997), and is expected to take longer to manifest itself as opposed to compliance through majority influence.
Maass & Clark (1983, 1986) reported three experiments investigating public and personal reactions to the issue of gay rights. In one of these experiments Maass & Clark, (1983), found that publicly expressed attitudes conformed to the majority view (that is, if the majority was pro- gay, then so were the subjects), whereas personally expressed attitudes supported the minority (Maass & Clark 1983, 1986, Cited in Vaughan and Hogg, 1997, p 137). Although support promotes the idea that minority influence produces indirect, latent inner change while majority influence produces direct immediate behavioural compliance. Hogg and Abrams (1988), view group merabership is an important source of self-esteem. Specifically, a motive for positive self- regard or self-esteem.
In-groups stereotypes tend to be more favourable and out-groups less favourable. Hogg and Abrams, (1988) state that " self-categorisation irabues the self with all the attributes of the group, and so it is important that such attributes are ones which reflect well on the self. Furthermore, People (and societies) are motivated to try to achieve wide acceptance that in- group/out-group categorisation is correlated with only those focal dimensions which reflect well on the in-group (Cited in Hogg and Abrams, 1988, p 74).
Critique of Conformity Research
Individuals and groups are always being swayed to adopt the views and practices of the growing numerical majority. Social influence research adopts a conformity perspective in which individuals are dependent on majorities for normative and informational reasons. Moscovici and collegues believe there is a conformity bias which considers all social influence as serving an adaptive requirement of human life - to adapt to the status quo and thus produce uniformity and perpetuate stability (Vaughan and Hogg, 1977, 135). Furthermore, Moscovici, (1972), believed there to be disagreement and conflict within groups, which consist of three modalities.
1. Conformity - majority influence in which majority coherts the minority to accept overruling viewpoints of the majority.
2. Normalisation - mutual compromise leading to convergence.
3. Innovation - minority create heightened conflict to persuade the majority to accept minority viewpoints.
Hogg and Abrams (1988), describe how from a social identity, groups categorise by their respective norms, which describe and prescribe attributes, characterising one group and differentiating it from other groups. (Hogg & Abrams, 1988). Promoting the view that groups behaviour is synonymous with normative behaviour. Intragroup consensus, agreement and uniformity are brought about by a relative from of social influence responsible conformity to group norms, called referent informational influence (Hogg and Abrams, 1988, p 172). Referent informational influences exist at three stages; firstly, people categorise and define themselves as belonging to a distinct social category and or social identity; secondly, form or learn stereotypical norms of that category; and thirdly, apply these norms to themselves, hence behaviour becomes more normative as the merabership becomes more salient (Cited in Hogg & Abrams, 1988, p 172).
2: Part Two.
Refugees from Amerika: A Gay Manifesto
"By the tens of thousanRAB we fled small towns where to be ourselves
would endanger our jobs and any hope of a decent life; we have fled
from blackmailing cops, from families who disowned or ‘tolerated'
us; we have been drummed out of the armed services, thrown out of
schools, fired from jobs, beaten by punks and policemen"
(Wittman, 1972: 152, Cited in Cherry, 1995, pp 61 - 62).
This identifies individuals that have been ostracised from one group (their country) and smaller groups (i.e., their families, work environments, and social groups) to setup a new group and/or culture within a more tolerant community. Moving to a larger gay populated community such as San Francisco where, is a lot more tolerance towarRAB homosexuality then, this minority group may subjugate more social group power over a majority group such as, innovation previously discussed by Moscovici (1972). Active minorities can be gain influence by acting in ways which attract attention to their views for example, gays have their moment on center stage at their Mardi Gras.
"We cant change America alone, we need coalition with other oppressed
groups at some point. Many of us have ‘mixed' identities, we are gay,
and we are part of another group trying to free itself; women, blacks,
other minority groups" (Wittman, 1972: 168-9, Cited in Cherry, 1995, p 62).
Ella Henry - of Nga Puhi tribe - Northland.
"I was so brown and so clearly identified a part of a racial group
and therefore had to live with the effects of that and the disempowerment
of it. Maori sovereignty is about revalidating who and what we are.
Maori wear the clothes, adopt the customs and speak the language that
is acceptable to Pakeha, yet Pakeha cannot accept that the sacrifice
made by Maori has robbed us of our personal identity and man"
(Cited in Melbourne, 1995, p 17-22).
A very strong statement but, the underlying feature coming out of this statement is that of identity in-group/out-group differentiation. Firstly, Ella stated that "she was identified part of racial group because of her skin colour and accepted that social norm as belonging to that minority group". This statement fits into the framework of Moscovici (1972) first stage of conformity; majority group influence in which majority coherts the minority group to accept overruling viewpoints of the majority. Secondly, Ella stated that "while conforming to Pakeha customs, wearing there clothes and speaking there language, there is no retribution on the part of Pakeha for loss of personal identity". Maybe Ella may also need to consider the ideology of a coalition with other oppressed minority groups at some point, supporting the view of Cherry, (1995).
3: Part Three.
Firstly, Breakwell (1983) describes how society depicts a nuraber of people who possess similar characteristics (physical, psychological or social) then labels them a group (i.e., gay and/or Maori). Secondly, internal and external validity of a groups identity. For example, Breakwell (1983) describes that "the importance of a social group's identity can become important when the content or value of the identity is at issue. Merabers of the group believe the group has an identity based on certain characteristics and that these have specific values" (Cited in Breakwell, 1983, p 22). Group threat is less likely to occur if it is not perceived as personally threatening, the individual neeRAB will predicate the perceived identity of the group (i.e., not longer act on there own accord but are required to behave withing the normative values of that group).
Phinney (1993), states how "personal identity may involve disparate selves in different contexts, so group identity may develop with reference to different groups (Cited in Phinney, 1993, p 49). Greenwald (1988) uses the term collective self as a construct - of an identity relationship in reference to groups, this leaRAB to the adoption of the group's values and goals (Greenwald 1988, Cited in Phinney 1993, p 49). Both theorists identify self-attributes with reference to individualised identities within the group(s) they co-exist in.
"I like to listen to American songs but, that doesn't make me full
American because I eat Mexican food but, that doesn't make you full
Mexican. Its what you feel inside. I feel in between two cultures,
so I'm a Mexican-American" (Cited in Phinney 1993, p 55).
I felt this to be an excellent statement to end with. Firstly, "I like American songs" but I don't belong to this groups because I like American songs. Secondly, "I like Mexican food" but I don't belong to this group because I eat their food and finally, reporting to your self-attributes, "what you feel inside". Internal versus external attributes, in-group versus out-group formations and personal versus social identity forms the foundations of differentiation between ‘mixed' identities and minority groups within minority groups.
REFERENCES
Break well, G. (1983) Formations and Searches. In G. Break well (Ed.) Threatened Identities. (Pp. 3-26). Chichester: Wiley.
Cherry, F. (1995) The Stubborn Particulars of Social Psychology. Chapter 5 Self-investigating consciousness.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
Melbourne, H. (1995). Maori sovereignty: The Maori Perspective. Auckland: Hodder Moa Beckett. Assorted extracts.
Phinney, J. S. (1993). Multiple group identities: Differentiation, conflict and integration. In J. Kroger (Ed.) Discussions on Ego Identity. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vaughan, G., & Hogg, M. (1997). Introduction to Social Psychology. Chapter 6 Social Influence. Prentice Hall.