Psych Out Blog: Identity And Social Groups

Identity is a grey area. Are we the company we keep, or are we individuals, separate from everyone else and totally unique? When we try to define ourselves by our sexual orientation, race, class, clubs, age or by interests, how does it all really contribute to the identity we form for ourselves? We usually think of social groups, or cliques, as something that applies more to the middle school and high school scene, but in fact, it’s something that applies to all ages of people everywhere — even college life.  

We naturally find ourselves fitting into groups, or sub cultures. It’s a way to build connections with like-minded people, a way to grow on our own in areas we want to. According to the University of Twente’s interpretation and citation of Henri Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory, “a person has not one, ‘personal self,’ but rather several selves that correspond to widening circles of group membership.” We are the ones who define what we are, regardless of who we associate ourselves with; we have complete control over this. Perhaps not how others perceive us in totality, but nonetheless, we are what we make ourselves out to be.

The problem with stratification, however, lies in how we form ‘in groups’ and ‘out groups.’ These are based on stereotypes such as jocks, nerds or hipsters. Stereotypes can be a negative aspect of identifying a group to be a certain way. By projecting that individuals who emanate qualities of a particular stereotype are the identified stereotype, we would be using a very essentialist approach, which is flawed, because it neglects Tajfel’s idea that there are multiple selves. It also takes people out of context- we suspend them the moment we see them, analyze them and make assumptions based on these encounters. With such a limited view, it’s impossible to really understand social groups we aren’t a part of.

According to Turner and Tajfel, we “categorize, identify, and compare” ourselves to other groups. In doing so, we strive to better understand how we fit in and function in society, but on the reverse, we try to understand the world around us. If we categorize ourselves as women and identify ourselves as such, then we’ll most likely behave in a way that demonstrates our ‘womanhood.’ We’ll conform to social norms, and then we’ll compare ourselves to other women- women who dress differently, those of different races, cultures, classes and of varying levels of gender performativity.

What’s important to remember is that we are not easily broken down into multiple social groups for definition. We are collages of influences, likes, dislikes and interests. In remembering this, it’s necessary to consider that we shouldn’t look at others and assume they are not as diverse and complicated as we are simply because we see them as belonging to a certain social group. It’s relatively easy to make harsh judgments about passing strangers. For example, if I saw a girl passed out drunk, half naked, decked in a flannel shirt and short-shorts in front of a bar, I might say that she’s a party girl, irresponsible and popular. I could be right in some regards, but to trivialize the array of differences she as an individual holds characterizes me as an outsider in some way, thus illuminating the boundary of social groups yet again.

I’m not here saying it’s bad to make judgments however we may make them. This is not a moral question, but an insight into how we think of each other, and how we maybe ought to acknowledge how we can be “psychologically deconstructed,” a term Jacques Derrida created to explain the hermetic qualities of language. No matter how you identify yourself, or who you identify yourself with, you are never fully defined. That’s the beauty of human complexity.