Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Social Identity Theory (SIT)
Social Identity Theory (SIT) was originally developed in the late 1970s by Henri Tajfel and his colleague John Turner at Bristol University in England (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In this seminal work, Tajfel and Turner developed a theory that is essentially used to explain intergroup relations, covering both individual and social components in an effort to overcome the problem of the individual-social dualism (Turner & Reynolds, 2010). Furthermore, the theory explains inter-group discrimination in terms of the need for a positive social identity. SIT’s basic processes and principles can be laid out quite easily in terms of three social principles and three individual principles.
(Foster, 2003; Brown & Zagefca, 2006). The central and most important assumption of SIT is that individuals continuously strive for and are motivated by a positive self-concept, or a positive sense of socialidentity (Rubin, et al., 2014). This assumption also ties together the individual and social branches of the theory. Effectively, this assumption means that, because one’s social identity flows from membership to a particular group, people belonging to a group of a lower status will most likely have a negative social identity, and will thus be motivated to enhance their group-based sense of self-concept (Turner & Reynolds, 2010). This ambition can also be seen in findings from some of the previous studies— for example, Steyn (2004) notes Afrikaners’ portrayal of themselves as victims in post- Apartheid South Africa as a deliberate rhetorical strategy. The sense of a positive or negative self-concept is derived from the processes involved in social comparison, during, for example, social interactions (Brown & Zagefca, 2006). The three social components of SIT could be described as social hierarchies, permeability of group boundaries, and legitimacy of group status hierarchies (Foster, 2003; Turner & Reynolds, 2010). Status hierarchies refer to various groups arranged in hierarchies according to status, wealth, power, opportunities, privileges, etc.
Essentially, we obtain our social identities from groups (Foster, 2003; Rubin et al., 2014). Within South Africa, and specifically within the confines of this investigation, this concept will specifically relate to the various racial (and ethnic) groups in the country.
The permeability of group boundaries refers to the degree to which an individual can shift along the boundaries which separate the categories or groups (Foster, 2003). Considering that in South Africa these boundaries are mainly race-related, this permeability becomes problematic; generally, one cannot simply join another race. However, one can change one’s political affiliation by dislocating from the in-group, which could potentially carry some level of personal consolation or perception of penetrating the out-group. It is important to note that permeability also links with feelings of security and social identity (Ruben et al., 2014). When permeability is low, it is likely that individuals or groups will foster a negative social identity and low sense of security (Turner & Reynolds, 2010). All of these considerations have been found to be present within Afrikaner subjectivities. This negative perception, however, only applies to low-status group members, as opposed to high-status members who indeed may foster a social identity that is stable, positive, and “untouchable” (Turner & Reynolds, 2010).
Legitimacy or illegitimacy refers to perceptions of the current hierarchy and whether it is fair, reasonable, and just, or the complete opposite (Foster, 2003). The majority of participants in this study viewed the current system as unjust and illegitimate (Davids, 2012), which may potentially fuel the need among such low-status group members to want to engage in collective action to change the status quo (Brown & Zagefca, 2006).
The three individual components of SIT include categorisation, social-comparison, and self-concept (Foster, 2003; Turner & Reynolds, 2010). In SIT, social categorisation refers to a dynamic and central system of information processing. Large amounts of information are reduced and simplified by means of accentuation:
similarities and differences between groups are accentuated or exaggerated (Ruben et al., 2014). In other words, we tend to view members of our own group as more similar to one another than they actually are and members from the out-group as both more similar to one another and more different from “us.” This process is the same for all everyday objects (animals, plants, etc.). However, SIT proposes that an additional evaluative (positive or negative) and emotional (feelings of like or dislike) component comes into play with the perception of human groups (Turner & Reynolds, 2010). This creates an affective accentuation of similarities and differences, which forms the basis for social stereotyping.
Social comparison refers to the process of comparing ourselves with other individuals. However, SIT develops this notion even further and states that we also make social comparisons along group lines (Turner & Reynolds, 2010). These comparative processes eventually lead to an evaluation of the self, whether positive or negative. In other words, the process of social comparison might lead an individual to experience negative self-esteem, which in turn will motivate the individual to strive for a more positive self-concept by means of restorative actions.
Participant Inclusion Criteria
In chapter one, a brief rationale for focusing on white Afrikaans-speaking South Africans between the ages of 18 to 30 was articulated. The following discussion serves to augment that argument by noting participant characteristics and inclusion procedures.
Because the study was of a qualitative nature, the strict control procedures utilised within quantitative research relating to sample size, characteristics, and selection were not required (Breakwell, Hammond & Fife-Schaw, 1995; Mouton, 1988). This consideration, however, did not imply that participant inclusion and selection was not an issue. As previously discussed, the study focused on the 1DAGs of South Africa, consisting of white Afrikaans-speaking South Africans (who self-identify as Afrikaners) between the ages of 18 to 30, as they may nurture different perceptions, experiences, and beliefs than the previous politically dominant Afrikaner generation. The study purposefully excluded the previous generation of Afrikaners as (a) they had substantial direct experiences of living under Apartheid, in contrast to the 1DAGs who grew up during the transition period following Apartheid, and (b) the majority of previous studies on whiteness in South Africa focused on this group and their perceptions, with very little if any research conducted on the perceptions and experiences of this early adult generation of Afrikaners in post-Apartheid South Africa, the 1DAGs.
In addition, the study did not exclusively focus on the so-called « born free » generation, as it is argued that the experiences of young Afrikaners entering and already having direct experiences in the employment market would be paramount to this investigation, as difficulty in attaining employment has been one of the biggest concerns expressed by Afrikaners since the dawn of democracy in South Africa. Thus, the study allowed for the inclusion of participants who were born a few years prior to the end of Apartheid and who, at the time of the study, constituted the larger part of young employment seekers. Finally, it was argued that participants should be residing in South Africa at the time of the study, as Afrikaners living abroad, in a different social context than the one under investigation, would not be able to provide as rich and relevant accounts of direct everyday lived experiences in South Africa. Consequently, the inclusion criteria for participants in this study were that they had to be white, Afrikaans-speaking South-Africans, between the ages of 18 and 30, currently residing in South Africa and self-identifying as Afrikaners.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1. ORIENTATION
2. SOME NOTES ON TERMINOLOGY
3. PROBLEM STATEMENT
4. AIMS, OBJECTIVES, AND JUSTIFICATION
5. CHAPTER OUTLINE
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
1. INTRODUCTION
2. AFRIKANER PERCEPTIONS OF THREATS, UNCERTAINTY, AND CRISIS:
A BRIEF HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
3. AFRIKANER EXPERIENCES OF THREAT, UNCERTAINTY, AND CRISIS POST-APARTHEID
4. HISTORICAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND POST-APARTHEID SUBJECTIVITY
5. CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1. INTRODUCTION:
2. DEFINITIONS, DEMARCATIONS, AND POINTS OF DEPARTURE
3. ESTABLISHING THE THEORETICAL CO-ORDINATES OF THE STUDY
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY
1. INTRODUCTION
2. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
3. DATA COLLECTION
4. DATA ANALYSIS
5. TRUSTWORTHINESS
6. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
7. REFLEXIVITY
CHAPTER 5: CONTEXTUALISATION
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THE RISE OF THE AFRIKANER
3. APARTHEID
4. POST-APARTHEID TRANSFORMATION
5. CURRENT CONTEXT
CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION
2. DISCURSIVE THEMES
3. DISCURSIVE INSTABILITY AND DISCONTINUITY
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION
1. INTRODUCTION
2. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS
3. CONCLUSION
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
5. RESEARCHER REFLEXIVITY
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
