Thanks John .. The interplay of ascribed identities and individually chosen identities is hugely significant.... Here are a few paragraphs I wrote in a paper in 2020 on Evangelical identity. at
My theoretical framework draws on Henri Tajfel’s theories of social identities in social
psychology and Fredrik Barth’s (1969) anthropological work on ethnic groups and
boundaries. According to Turner et al. (1979), in-group / out-group relations are
shaped by a threefold process of social categorisation, social identification and social
comparison. Persons sort other individuals into social categories, using labels and
stereotypes available within the culture and then identify the self with a particular
category which is considered as “us” or the in-group. They then make comparisons
with other categories who are regarded as “them” or out-groups. As people spend
more time in social networks with the in-group, they develop an identity, cultures,
rituals and boundaries which give some measure of ontological reality to the social
group. Barth describes the same phenomenon and gives examples of how particular
markers can become salient in defining the boundaries of particular social groupings,
determining who will be included or excluded. There is a tendency among any in-
group towards “othering” people who are different from themselves by highlighting
a boundary marker.
In reality, the picture is complex as identity categories overlap and change over
time. In the UK until about 1970 scholarly and popular discourse had seen “race”
in terms of skin colour; in the 1970s culture and ethnicity became more useful. By
the 1980s as Muslims came to see their belonging to the global ummah as a primary
identity, religion gained a new importance and was recognized by governments as
a useful additional social category for equalities and security policy and in official
statistics. This redefined the conceptual space in which religious identities, including
western Christianity and evangelicalism could be discussed as “faith communities”
and identity groups in a religiously plural society.
Identities can also look different from an outsider’s viewpoint, and can be more or less salient in different contexts. The perspective already discussed above suggests thatidentity work is the process by which an individual manages various elements to con-stitute a unique personal identity and engages in social relationships in accordance with them.
However, at the same time, people face many externally determined
constraints. Wealth or poverty, postcode lotteries, citizenship rules, educational
achievement or lack of it, observable skin colour or physical appearance, health or
disability or membership of a particular family or local community can prevent peo-
ple from achieving all that they would wish. Some elements of identity are therefore
ascribed by others rather than achieved or constructed ourselves. In this more com-
plete account identities are not so much personal as social constructions, based on
a synthesis of structure and agency effects, with feedback loops and the exercise of
reflexivity as proposed in Anthony Giddens’ (1984) theory of structuration.
Social categorisation takes place in several different dimensions leading to a nested
and hierarchical structure of identity groups in contemporary society. This overlap-
ping of identity elements is referred to by social scientists as “intersectionality” and
is increasingly mobilised politically to highlight injustices against minority groups,
for example in the multiple levels of discrimination which will impact the life of a
black, working class, disabled woman.
Nearly forty years ago I wrote about religious identity formation in terms of ethnic
groups and boundaries, alongside religious values, beliefs and customs (Smith, 1983).
In contemporary faith-community politics, visible markers of clothing, such as the
turban, the niqab or the wearing of a crucifix can serve a boundary marking function,
either as an assertion of identity on the part of an individual, or as an ascription
by outside observers. A wide-ranging theoretical account of religious identity issues
can be found in Pnina Werbner’s article (2010). All this leads me to value Tariq
Modood’s (1998, 2019) arguments against essentialism. We should for example avoid
statements such as “all Muslims are X”, and refrain from outsider judgments, such
as “the intrinsic nature of Islam is violent”, without appropriate listening to a range
Thanks John .. The interplay of ascribed identities and individually chosen identities is hugely significant.... Here are a few paragraphs I wrote in a paper in 2020 on Evangelical identity. at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14cJ6XwAiT4TK9DkgVcE7BI6rURBlpx1P/view?usp=sharing
My theoretical framework draws on Henri Tajfel’s theories of social identities in social
psychology and Fredrik Barth’s (1969) anthropological work on ethnic groups and
boundaries. According to Turner et al. (1979), in-group / out-group relations are
shaped by a threefold process of social categorisation, social identification and social
comparison. Persons sort other individuals into social categories, using labels and
stereotypes available within the culture and then identify the self with a particular
category which is considered as “us” or the in-group. They then make comparisons
with other categories who are regarded as “them” or out-groups. As people spend
more time in social networks with the in-group, they develop an identity, cultures,
rituals and boundaries which give some measure of ontological reality to the social
group. Barth describes the same phenomenon and gives examples of how particular
markers can become salient in defining the boundaries of particular social groupings,
determining who will be included or excluded. There is a tendency among any in-
group towards “othering” people who are different from themselves by highlighting
a boundary marker.
In reality, the picture is complex as identity categories overlap and change over
time. In the UK until about 1970 scholarly and popular discourse had seen “race”
in terms of skin colour; in the 1970s culture and ethnicity became more useful. By
the 1980s as Muslims came to see their belonging to the global ummah as a primary
identity, religion gained a new importance and was recognized by governments as
a useful additional social category for equalities and security policy and in official
statistics. This redefined the conceptual space in which religious identities, including
western Christianity and evangelicalism could be discussed as “faith communities”
and identity groups in a religiously plural society.
Identities can also look different from an outsider’s viewpoint, and can be more or less salient in different contexts. The perspective already discussed above suggests thatidentity work is the process by which an individual manages various elements to con-stitute a unique personal identity and engages in social relationships in accordance with them.
However, at the same time, people face many externally determined
constraints. Wealth or poverty, postcode lotteries, citizenship rules, educational
achievement or lack of it, observable skin colour or physical appearance, health or
disability or membership of a particular family or local community can prevent peo-
ple from achieving all that they would wish. Some elements of identity are therefore
ascribed by others rather than achieved or constructed ourselves. In this more com-
plete account identities are not so much personal as social constructions, based on
a synthesis of structure and agency effects, with feedback loops and the exercise of
reflexivity as proposed in Anthony Giddens’ (1984) theory of structuration.
Social categorisation takes place in several different dimensions leading to a nested
and hierarchical structure of identity groups in contemporary society. This overlap-
ping of identity elements is referred to by social scientists as “intersectionality” and
is increasingly mobilised politically to highlight injustices against minority groups,
for example in the multiple levels of discrimination which will impact the life of a
black, working class, disabled woman.
Nearly forty years ago I wrote about religious identity formation in terms of ethnic
groups and boundaries, alongside religious values, beliefs and customs (Smith, 1983).
In contemporary faith-community politics, visible markers of clothing, such as the
turban, the niqab or the wearing of a crucifix can serve a boundary marking function,
either as an assertion of identity on the part of an individual, or as an ascription
by outside observers. A wide-ranging theoretical account of religious identity issues
can be found in Pnina Werbner’s article (2010). All this leads me to value Tariq
Modood’s (1998, 2019) arguments against essentialism. We should for example avoid
statements such as “all Muslims are X”, and refrain from outsider judgments, such
as “the intrinsic nature of Islam is violent”, without appropriate listening to a range
of voices from within the Muslim community.