Group identity: the need to feel part of something
Probably, the most important advantage of humanity as a species is your willingness to work in society, in a group . However, the weapon appears to be double-edged, since, at times, it seems that such social behavior may be the one that leads the species to its inevitable end.
And it is that, there is an unexpected secondary effect with which natural selection did not count when deciding how beneficial the social behavior: the appearance of the groups. However, this way of life does not regulate itself. In practice, when socializing, we often do it from a feeling of group identity that leads us to consider the other person our equal or, on the contrary, someone with whom we do not identify.
- Related article: "Stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination: why should we avoid prejudging?"
The gregariousness in the human being: a survival resource
Yes, the human species has managed to rise as the dominant species of its planet (and if this is a merit to be proud of or not, it would give us for another article), although social conflicts, discrimination, inequality and hatred They are a price that seems very high.
But, why is all this happening? There are plenty of reasons that lead us to be part of groups . Sometimes they are common interests, for which we end up being part of the group of cyclists, geeks or vegetarians. Other times, they are ideological issues, so we can belong to the group of anarchists, feminists or atheists, and other times they are "mere" physical or biological differences, so that, objectively, we can be men, women, blacks, whites ...
This does not seem so far-fetched, after all, everyone is as it is and the differences, in any case, should be cause for celebration and not hate ... but, why is not it?
All right, all part of a phenomenon that Tajfel coined as a social identity , which is related to self-concept, that is, the way in which we see ourselves.
- Maybe you're interested: "Self-concept: what is it and how is it formed?"
Tajfel and his research on collective identity
Social identity is the set of aspects of individual identity that are related to social categories that we believe belong . In this way, when we consider, say, Spaniards, all the conducts and norms that, according to we understand, are typical of the Spaniards, they become ours. In this process, it is already an error of logic, which is to consider that all members belonging to a group share the same behavioral or psychological characteristics.
These are the famous stereotypes, which are nothing but heuristics, or mental shortcuts, which fulfill the function of simplifying our environment and saving psychological resources that could be oriented to other tasks, but which, as we say, are unfounded. With them, prejudices come hand in hand, that is, the deploy attitudes towards a particular person depending on the social group to which it may belong .
Anyway, as far as we have told, it does not seem that there is a bigger problem either. If we stayed there, we would simply live in a tremendously ignorant world that wastes an immense potential regarding the benefits that interculturality can bring. So yes, why, in addition to developing a social identity, do we compete with other social identities?
Tajfel demonstrated, with some experiments that he called the "minimum group paradigm", how the most trivial and superficial difference can lead to competition . By classifying the participants into two groups as to whether they liked one or the other picture better, each of them was invited to distribute resources (money) between their group and the other.
The results showed that participants preferred to earn less money as long as the difference between money received with the other group was maximum ... In other words, if I chose the Klee table, and I can choose that both my group and Kandinsky's Let's win 20 euros, I'll prefer to win 18 if they win 10 ... as long as the decision is anonymous.
- Maybe you're interested: "The 8 most common types of racism"
Emotions and group identity
If something as frivolous as choosing a painting or the color of a shirt already leads me to harm other groups, what will I not do when deeper elements such as ideologies or families are involved?
The mechanisms that relate to all this are closely related to self-esteem . If I consider that the qualities of my group are applicable to me, if my group is valuable, it will be that I am valuable ... and as always, value is something relative, and it is only possible to award by comparison.
Therefore, current social conflicts are based on the quest to feel valuable (self-esteem) through my group (social identity) as a result of making less valuable other people (prejudices) belong to another group. Following the discourse that we have taken here, the logical conclusion is that this is a war that can not be won, because it is based on the perceptions of each side, and maybe the solution is in getting self-esteem through our behaviors and not our color, sexual organs or the very arbitrary geographical feature of our birth.
