Week Four or Five? Or 23? I'm confused!!

Hi folks!!

It's official-I'm an idiot. No really, a complete bonehead. I have lost the will to live trying to write this TMA-my mind knows what it wanted to say, but my hands don't seem to be able to type the words properly and I end up with something that Lennie from of Mice and Men would laugh at. I have also developed a fantastic TMA avoidance trick-lying on the sofa doing nothing-you should try it, it really works!!

Anyway, I believe I'd just finished the Tajfel experiment (something about boys and groups and scores right? lol), so next on the list is Social Constructionism. Hmmmm, how do I coherently explain this??

Oh, hang on....

...right I'm back with chocolate spread sarnie and a pack of rainbow drops-'twas a substantial lunch in the '80s and if it's good enough for Adam Ant it's good enough for me!

With social constructionism comes the age-old, virtually unanswerable question of nature vs nurture - How much of what, or more importantly in this case who, we are is predisposed and natural, and how much is created by our social environment?

There's no need to point out which side of the fence social constructionists sit on. Our identities are constructed through our everyday interactions with other people, how we are viewed by society, and importantly the language we use. The language that we use helps to categorise and define the things and people around us-to completely rip off the text book, a good example of this is the use of the terms 'freedom-fighter' or terrorist (a la Mr Mandela).

As people, we actively construct our own identities via the things and people around us. The book used the example of Gergen, the chap whose identity was formed around a pen (fair play to him, personally I'd rather form my identity around something a bit cooler-like a robot or a pogo stick). When the pen became obsolete as a writing tool with the introduction of the wonderful machine now commonly known as a 'computer' he noted a marked crisis in his identity, reluctant to adopt this new media for fear of losing his sense of self (he may be right-can you imaging Shakespeare knocking out sonnets on his commodore 64?), which is a good example of how our identities are formed by things external to ourselves-attachment to a pen is surely not a 'natural' state to find oneself in. Said writting instrument also indicates how his identity was affected by social relations around him, as using a pen was something he copied from his parents.

As time and out social relations change, so too does our identity. As our surroundings are adapted, we adapt ourselves around them-changes in relationships, employment, different experiences and social standing all effect our identity.

Another important factor in the s.c. view of identity is that how we present ourselves affects our identities, the language that we use to describe ourselves, or what we decide is essential to who we are. Mr. 'I love pens' Gergen could have described himself in a manner of ways -'writer' or 'man' or 'fan of guinea pigs' (you never know!)-but he chose pens.

*As an aside I would like to point out that I'm not entirely sure I buy this theory-according to s.c. there is no distinction between personal and social identity, but I find it hard to believe that we don't to some extent have a 'core' self. Maybe I'm being naive but I don't like to think of myself as someone who is constantly changing in all aspects-like JLo, I feel I am still just Candy from the Block lol. And now I shall leave my soap box and get on with it!! *

Onto discourse. In short discourses are ways of constructing meaning via language and thinking in the context of our culture. I think. Please feel free to correct me as this is one of many subjects that baffles me quite frankly! So the way in which people construct their identities vary depending on their culture. I think.

Also, we can adapt our identities depending on who we are with-we may for example act differently around our peers at work than we do around our families at home, meaning that we can use our identities as tools in our everyday interactions. We have multiple identities, which is understandable as we can relate to lots of different 'categories' of identity-race, religion, gender class etc etc. This in turn creates multiple power relations with the people around us.

And that's all i'm going to write about Social Constructionism-partly because thats as far as my understanding stretches, and partly because my two year old has been glued to The Tweenies for the past half an hour and I'm convinced she's going to start growing huge feet and weird hair (actually, the weird hair she already has. She gets that from me).

I'll try to write my next entry on the research methods book later, although X-Factor may get in the way. I know there's a break in the middle of the two programmes but in truth I use that time to drink wine and dance around the living room singing into my hairbrush. I'm a busy girl, I don't have time for this activity otherwise and it's my favourite one. That's right-we all do it when we think no ones watching-and sometimes when we think they are!

Candyflee xx

Ps. My Alvarez book finally arrived and so far it's really though provoking. It's taking me a while to get through it though as I only really understand about 50% of the words. I would definitely recommend it though.

Continued...

...and I'm back. I'm currently attempting to write this whilst chatting to hubby on msn and watching Dawson's Creek so if you see a random word thrown in that makes no sense it's because I've started getting confused between the three. Paul is currently doing his bit for Queen and Country over in the Falkland Islands until mid-december (he's been gone since august). He misses the kids, bless him, but apart from that all is well. Apparently over there it's comparable to Alcatraz, only with fewer home comforts and it's harder to get away from.



So, I'm got my glass of pinot (drinking alone-how very Bridget Jones-esque of me) and I'm ready to completely confuse myself. I'm going to bullet point this to try and get the most relevant points in there (hopefully).



Social Identity Theory.

• Focuses on group rather than individual identity.


• SIT was developed by Tajfel, a jew who had been persecuted by the Nazis (bit of historical context there!).


• Tajfel distinguished between two seperate states of identity, personal and social.


• Social identity is partially made up of 'self-descriptions' that we take on as we think they adhere to the attittudes and behaviours of the social groups to which we belong (self-stereotyping). Belonging to a group is a subjective feeling, rather than how outsiders view us.


• We can only define ourselves in comparison to who we aren't.


• Tajfel designed the study known as 'The classic social categorisation study', which used the experimental method (more on that later).


• The study showed that even when placed in minimal group settings, people were still prone to demonstrating in-group bias.


• Tajfel concluded that people have a basic psychological need to 'belong' to a group to have higher positive image in comparison to other groups-possibly the cause of discriminations between social groups.


• Social groups may seek to improve their social standing via social mobility, social creativity and social competition-therefore promoting 'positive redefinition' of their social group, hence improving the self-esteem of its' members (this also applies to section 6, and how the issue of imbodiment is connected to group-in this case, disabled people-discrimination).


• This also points towards a correlation between power relations (in this instance, of groups) and identity.

The main problem with this theory is that it treats groups as individuals, therefore ignoring people in their own right.

The chapter then goes on to discuss Jane Elliot's Class Divided, but instead of talking about that I will post the youtube link that Paul kindly posted on the yahoo group a while ago, in case anyone missed it! It comes in five parts, the link takes you to part one and you can find the other parts from there:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=l0gUchvopOc

Cheers Paul!

Ok, briefly onto Tajfel's experiment.

Tajfel designed the experient to find the absolute minimum condition with which to produce in-group and out-group bias. He took took groups of boys (ager 14-15) and split them randomly into two groups. The boys were told that they were divided into groups depending on which artist they prefered, Klee or Kandinsky (being a complete philistine, I have no idea who either of these are!). These groups were known as minimal groups.

The boys were then given a task whereby they had to give points to pairs of boys (they were told that these points would be converted to cash). The pairs consisted of either two in-group members, two out-group members, or one of each.

The boys (who worked alone whilst scoring the pairs) tended to show bias towards the members of the in-group when the pairing consisted of a boy from each group by awarding them more points than the out-group boy in the pair. They scored the pairs fairly evenly when they consisted of boys from the same group. If anyone can fill me in on what they were actually scoring, i'd be grateful!

Tajfel concluded that, even though the basis for the groups was completely minimal (ie artist preference), as well as completely random, the boys still showed preference to their own group, showing that even the most arbitrary conditions can lead to discrimination between the groups. There was a follow up study by Billig and Tajfel that repeated this, but also did the same experiment with two groups who knew that they had been assigned to a group completely randomly, but these groups still showed preference for their own group.

I hope that makes sense to someone, because the Tajfel thing makes little sense to me!! I understand the theory and the outcome, but the details of the actual study are still hazy!

OK, I have written quite enough for today, I shall conclude this chapter tommorrow. Wish me luck, I have to go shopping with the kids in tow tommorrow. Last time I took them shopping the eldest had a massive hurricane rita style tantrum because I refused to do the 'tap-dance' in the middle of the co-op, leading me to an extremely difficult decision-stand there red faced and perspiring while i'm trying to deal with my daughter (who closely resembled Linda Blair by this point), or to stop what I'm doing and do the 'tap-dance' in the middle of the co-op, red faced and perspiring. I chose the later, much to both my daughter and the checkout girl's delight.

The joys of motherhood!

Candyflee x

ps Thank you to everyone who has left a comment-it REALLY helps to know we're not alone in all of this!!

Study Week Three...and Four....and Five!

Phew!!

Long time no write-I just don't seem to be able to plonk my (ever expanding) backside down with all my notes to write the entries this past few weeks-the lure of a bottle of pino and X-Factor is too strong (yes, thats right, X-Factor. Shoot me now!!). However, like a prudish erudite I have been working away and am in fact now onto my TMA. Or, I should be onto my TMA-I am currently suffering a severe mental block in terms of ethics and methods and countless other words that I am completely unaware of the meaning of (and who's definitions often turn up more questions than answers!). So tonight I am going to sit down and go over all of my notes and write up my entrys in the hopes of cementing all the info into my brain, hopefully!!

At my last entry i'd gotten upto Erikson's psychosocial theory and Marcia's further development of this theory with the semi-structured interview technique. Following on from that now comes SIT (social identity theory, encompassing Tajfel's experiments with minimal groups and group identity) and social constructionism (which is as clear as mud to me and I have to re-read!!). Following that also is then the research methods book (ARRGGHHHH!!) and the commentary at the end of the chapter, as well as the workbook (which I fully admit to only skipping through and not doing the exercise. To be honest, it's hard to find the time to do the real essay, let alone sitting down trying to develop 'pretend' ones lol). Oh, and also the audio-cue more cheesy music-which I found strangly compelling (I say strangely as usually the audios are used as fail-safe cures for my fleeting insomnia), so much so that I purchased 'A Savage God' by A Alverez (the funny old guy from the audio).

I would love to say that this book was excellent-thought-provoking, heart breaking, shocking-however, I can't say any of these things as the book in question is currently stagnating in Her Majesty's postal system somewhere, *sigh*.

So, I shall be back later with more info, hopefully. Although perhaps not as much as last time-for my last entry I wrote 1300 words, which is three hundren words longer than the essay is supposed to be lol. Clearly my skills of refining the info into relevant chunks needs working on!!

Candy flee x

Study Week Two

Ohhh, study week two out of the way already.

There was very little reading to do this week, only sections 1-3 of chapter one, so that only took me an hour or so. The workbook ditto, as it was all about active reading which a) I already covered extensively in the DD100 reading and note taking supplement book and b) there were no real activities as such to do so it wasn't very time consuming.
Also this week, as part of our student directed study, we had to read the Epoch (exploring psychology history and content) leaflet and have a play around with that on the course website. The most time consuming element of this was finding where Epoch actually once, but once I found it it was ok. To be honest, I didn't really do many of the activities set out in the leaflet as they were just to make sure you could navigate your way around the material which is pretty straight forward to be honest. It's a good resource though and I'm sure it will come i handy, especially around TMA time!!

So, what have I learned this week? Well, chapter one is all about identity and diversity. The chapter focuses on three theories of identity as well as four different methods (two of which are covered in the first three sections, the Twenty Statements Test and semi-structured identity status interview).

The chapter so far has focused on identity as an everyday topic, and how many people view it to have social influences. Embodiment was also touched upon, whereby our physical is part of our identity and how we use our physical appearance as a symbol of our identity (Foucault termed this 'Psychologies of self'). Also covered was the importance of neuropsychology in identity development as memory is important to identity, and the social model of disability which suggests that disability is as much a social restriction as it is a physical one, as disabled people are often restricted, for example, in public places with no disabled facilities.

The Twenty Statements Test (Kuhn and McPartland 1954) was a way of gaining access to peoples thought and mental processes (introspectionism) by asking the question 'Who am I?' which had to be answered in 12 minutes and analysing the data quantitatively by working out percentages of each type of category within the answer (ie physical appearance or social role).

ADVANTAGES

• Large sample could be used
• Quick
• No time for participants to censor their answers.

DISADVANTAGES

• Divided answers into categories provided by the researcher.
• Didn't leave enough time for the participant to really thing about their answer in a detailed way.
• Doesn't take on board the reasoning behind each choice.

The next part of the chapter goes on to talk about the Psychosocial theory of identity, focusing on Erik Erikson and James Marcia. This theory believes that identity is a combination of our own personal identity (our 'core' identity) and the social context which we are surrounded by.

Erikson thought of identity as a sense of who we are are striving to fit in with our community, and stressed the importance of the continuity of our identity over time. Erikson believed that identity of most important when we are involved in an identity crisis, as if we are only really aware of our identity when it becomes an issue. Erikson thought that identity was a lifelong process developed through 'normative crises'. He believe there to be 8 stages of identity development, beginning with age birth-1 year (trust vs mistrust crisis)through to late adulthood (integrity vs despair). However, he believed the most important stage to be stage 5, adolescence (identity achievement vs role diffusion).

There endth the lesson for today lol, my youngest has just woken up so we're off out for a stroll-to be continued!

Right-I'm back! The kids are in bed and I can finish my entry.

Where was I? Oh yes, Erikson...

Stage 5 was the time during a person's life where they have to undergo the most life changes and face the most decisions, and at the end of this period Erikson thought it was important for a person to achieve ego identity, a secure knowledge of who they are. He also termed this stage psychosocial moratorium, a period in their lives during which they can experiment with different choices and life decisions without making any firm commitments, in order to find their own paths in like and to progress into adulthood and achieve their own ego identity. Erikson also highlight the possible difficulties faced by adolescents during this time, and how many experience identity crises as they have problems forming a coherent vision of who they are and have difficulty commiting to roles corresponding with adulthood-the inability to form an ego identity was coined role diffusion. He also thought that this concept of role diffusion is the reason why many young people form strong bonds with social groups and participant in 'clannish' behaviour, being hostile to outsiders and becoming intolerant to anyone different to their social group-the need to identity with a group of people in order to try to find some identity.

Erikson's work influenced James Marcia, a psychotherapist. Marcia devised the semi-structured identity status interview method of exploring Erikson's 5th stage theory. The interview consists of questions which cover a particular theme (ie identity!) but the questions are structured in order to allow more flexibility, by focusing more on the participants words. Also, the researcher can get a richer view of participants as the interview allows researchers to ask follow up questions based on the participants answers. The interview has a conversational feel and is often recorded so that the researcher can listen back in order to analyse the interview, which can be assessed either quantitatively by researchers coding the answers into various categories, or qualitatively.

ADVANTAGES

• More, richer data can be gathered.
• More scope for analysis.

DISADVANTAGES

• Time consuming.
• Only a small sample can be gathered at a time.

The questions asked in the interview relate to the various crises faced by 18-25 year old college students in relation to, for example, religious, occupational and political preferences. Marcia's main focus was the amount of exploration of life choices by the participants as well as their commitment to those life choices. Marcia categorised four identity statuses:

1. Identity diffusion-consisting of low exploration and low commitment, where participants answers indicated that they had no real interest in exploring choices of committing to anything. These participants were often unhappy and easily lead (much like the adolescents in Erikson's role diffusion theory and the 'clannish' behaviour).
2. Identity Foreclosure-participants with low levels of exploration and high levels of commitment. Participants in this category often have a single set of values which originate from their parents.
3. Moratorium-High expectation, low commitment. Keen to explor all options but find it difficult to commitment, and are often insecure. According to Marcia, an essential stage to go through before the next stage....
4. Identity achievement-Thats right, you've guessed it... both high exploration and acheivement. People who have gone through moratorium and have then commited to an identity. These people are thoughtful, good in relationships and cope well under stress.

Phew, so there we go, this weeks material in a nutshell. I thought I had understood everything this week as I was going through the book, but when it came to writting this summary and going back over the material I realised i'd got the majority of it mixed up lol! However, having now gone over it I know that a) I've got this week's material covered and b) I need to read more actively!

Hopefully by the weekend I will have finished the reading for next week which means I'll have to make a start on the assignment, which I've read through and seems fairly simple but I always get mega writting block when it comes to assignments so we shall have to see how we get on!

Until next time!

Candyflee