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!!