Linking Social Identity with Community Development Theory - Essay Example

The social construction of identity is a sociological theory that is relevant to community development Introduction Social construction of identity is a multi-faceted phenomenon which entails how an individual conceives and expresses their self-identity. It is the specific characteristics which have meaning for an individual underpinning a conception of self-image, esteem and the extent to which one establishes belonging with an established social group or community (Woodward 2004). Identity is established inherently within the individual in conjunction with relational elements associated with other human beings. Individuals within a society rationalise experiences by creating socio-psychological models associated with their own social reality, determining how social knowledge should be constructed and effectively interpreted. There are many potential, negative responses from individuals that see their social identity as marginalised or unimportant and more positive responses when they feel included and empowered to facilitate community change and improvement. The social construction of identity is related to community development, the process by which members of a society or community collaborate to create solutions to universal problems in order to promote positive change in a society (Mathie and Cunningham 2010; Giddens 2006). In order to achieve this positive change, individuals within the community must find reassurance in their relevant roles within this community, have an understanding of the social norms that drive social cohesion within the community, and maintain a focus on building positive social engagement. Without the sociological construction of social meaning in the community, collaboration and motivation to promote change cannot be established. Hence, it should be recognised that the social construction of identity is highly relevant for effective community development as without a solid comprehension of identity within a social context, achieving positive change will not be feasible. Linking social identity with community development theory One of the most fundamental concepts in community development is the theory proposed by Schlossberg (1989) referred to as marginality versus mattering. This theory describes marginality as being a situation in which a community member maintains a less-prominent social position, is not empowered, or generally maintains an unimportant social or class position within the community (Dahl 2012; Wolfe 1996). Mattering, on the other hand, is achieving a sense of equal belonging within the society and when they perceive they are cared for and have a prominent position, they are more motivated to effectively contribute to achieving positive change and manifest social support for community growth and improvement (Schlossberg). A person will either perceive their own individual, positive social relevance in the community based on experiences with other community members in terms of whether they have experienced sanctioning or inclusion. Gallie (2004) asserts that in some communities, social exclusion can significantly impede growth and change in a community which underpins a much less-collaborative attitude within the individual. In a situation where marginalisation is present and social exclusion, there are a wide range of responses that the marginalised individual will manifest. These include anger and sadness (Williams 2001), as well as hostility toward other community members and a deliberate attempt to withdraw from social engagement (Leary, Twenge and Quinlivan 2006; Twenge, et al. 2007). Hence, in a situation where marginalisation supersedes mattering (belonging), the likelihood of having an inherent, individual desire to collaborate is significantly reduced from a sociological perspective. In order to achieve positive community growth and improvement, it is imperative that there is the foundation of positive social connection. However, empirical research has shown that after experiencing some dimension of social exclusion, it exacerbated fears of further exclusion and underpinned much less motivation to re-establish social ties with others in situations where marginalisation was ultimately diminished in the community (Maner, et al. 2007). Marginalisation versus mattering can construct socio-psychological responses that have direct impact on an individual’s intention to work in partnership with other social actors. Therefore, from a sociological perspective, Schlossberg’s theory of mattering versus marginalisation is highly relevant to the social construction of identity. When an individual perceives empowerment from other human beings in the social environment, it enhances positive prosocial behaviours and motivates a stronger desire to collaborate (Gkorezis and Panagiotis 2008). Community development must occur as a system, involving positive social interactions and collaborative ideologies. There are multi-faceted dimensions of social interaction that must occur to facilitate change and is very dependent on voluntary cooperation in a social environment with minimal use of sanctioning or coercing. In a community environment with marginalisation, one will likely create a sense of identity where fear of social interaction is constructed which not only impacts one’s personal self-esteem, but where hostility toward others is manifest which seriously undermines effective community collaboration to solve problems. With sociological theory stating that the method by which society members rationalise their experiences with the social world underpins construction of identity, building mattering as proposed by Schlossberg (1989) is fundamental for achieving the partnership required to elicit community change and improvement. The notion of marginality versus mattering is also relevant to another community development theory proposed by Pateman (1970) which asserts that democratisation of a community must underpin the ability to collaborate and achieve positive change. Community development does not occur through the singular efforts of the elite in a society, but through active participation in community governance involving all community members. Participation and equality are necessary constructs in a democratic system and such participation underpins the basic conception of community development that is effective in promoting change and problem resolution. To improve a community, democracy is an important means by which to broaden the volume and quality of inputs that facilitate change to the system. Citizens must receive recognition as having legitimacy for decision-making, again underpinning the sociological definition of belonging which is a fundamental and universal need for all human beings (Henslin 2005). If such legitimacy is not promoted at the social level, the likely response of the individual will be to construct a social reality in which motivating participation and collaboration will be considered wasteful or unrealistic. The individual will conceive their social role as being one founded on oppression or exclusion, hence impacting aspects of social cohesion necessary to build positive community change (Evans 1998). Whether such expressions of non-democratic illegitimacy are direct, passive, indirect or explicit, an individual community member will construct their identity in terms of segregation, creating a more antisocial outlook. If an individual is consistently ignored or excluded from making important community-related decisions, their historical experiences will construct less vigilance in providing potential solutions to others and build the foundation of a non-democratic community system that is incapable of promoting change that has common benefits for all community members. Therefore, the relationship between how identity is formed in the face of a non-democratic, excluding community environment show the direct relationship between social identity construction and community development. Collaboration and cohesion at the social level supports the capability to achieve growth and improvement in a community, directed at solving problems that maintain common value and concern for all community members. An individual will construct their own sense of identity and esteem based on how they interact with others in the community and whether they achieve social belonging. If there are even minor aspects of reduced personal empowerment and incapability to provide solutions that will be considered and perhaps manifested by others, social dejection will be perceived and impact many different dimensions of personal social motivation and desire to work in partnership with others. When passively or explicitly ignored or excluded, the negative sociological implications for identity construction are significant. Yet another theory of community development proposes that individual will be more supportive if they feel they were participatory in enacting change and enhancing the maintenance of a community (Burnes 2004). One’s sense of social identity can be directly, negatively impacted if there are diminished perceptions of empowerment which can reduce self-determination and, again, willingness to engage socially with others. If other community members do not actively promote giving others control over their own community environment have more propensity to manifest aggression toward others (Warburton, Williams and Cairns 2006). Diminished personal control over community-based decision-making is founded on routine, interactional histories between community members, establishing a pattern and set of social dynamics that establishes a non-participatory role within the community for the individual being discounted or disregarded. In such an environment, one might construct their social reality as regressive or oppressive. These conceptions are reinforced when social subjugation is recurrent. Denying others opportunities to maintain control over their community environment directly impacts motivation to be participative in the future and forces a type of social regression with a lack of desire to engage with others for fear of facing future subjugation. Under the community development model that views participation and collaboration as vital components to enact change, constructing social reality as being oppressive would have significant implications for why change and community evolution cannot be effectively achieved. Community members must navigate through the different social discourses which underpin the dynamics of social relationships and their identities are affirmed by this dialogue and communication between different social actors. If others in the community manifest apathy toward others, engaging in discourse with shows disdain for the opinion of others, or even expresses stereotypical behaviour against another individual, the likely implication is regressive prosocial behaviour. In opposite accord, discourse which signals acceptance, respect and esteem, one will be more prone to build a sense of social identity which is stimulated and encouraged to work in harmony with others. This concept is well-document in sociological and psychological theory which asserts that the construction of esteem underpins the motivation for an individual to achieve the pinnacle of their fullest capabilities (Weiten and Lloyd 2010). Hence, the social construction of identity is strongly dependent on how an individual engages with others, the quality of these relationships and how one creates meaning associated with these historical social experiences. Social inclusion and the achievement of equality are fundamental aspects which must be developed to facilitate change in a community and put an end to problems that hinder positive community improvement. Social constructivism asserts that there is absolute inter-dependency on others in the social environment to build a sense of identity, suggesting that identity cannot be developed inherently at solely the individual level. This is the heart of community development theory, where social engagement, quality of engagement, and discourse underpin how one views the reality of their role within a societal perspective. With the assertion that community development requires social engagement and harmony to achieve community purpose for change and improvement, this illustrates the direct relationship with social construction of identity and facilitating positive community development. Social identity overlaps directly with community development where dejection or indifference at the social level directly impacts one’s motivation to be a participatory member of promoting effective and positive change in a collaborative social environment vital to achieving community change goals. In a community environment where social dynamics support disrespect or prejudice, hostility manifests itself at the social level (Gilligan 1996). Hence, if one’s sense of social relevancy is consistently undermined by discourse from others in the community that that foster an environment of contempt or disregard, it is highly likely that there will be more incidents of social competition rather than social harmony. Effective community development cannot be achieved in such an environment where there is disdain for others and where identity is built on division rather than partnership. In community environments in which there is considerable social division and inequality, resentment toward others is constructed and has even created more problems with antisocial community members and increasing instances of violence against others (Nadanovsky and Cunha-Cruz 2009). If one develops a reality of social identity where inequality and division are recurrent themes and where they will be discriminated, achieving one’s individual motivation to be participatory and engaging with other social actors is substantially hindered. Individuals who construct reality around these aforementioned conceptions of discrimination and inequality will maintain long-term emotional responses of frustration, disappointment and general annoyance. In an environment where community development is founded on the need for optimism, encouragement and social confidence, maintaining an individual perspective that their social role will remain dubious, this individual will maintain much less desire to act as a team member and share knowledge. Conclusion The research indicates the direct inter-dependency between social interaction and how a community member builds their sense of identity. Common social themes, discourses, norms and social role disparities underpin how one views their position within a society. It would be unrealistic to assume that one’s identity is formed inherently, without dependency on other social actors within the community, especially when sociological and psychological theory consistently asserts that social interactions and experiences directly influence how one views their role in a community. In community development theory, it is consistently reiterated that collaboration and partnership serve as the critical foundation for achieving problem-solving and improvement that has benefit for all community members. Therefore, the specific identity that a community member constructs, which is founded on social actor engagement, will impact motivation to work in cohesive teams and predict the long-term attitude toward others that has implications for positive social interaction and cooperation. A person builds their sense of identity based on social experiences and discourse content between different social actors. This research identified that discriminatory discourse, social exclusion, lack of empowerment and personal control, and social indifference would likely manifest aggression toward others, frustrate a desire to be more socially-engaging, and perhaps even regress one’s social motivations. All of these factors are vital in community development that is heavily reliant on cooperation and social discourse creation to identify problems and propose effective solutions that impact all community members. If an individual sees their social role as being unimportant in a community environment which is not conducive to active participation, there is little likelihood that a community will achieve the effective, recurrent change necessary to build a harmonious and problem-free society. Based on all research, it can be competently concluded that the social construction of identity is directly related to community development theories and the practical expectations for achieving a more enhanced community environment. As it is rather universal that one’s identity is founded directly on the input and feedback of other society members, the linkage between effective community development and how one constructs their self-identity cannot be dismissed. Community development, therefore, should be considered dependent on how one builds identity and how individuals are impacted by historical social experiences that de-motivate or improve enthusiasm for building important social partnerships necessary for positive evolution within a community. Social belonging, as the most fundamental aspect of growth and improvement in self-esteem and the ability to self-actualize, is the foundation of community development from a theoretical perspective, hence justifying the construction of social identity as a relevant factor for achieving positive community improvement and growth. References Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: a re-appraisal, Journal of Management Studies, 41(6). Dahl, J. (2012). The indigenous space and marginalized peoples in the United Nations. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Evans, M. (1998). Behind the rhetoric: the institutional basis of social exclusion and poverty, in A. DeHaan and S. Maxwell, Poverty and social exclusion in North and South, IDS Bulletin, 29(1). Gallie, D. (2004). Resisting marginalization: unemployment experience and social policy in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giddens, A. (2006). Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gilligan, J. (1996). Violence: our deadly epidemic and its causes. UK: GP Putnam. Gkorezis, P. and Panagiotis, E. (2008). Employees’ psychological empowerment via intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, Academy of Health Care Management Journal, 4(1), pp.17-37. Henslin, J. (2005). Sociology: a down to earth approach, 7th edn. A&B Publishing. Leary, M.R., Twenge, J.M. and Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, pp.111-132. Maner, J.K., DeWall, C.N., Baumeister, R. and Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion motivation interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine” problem, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, pp.42-55. Mathie, A. and Cunningham, G. (2010). From clients to citizens: asset-based community development as a strategy for community-driven development, Development in Practice, 13(5), pp.474-485. Nadanovsky, P. and Cunha-Cruz, J. (2009). The relative contribution of income inequality and imprisonment to the variation in homicide rates among developed (OECD), South and Central American countries, Social Science & Medicine, 69(9), pp.1343-1350. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schlossberg, N.K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: key issues in building community, New Directions for Student Services, 48, pp.5-15. Twenge, J.M., Baumeister, R., DeWeall, C.N., Ciarocco, N. and Bartels, J.M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behaviour, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, pp.56-66. Warburton, W., Williams, K. and Cairns, D. (2006). When ostracism leads to aggression: the moderating effects of control deprivation, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, pp.213-220. Weiten, W. and Lloyd, M. (2010). Psychology applied to modern life: adjustment in the 21st Century, 8th edn. Wadsworth Publishers. Williams, K.D. (2007). Ostracism, Annual Review of Psychology, 58, pp.425-452. Wolfe, A (1996). Marginalized in the middle. London: University of Chicago Press. Woodward, K. (2004). Questioning identity: gender, class, ethnicity. London: Routledge. Read More