8/3/2019 Brewer 2001

1/12

The Many Faces of Social Identity: Implications for Political PsychologyAuthor(s): Marilynn B. BrewerSource: Political Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Mar., 2001), pp. 115-125Published by: International Society of Political PsychologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791908

Accessed: 18/04/2009 15:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ispp.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

International Society of Political Psychology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to Political Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791908?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ispphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ispphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3791908?origin=JSTOR-pdf

8/3/2019 Brewer 2001

2/12

Political Psychology, Vol.22, No. 1, 2001

The Many Faces of Social Identity: Implications forPolitical PsychologyMarilynn B. BrewerDepartmentof PsychologyOhio State University

Socialidentitys a concept hathas beeninventednd reinventedcrossthe social andbehavioral ciencedisciplineso providea critical inkbetween hepsychology f theindividual ndthestructurend unction fsocialgroups.Thispaperreviews hevariousdefinitions f social identity s it is used in differentheoreticalrameworks,rawingdistinctionsmong erson-baseddentities,elationalrole-based)dentities,roup-basedidentities,ndcollectivedentities. he mplicationsfthesedifferentonceptualizationsfsocial dentityor politicalpsychologyrediscussed,witha callfor integrativeheoryhatdrawsonallfourdefinitionsnteractively.KEYWORDS:social dentity,ollectivedentity,ole dentity,elf.

Theconceptof socialidentityhas been invokedthroughouthe humanscienceswhenever here s need for aconceptual ridgebetween ndividual ndgroup evels ofanalysis.Social dentityprovidesa linkbetween hepsychologyof the ndividual-therepresentationf self-and the structure ndprocessof socialgroupswithinwhich heself is embedded.As a consequence,he social dentity oncepthasbeen inventedandreinventedn a wide varietyof theoretical rameworks nd acrossall the social andbehavioral cience disciplines. f one naivelyentersa bibliographic atabasen thepsychologicalndsocial ciencesand earches n thekeyword socialdentity,"heresultis a dizzyingarrayof citations o books and articles romdozensof different itera-tures-from psychoanalyticheory o the sociologyof social movements. t quicklybecomesclearthat hetermhasno single,sharedmeaning;heproblemwithtrying oextractany common definition s that the term is integrallyembedded n separatetheoretical tructures nd iteratureswith ittleor nocross-citationrmutual nfluence.As aconsequence,ne needssome kindof aroadmaponegotiateamong he differentassociativepaths hat eadto andfromtheconcept n its differentmanifestations.

1150162-895X ? 2001 International ociety of PoliticalPsychologyPublishedby Blackwell Publishers,350 Main Street, Malden,MA 02148, USA, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford,OX4 IJF, UK.

8/3/2019 Brewer 2001

3/12

Some Comparisons and Contrasts and a TaxonomyA few reviewershaveattemptedobringsome order o thisconceptualanarchy

by comparingspecific theories that use the social identityterm and suggestingdimensionsalong which the differentmeaningscan be comparedandcontrasted.Hogg, Terry,and White(1995), forinstance, dentifiedsimilaritiesand differencesbetween social identitytheory,as represented n the works of TajfelandTurnerandcolleagues in the social psychological literature e.g., Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel&Turner, 1979; Turner,Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), and identitytheory,as representedby varioustheorists n the symbolicinteractionistraditionwithinsociology (e.g., McCall & Simmons, 1978;Stryker,1980, 1987;Stryker&Serpe, 1982). According to the reviewers, these theories are similar in theirintention o "address he structure nd functionof the sociallyconstructed elf...as a dynamicconstruct hat mediates the relationshipbetween social structureorsociety and individualsocial behavior" Hogg et al., 1995, p. 262). Nonetheless,theconceptualization f social identitydiffers acrossthese theoreticalperspectivesin fundamentalways that reflect their differentdisciplinaryoriginsand the ques-tionsthey purport o address.Morespecifically,the theoriesdifferin theirrelativeemphasis on cognitive processes versus group processes, on intragroupversusintergroup ifferentiation, ndon the role of socialcontext versus nternal tructureas determinants f identitysalience.Thoits andVirshup(1997) extended the Hogg et al. review by makingmorespecific comparisonsbetween Stryker's(1987) identity theory and McCall andSimmons' (1978) role-identity theory, and comparingeach of these to Tajfel's(1981) social identity theory, Turner's(Turneret al., 1987) self-categorizationtheory,andMarkus' 1977) self-schematheory.Inthiscomparative eview,Thoitsand Virshup drew a distinction between individual or "me" identities (whichincludes role-basedidentities)and collective or "we" identities (which includesgroupand social category dentities).Individual "me")social identitiesare "iden-tifications of the self as a certain kind of person,"whereas collective ("we")identitiesare"identifications f the self withagrouporcategoryasawhole"(Thoits& Virshup,1997, p. 106).On the basisof thisdistinction, he varioustheoriescanbedistinguishedaccording o whether heydefinesocial identities ntermsof socialroles andsocialtypes,orintermsof demographic haracteristics ndorganizationalorgroup memberships.In her comprehensivereview of the social identificationconcept in socialpsychologicaltheoriesandresearch,Deaux(1996) tooka somewhatdifferent ack.Insteadof comparingspecific theories,Deaux consideredhow the social identityconcept varies across differentdisciplinarycontexts. She identified threebroadtheoreticalcontextsin which the term has been defined andelaborated:develop-mental heories npsychology,symbolicinteractionistheories romsociology,andsocial identity theories from the European-based ocial psychology literature.Developmentalheories, uchasclassicpsychoanalyticmodels,describedentification

116 Brewer

8/3/2019 Brewer 2001

4/12

Facesof SocialIdentityas a process (often unconscious)of emulatinga significantotherwho servesas amodel,ultimately ncorporatinghe other nto the self. The focus in thesetheoriesis on the dyad as the unit of identification,as in Freud's(1921/1960) analysis ofgroup psychology, which originatesin identification with the groupleader, al-though he also acknowledgedmutualties among groupmembersas a form ofidentification.In contrast o developmental heoriesthat focus on the acquisitionof identityin the processof socialization at the dyadlevel, sociological theories startwith afocus on the differentiationof the social system into functionalroles and statuspositions and the structured elationshipsamong these. Within this framework,social identitiesrepresent he internalization f therules,expectations,andnormsassociatedwith specific social rolesas aspectsof the individualself. In selectingaparticularrole, the individualplaces himself or herself into a defined positionrelative to othersand to the social systemas a whole.Social identitytheoryin social psychology also startswith differentiationofthe social system,but it focuses on categoricaldistinctionsratherhanfunctionsorroles as the basis of differentiation. n sociologicalrole-identity heory,the social"ingroup"s a set of individuals who interactby enactingdifferent andcomple-mentary oles;withinthegroup, ndividualshavedifferent ocialidentitiesdepend-ing on the role or positionthey occupy. In social identity theory,by contrast, heingroup s a set of peoplewho sharea commoncharacteristic r socialexperience.Social identities in this frameworkrepresenta process of identificationwith, orassimilation o, otherswho sharethecommongroupmembership.My own taxonomyof social identityconceptsis somethingof an amalgama-tion of the distinctions and dimensions of comparisonidentified in previousreviews. I startfromthe assumption hat all conceptualizationsof social identityrefer in some way to the idea that an individual'sself-conceptis derived,to someextent and in some sense, fromthe socialrelationshipsandsocial groupshe or sheparticipatesn.Thispropertys capturedn Tajfel's(1981) early genericdefinitionof social identityas "thatpartof the individual'sself-conceptwhichderives fromhis knowledgeof his membershipof a social group(or groups)togetherwith thevalueandemotionalsignificanceattached o thatmembership"p. 251). Fromthiscommon startingpoint,conceptualizationsdiffersignificantly n what thisderiva-tionprocessrefersto. On thebasisof thiscriticaldistinction, have identified ourimportantvariationson the social identitytheme thatcapturemost of theusagesIknow of in the social science literature.Forpurposesof conceptualclarification,amproposingfourdifferent ermsto distinguish hesedifferentmeaningsof socialidentity.Person-basedsocial identities. This term s intended oreferto definitionsofsocial identitythat are located within the individualself-concept. In this usage,social identitiesareaspectsof the self thathavebeenparticularlynfluencedby thefact of membership n specific social groupsor categoriesandthe sharedsociali-zationexperiencesthatsuchmembership mplies. In ThoitsandVirshup's(1997)

117

8/3/2019 Brewer 2001

5/12

terms, this is the meaning of social identity that is invoked in response to thequestion"Whatkind of personamI?"or "Who amI as anX?"(where"X"refersto a social categorymembership).This is the conceptualizationof social identitythat is most often studieddevelopmentally,as one aspect of the acquisitionof aself-concept throughprocessesof socializationandinteralization. Quintessentialmodelsof social identityof thistypearedevelopmental heoriesof gender dentity(e.g., Skevington & Baker, 1989), ethnic or racial identity (e.g., Cross, 1991;Phinney,1990), andcultural dentity (e.g., Ferdman,1995). Theemphasishereison the content of identity, the acquisitionof psychological traits,expectations,customs,beliefs, andideologies that are associatedwithbelongingto a particularsocialgrouporcategory.Identification efersto thecentralityof aparticularocialgroupmembership o the individual'ssense of self and themeaningthat s derivedfrom thatidentity.Relational social identities. According to Thoits and Virshup (1997), roleidentities are also "me" dentitiesin the sense thatthey are identificationsof theself as a certain kind of person. However, unlike person-based dentities,roleidentities define the self in relation to others (Stryker,1980). For this reason,Brewer and Gardner 1996) have arguedthat role identities areamong a type ofsocial identitythat derives frominterpersonal elationshipswithin a largergroupcontext. This correspondsclosely to the concept of the "interdependentelf' asdefinedby MarkusandKitayama 1991) in theiranalysisof culturaldifferences nself-construals.Relational dentities includeoccupationalrole relationships doc-tor-patient, eacher-student),amilialrelationships parent-child, ibling-sibling),and close personalrelationships friendshipsandsexualpartnerships).This cate-gory also includes group identities when the groups involved are defined by anetwork of interpersonalrelationships among interactingindividuals, such asfamilies,workteams,andsocial clubs.Relational social identities are interdependentn the sense that the traitsandbehaviorsexpressed by one individual are dependenton and responsiveto thebehavior and expectancies of the other partiesin the relationship.Even highlyprescribed ocial roles must be adapted o someextent to thecharacteristics, eeds,andskills of thespecificother(s)occupyingcomplementaryoles.Hence,relationalidentities reflect the influenceon the self-conceptof societal norms andexpecta-tions associatedwithoccupying particular oles or social positions,and the natureof the specific interpersonal elationshipswithinwhich that role is carriedout.Group-based ocial identities. Whereasperson-based ocialidentitiesreflectthe extent to which a groupor categorymemberships representedas an integralpart of an individual's self-concept, group-basedsocial identities refer to theperceptionof self as anintegralor interchangeable artof a largergroupor socialunit.Thus,these two meaningsof social identityareessentiallyinverses of eachother,reversingthe natureof thepart-wholerelation.Group-based ocial identityis best capturedby Turner'sself-categorizationheory,in which social identityisdefined as a "depersonalized"ense of self entailing"a shifttowards heperception

118 Brewer

8/3/2019 Brewer 2001

6/12

Facesof SocialIdentityof self as aninterchangeable xemplarof some social categoryandawayfromtheperceptionof self as auniqueperson" Turner tal., 1987,p.50). This is the essenceof what Thoits andVirshupreferred o as collective or "we" dentities, dentifica-tion of the self with the groupas a whole. Groupidentities are not forged frominterpersonalrelationshipsbetween and among individual group members,butrather rom common ties to a sharedcategory membership.'

Group-basedsocial identity influences the self-concept in two ways. First,when a group identity is engaged, the construal of self extends beyond theindividualpersonto a moreinclusivesocial unit. The boundariesbetween self andothergroupmembersareeclipsedbythegreater alience of the boundariesbetweeningroupandoutgroups.The fortunesandmisfortunesof the groupas a whole areincorporated nto the self and respondedto as personal outcomes (e.g., Hirt,Zillmann,Erickson,&Kennedy,1992). Second,the attributes ndbehaviorsof theindividual self are assimilated to the representationof the group as a whole,enhancingthosefeatures hat makethegroupdistinctivefrom other social catego-ries and atthesametime enhancinguniformityand cohesionwithinthegroup(cf.Turner t al., 1987, chapter5).Collective identities. Although group-basedsocial identities affect the con-tent of self-representationshrough heprocessesof identificationandassimilation,social identity theory is primarilyconcerned with the process by which suchgroup-selfrepresentations reformedrather hanthemeaningattached o specificgroup identities.Thus, it is useful to make a furtherdistinction between socialidentity as identification with a collective and collective identityas the norms,values, andideologies that suchan identificationentails.The term collective identityis associatedwith the sociological literatureonsocial movements (e.g., Klandermans,1997; Melucci, 1989; Taylor& Whittier,1992). Like group-basedsocial identities, the concept of collective identityin-volves sharedrepresentations f thegroupbased on commoninterestsandexperi-ences, but it also refers to an active process of shapingand forgingan image ofwhatthegroupstands orandhow itwishes to be viewedbyothers.Thus,collectiveidentitiesrepresentan achievementof collective efforts,above andbeyondwhatcategorymembershave in commontobeginwith. As such,theconceptof collectiveidentityprovidesa critical inkbetween socialidentity atboth ndividualandgrouplevels) and collective action in the political arena(Gamson, 1992) and is a keyconceptin the studyof "identitypolitics."

A related discussion can be found in Prentice,Miller, and Lightdale's (1994) distinctionbetween"common-bond" nd"common-identity"ocial groups.

119

8/3/2019 Brewer 2001

7/12

An Illustration: What Does Being a Mom Mean?To makethe abovetaxonomicdistinctionsmoreconcrete,I will use one of my

own cherished social identities-motherhood-as an illustrationof the differentmeaningsof the identityconcept.At thepersonal evel, becominga motherhadaprofoundeffect on my definition of the kind of personI am. Just as the demandsandresponsibilitiesof raisingachild had tobe integratedntomy lifestyleanddailyroutines,the fact of being a motherhadto be integratedwith otherconceptionsofmyself as a woman,a professional,and a politicalliberal.The mutualadjustmentsand accommodationsamongthesedifferentaspectsof my life shaped hedevelop-ment of my personalsocial identityas a mother.

Beinga mother s also a social roleIoccupyinrelation omydaughter.Societalnormsandexpectationsassociatedwithfulfillingtheparental ole notonlybecamepartof my own identitybut also defined the kind of social unitI could form withmy daughterand affectedmy relationships o othersas well. (As a mother,I foundthatmanyof the behaviorsappropriateo my young-and-single ocialrolewere nolonger consideredfitting to my new stationin life.) Althoughthe specific rolebehaviorsrequiredby motherhood hangedandadaptedasmydaughter rewfrominfancy to young adulthood,the nature of our relationship(and our respectiveidentitieswithin thatrelationship)s andalwayswill be constrainedand channeledby our sharedunderstandingsf the mother-daughteroles.Women who sharetheexperienceof motherhoodalso constitutea meaningfulsocial category, sometimes with legal and financial regulations distinguishingbetween those of us who have children and those who do not (a categoryoftenfurtherdifferentiatedon the basis of the ages of one's children).Thinkingof usmothersas a social categoryrather han a social role has significanteffects on myorientation toward others who share that identity. When motherhood s a roleidentity,othermothersaretargetsof interpersonalocialcomparisonandIevaluatemy own effectiveness by whetherI am doing better or worse than othersin thesamerole. As a social categorymember,however,my concernis for the relativepositionof mothersngeneral omparedoother ocialgroups,andmyself-evaluationis assimilated o(ratherhancontrastedrom)the fate of myfellow groupmembers.(I also find thatI am muchmore tolerantof otherpeople's childrenwhen I thinkof motherhoodas a sharedgroupidentityrather han an individualrole!)Finally,motherhood likeapplepie) is acollective identity-a sociallysharedimage thatinvokes specific collective values andideals. It is a collective identityfrequentlyexploited for commercialpurposes (especially on Mother'sDay) butalso serves as a basis for mobilization to social action groupssuch as MothersAgainstDrunkDriving.

120 Brewer

8/3/2019 Brewer 2001

8/12

Faces of Social IdentityManaging Multiple Social Identities

In usingmotherhoodas anexamplesocial identityfor illustrativepurposes, twas clear thatIwas choosingoneamong manysocial identitiesI could have drawnuponfrommy own experience.All social identitytheories share the recognitionthat individualscan-and usuallydo-derive their identities frommore thanonesocial group.But the differentconceptualizationsof what social identityis giverise to very differentviews of what it means to have multiple social identities.Theories of person-based ocial identitygenerallyassume that thetraits,attitudes,and values thatan individual nherits rommembershipndifferentprimarygroupsand social categoriesareintegratednto a global self-concept.Consciousnessof aparticulargroup membershipmay affect the relative salience of these differentaspectsof theself-concept,butultimately heyareallpartof a singlerepresentationof the individualself.

Role identities,on the otherhand,areusuallyconceptualizedas structured etsof interrelatedbehaviors, obligations, and orientations toward others that arespecific to thatsocial role and hence differentiated romother role identities thatthe same individualmay hold. Theoriesof role-basedor relational dentities thusview theself asmultifaceted, omposedby a set of discrete dentities.By thisusage,"personspotentiallyhave as many identities as there are organized systems ofrole-relationshipsn which theyparticipate"Stryker,2000, p. 28). However,theself is also viewed as anorganizedsystemthat structures herelationshipsamongdifferent dentitiesand determineswhichidentity s invokedata particularime asa function of the relative salience and centralityof identitieswithin and acrosssocial situations Stryker& Serpe, 1994).Whensocial identity s defined aspartof anindividualself-system,managingmultipleidentities s something ike an internalugglingact. On anongoingbasis,the individual eitherconsciouslyorsubconsciously)weighsandassesses availableaspectsof the self to determinewhichareactivatedorengagedasguidesto behaviorin the current ituation.The individualmaybe awarethatdifferent dentitieshaveconflicting implications orbehavior, n whichcase self-expressionreflects somechoice or compromiseamongdifferentaspectsof the self-concept.Actualizationor enactmentof differentidentities is influencedby the demandsof the situationor social context, but the process is one of selecting from a repertory ofidentities or self-representationshat reside within the individual.A subtle differencebetweenperson-basedorrole identitytheoriesandgroup-based social identity theories is whether alternative dentities are selected andactivated by the individual or elicited by the social context. In group identitytheories,identities reside in the sharedrepresentation f the social categoryas awhole, which may changeas a function of the intergroup nvironment.Thus,the"same" ocial categoryidentitymayactuallyreferto a different ngroup-outgroupdistinction n differentsocial contexts,sometimesbeing defined moreinclusivelyand sometimes more exclusively as a function of intergroup omparisons.In the

121

8/3/2019 Brewer 2001

9/12

most extremeversion of self-categorization heory(e.g., Turner,Oakes, Haslam,& McGarty, 1994), differentcategorical identities are mutually exclusive andcompletely context-dependent.But othergroup identitytheorists(e.g., Abrams,1999) allow for more enduring ingroup identifications,with social categorieswhose definitionandboundaries emainrelativelystableacross ime andsituations.When groupidentities are enduring, t is possible for an individualto havemultiplegroup-basedsocial identitiesat one time. Because groupidentitiesgobeyondtheindividualself andsetthe boundaries or aperson'ssenseof connectionand concern orothers,managingmultiple dentitiesat this level is somethingquitedifferentfrom balancingdifferent identities at the intrapsychic evel. Differentgroupidentitiesimplydifferent oyaltiesandallegiancesto others externalto theindividual self. Because groupidentities are shared,the individual cannoteasilyredefineor adjustone social identityto betterfit withother identitiesthatconnecthim or her to a differentset of persons.

Consideringgroupidentities as loyalties or allegiancesto a collective, thereare at least fourdifferentstrategiesthat an individualcan use to manage multipleidentities.One possibilityis to commit to one dominantgroupidentificationandsubordinate llotheraffiliations o this oneidentity e.g., selectingnational dentityas primaryandsupporting ubgroup nterestsonly to the extent thatthey convergewithnational nterests,as opposedto selectinga subgroup dentityasprimaryandsubscribing o national dentityonly when not in conflictwithone's own subgroupinterests).A second strategy s to segregatedifferentgroupidentities to differentdomainsso thatmultiple dentitiesarenotactivatedatthe same time(e.g., adoptingnationalidentityin the international rena,occupational dentitywhen economicinterestsare at stake,and ethnicidentity n the culturaldomain).When multiple groupidentities that involve overlappingbut not equivalentsets of persons2are salient at the same time and in the same circumstance, wostrategies orcombiningingroup dentitiesareavailable. The inclusivestrategy sadditive: Sharedingroup identity is extended to all members of the respectiveidentitygroups(e.g., the AfricanAmericanwho identifies with all Americansandall blacksas common ingroupmemberships imultaneously).The alternatives aconjunctive strategyin which the ingroupis defined as the intersectionof themultiple categories, includingonly thosewithoverlappinggroupmembershipsncommon(e.g., the AfricanAmericanwho identifiesonly withthose who share hecombinedidentityas AfricanAmericans).Thus,the awarenessof multiple denti-ties can have the effect of eitherincreasingthe inclusivenessof an individual'ssocial identityor narrowing he groupidentification,dependingon which combi-nationruleis used.

2 Membershipsamonga person'smultiplegroup dentitiesareof necessityoverlapping o someextentbecause,atminimum, heycontain at least one person(theindividualhimselforherself)in common.

122 Brewer

8/3/2019 Brewer 2001

10/12

Faces of Social IdentityWhen the demands of differentgroup allegiances are not in conflict, theadditivestrategy s relatively easy, limitedonly by constraintson anindividual'stime and attentionto different constituencies.However, when multiplegroups

makecompetingdemandsorimplydifferentagendas,managingcombined denti-ties becomes moreproblematicand effortful.Whencombinedidentities areeachstrong,the individual s likely to exert efforts towardcompromiseand reconcili-ation-efforts that have the effect of reducingconflict and increasingtolerance.The alternative solution of conjunctiveidentity has the effect of removingtheindividual from conflicting demands by contractingthe boundaries of groupidentificationandenlarging heoutgroup,withthe effect of reducing oleranceandpotentialcooperation.In a large, pluralisticsociety, then,multiple criss-crossingsocial identities can become a source of increasing fractionationor enhancedstability,dependingon how competingidentities aremanaged.

Toward an Interdisciplinary IntegrationThroughout his essay, I have tried to makeit evidentthat social identity-inall of its manifestations-is a key conceptforpoliticalpsychology.As aninterdis-ciplinaryenterprise,politicalpsychology shouldprovidea playingfield in which

concepts from different disciplines and theoretical traditionscan be broughttogether in an integrativeframework.Ratherthan attemptingto extract somecommondefinitionof a conceptlike social identity,the value of differentperspec-tives should be recognizedandacknowledged.Ultimately,all of the meaningsofsocial identitywill be necessaryto developa comprehensive heoryof thepsycho-logicalrelationshipbetweenindividualsandthesocialgroups owhichthey belongor areassigned.Whetherone is tryingto explainindividualsocial behavioror the uniformityof collective behavior,some understandingof the reciprocalrelationsbetweengroupboundariesandcollective identitiesontheone handandindividualself-con-cept on the otherwill be essential.Group dentification s based on awarenessofshared dentities,whichpresupposes hatgroupmembershavethegroupmember-ship as partof theirindividualsocial identities. Some level of identificationwiththe groupas a whole maybe partof theprocessof introjectionandinteralizationof groupnorms,values,andsharedexperiencesat theindividual evel. Neitherthe"we"nor the "me"definitionof social identitycan be consideredprimaryorpriorto the other.Ultimately,it is the dynamicrelationshipbetween these that makesgrouplife andcollective actionpossible.

123

8/3/2019 Brewer 2001

11/12

AUTHOR'S ADDRESSCorrespondence egarding his articleshould be sent to MarilynnB. Brewer,Departmentof Psychology,Ohio StateUniversity,1885 Neil Avenue, Columbus,OH43210. E-mail:brewer.64@osu.edu

REFERENCESAbrams,D. (1999). Social identity, social cognition, and the self: The flexibility and stabilityofself-categorization.In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition(pp. 197-229). Oxford:Blackwell.Brewer, M. B., & Gardner,W. (1996). Who is this "we"? Levels of collective identity and self

representations. ournalof Personalityand Social Psychology,71, 83-93.Cross, W. E. (1991). Shades of black:Diversity in African-American dentity.Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress.Deaux, K. (1996). Social identification.In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski Eds.),Social psychology:Handbookof basicprinciples (pp.777-798). New York:Guilford.Ferdman,B. M. (1995). Culturaldentityanddiversity n organizations. n M. Chemers,S. Oskamp,&M. Costanzo(Eds.),Diversityin organizations:Newperspectives or a changingworkplace(pp.37-61). ThousandOaks,CA: Sage.Freud, S. (1960). Group psychology and analysis of the ego. New York: Bantam. (Originalworkpublished1921)Gamson,W. A. (1992). Talkingpolitics. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Hirt,E.R.,Zillmann,D., Erickson,G.,&Kennedy,C. (1992).Costsandbenefitsof allegiance:Changesin fans' self-ascribedcompetenciesafter teamvictoryversus defeat.Journalof PersonalityandSocial Psychology,63, 724-738.Hogg, M. A., Terry,D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories:A criticalcomparisonofidentitytheorywith social identity theory.Social PsychologyQuarterly,58, 255-269.Klandermans,B. (1997). Thesocial psychology ofprotest. Oxford:Blackwell.Markus,H. (1977). Self-schemataandprocessing nformation bout he self. Journalof PersonalityandSocial Psychology,35, 63-78.Markus, H., & Kitayama,S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implicationsfor cognition, emotion, andmotivation.PsychologicalReview, 98, 224-253.McCall, G., & Simmons,J. (1978). Identitiesand interactions.New York:FreePress.Melucci, A. (1989). Nomads of the present. Social movementsand identityneeds in contemporarysociety. London:HutchinsonRadius.Phinney,J. S. (1990). Ethnic dentity n adolescence andadulthood:Review of research.PsychologicalBulletin,108, 499-514.Prentice,D. A., Miller,D. T., & Lightdale,J. R. (1994). Asymmetries n attachments o groupsand totheir members:Distinguishingbetweencommon-identity ndcommon-bondgroups.PersonalityandSocial PsychologyBulletin,20, 484-493.Skevington,S., & Baker,D. (Eds.) (1989). Thesocial identityof women. London:Sage.Stryker,S. (1980). Symbolicinteractionism:A social structuralversion.Menlo Park,CA: BenjaminCummings.Stryker,S. (1987). Identitytheory:Developmentsandextensions.In K. Yardley& T. Honess (Eds.),Self and identity pp. 89-104). New York:Wiley.

124 Brewer

8/3/2019 Brewer 2001

12/12

Faces of Social IdentityStryker,S. (2000). Identity competition:Key to differential social movement participation? n S.Stryker, T. Owens, & R. White (Eds.), Self, identity, and social movements (pp. 21-40).Minneapolis:Universityof MinnesotaPress.Stryker,S., & Serpe,R. T. (1982). Commitment,dentitysalience,and rolebehavior.In W. Ickes& E.Knowles (Eds.), Personality, roles, and social behavior (pp. 199-218). New York:Springer-Verlag.Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent,overlapping,orcomplementary oncepts?Social Psychology Quarterly,57, 16-35.Tajfel, H. (1981). Humangroups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Tajfel, H., & Turner,J. C. (1979). An integrativetheory of intergroup onflict. In W. Austin & S.Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergrouprelations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA:Brooks/Cole.Taylor,V., & Whittier,N. E. (1992). Collective identityin social movementcommunities:Lesbianfeminist mobilization.In A. Morris& C. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiersof social movement heory(pp. 104-130). New Haven,CT:Yale UniversityPress.Thoits,P. A., & Virshup,L. V. (1997). Me's andwe's: Forms andfunctionsof social identities.In R.Ashmore& L. Jussim(Eds.),Self and identity:Fundamental ssues (vol. 1, pp. 106-133). NewYork: OxfordUniversityPress.Turner,J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes,P. J., Reicher,S. D., & Wetherell,M. S. (1987). Rediscovering hesocial group:A self-categorization heory.Oxford:Blackwell.Turner,J. C., Oakes,P. J., Haslam,S. A., & McGarty,C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognitionandsocial context.Personalityand Social PsychologyBulletin, 20, 454-463.

125