Theoretical framework
2.1 Theories of Identity Construction
2.1.2 The Social-psychological perspective
Within the social-psychological debate, I have found both the traditional and post- modern positions to be helpful in determining the factors impacting on the identity construction of the groups that I interviewed. Tajfel' s (1978, 1981) Social Identity Theory piqued my interest - his theories have alternately been highly praised or severely criticised - yet despite the ongoing debate, they have offered me some insight into the ways that people behave in a group. Basically, the fact that his theories were grounded in experimental, laboratory conditions, unrelated to the larger dynamics of society, has drawn severe criticism, especially from post-modern social psychologists. He has also equated society with the group, another premise that has been problematic. However, his theorising about the psychological motives behind
people's actions In a group are interesting to me. I have harnessed them in my attempts to understand why Coloureds behaved in certain ways during apartheid, and have also found them useful in analysing the subject positions of some of the Coloured adolescents in my study. I am aware that certain crucial questions relating to emotional, social, cultural and personal reasons why they behaved in these ways have not been answered sufficiently by his theories. However, I do feel that they are relevant enough to be included in this discussion, since they have offered a psychological slant to my study.
Social Identity Theory defines identity as " the individual's knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups, together with some emotional and value significance to him of group membership". (Tajfel, 1982: 31). He identifies the four main processes that are involved in social identity in intergroup contexts as: social categorization, the formation of an awareness of social identity, social comparison and finally, a search for psychological distinctiveness.
For Tajfel, a social context involves relations between certain notable social groups and provides categories through which individuals learn to recognise behavioural and linguistic clues, and consequently slot themselves and others into membership of certain categories. They also learn the value placed on this membership by the in- group (their own members) and out-group (people outside their group). During the process of becoming aware of social identity, individuals make attempts to maximise their positive characteristics in order to be viewed favourably. Inevitably, members of a group will discover that their social identity is viewed negatively by an out-group and, according to Tajfel, they will counter this by developing protective strategies,
such as "passing". McNamara (1997) gives examples of passing which I recognised immediately: changing of accent or name, using physical traits to cross over into the positive out-group . . . all the above are strategies which were used by Coloured people during the era of apartheid in order to cross over the racial boundaries into the white racial group. In cases where passing is not possible, Tajfel refers to another strategy which has been used to re-define a negative evaluation: reinterpreting a defining characteristic, for example, the reinterpretation of the word "queer" (Mc Namara, 1997: 563) or participating in social and protest action to alter the situation.
Coloured people have used the strategy of redefinition and protest by objecting to racial classifications such as "Other Coloured" which eventually fell away. In addition, they redefined the negative and derogatory connotations of being Coloured into what would be regarded as something positive by proudly acknowledging their white ancestry, but choosing to ignore and forget their African origins. Another example is the way in which the Basters (a Coloured community established around Rehoboth, South West Africa) redefined apartheid by creating their own clique of superiority over the indigenous Namas, even going as far as placing signs at the entrance of their restaurants which stipulated entry to Basters only.
Thus, Social Identity Theory has given me an idea of the psychological processes that motivated some Coloured people in the era of apartheid to believe that the white way of being was better. More relevant to this study, is the way in which the subjects of my research viewed themselves as a social group, as Coloured youngsters generally, but more particularly, as members of gangs. Tajfel's theories of redefinition and reinterpretation were particularly useful in analysing the data that was captured during the interviews. However, I believe that the insights gained will be more valuable if
they are expanded by an exploration of the social dynamics of the time, the ways in which power, ideology and South African society collude in the lives of these subjects and influence them to appropriate certain ways of being.
Despite my selective appropriation of Tajfel' s Theory, I must include the criticisms that have generated much debate on the validity of these theories. Post-modernists in the social-psychological paradigm criticise Tajfel's theory on the grounds that it is does not take into account the social context of identity formation, but chooses to equate the concept of society with that of a group. In this way, the group is decontextualised, and the fact that much of Tajfel's work is empirical and based on experimental work done under laboratory conditions, simply exacerbates this problem since his work is alienated from the reality of life, resulting in a "social amnesia"(Campbell, 1992: 51). She also states that Social Identity Theory is based on psychological processes, which underlie group membership, on the cognitive processes of self-categorization and social comparison, and also on the motivational processes of self-enhancement. (1992: 51) but excludes the role of the individual in real-life situations.
Other theorists such as Hansen and Liu (1997) are also in agreement that Tajfel's theory is limiting on the grounds that he does not consider multiple group membership despite his claims that social identity is dynamic in nature. The hypothesis that people choose to belong to one group or another does not recognise that this is context dependent, and that people within a group may be members of more than one group. People belong to different groups depending on aspects such as gender, ethnicity, languages, economic status and personal beliefs. The social identity
theory presupposes that an individual's behaviour can be categorised into specific groups, and groups into detennined categories, and this, according to Hansen and Liu, denies the individual and dynamic nature of social identity. (1997: 572).
However, McNamara (1987) disputes this criticism III his studies on Israeli immigrants to Australia (1987), in which he finds that ethno-linguistic vitality and multiplicity of identities is evident, and fits in with Tajfel' s Social Identity Theory.
He also disputes the claim that the Social Identity Theory neglects the "historical and structural processes ... which set the parameters of social boundaries" as critiqued by Williams (1992:218). According to McNamara, Tajfel (1978) explicitly deals with this point when he states that
The concept of social identity is explicitly formulated to theoretically incorporate individual cognitive processes as well as societal dynamics in its explanations of stereotyping ... the actions and beliefs of different groups, and the stereotypes they hold of themselves and others is rooted in the dynamics of intergroup relations which fonn the basis of history .... they are shaped by broader societal representations, or ideologies.
(As cited in Mc Namara: 1997: 565)
However, critics believe that this individual-society dualism weakens Tajfel's work:
for them every aspect of human experience is social, involving two dimensions of social context: firstly, specific features of the social context that we interact with daily, and secondly, the structuring properties of the society in which we live, mainly power and ideology (Campbell, 1993 :46). For them, ideology is not a unified set of beliefs, but a series of more fragmented discursive social practices that get constructed and reconstructed from one situation to another. Henriques et al (1984) state that since the individual subject is non-unitary and contradictory in nature, as he
moves from one social situation to another, his identity is constantly being structured and restructured, resulting in a highly fragmented and context dependent self (as cited in Campbell, 1993 :48).
In addition, feminists in this paradigm object to the fact that gender is defined in terms of a universal, consistent, and stable group membership. They believe that while the construct of gender is universal, the actual contents of gender identities have a wide- ranging and cross-situational variability. Fraser and Nicholson (1990) argue for the notion of a multifaceted identity when they advise feminists that they
need not abandon the large theoretical tools needed to address large political problems... However, theory should be atuned to cultural specificity of different societies and periods and to that of different groups within societies and periods. It should replace unitary notions of woman and feminine gender with plural and complexly constructed conceptions of social identity, treating gender as one relevant strand amongst others, attending also to class, race, ethnicity, age and sexual orientation.
(In Campbell, 1992:34-35)
Despite the ongomg debate concermng the validity of Tajfel' s theory on social identity, I think that simply because a theory does not meet with all the demands of one's research, one need not ignore it completely. Fraser and Nicholsons (1990) comments above (" ... need not abandon the large theoretical tools needed to address large political problems ... ) reiterate the belief that Tajfel's work is appropriate to some degree. Various aspects of his theory resonate with my ideas regarding data interpretation, and I have consequently appropriated his theory and redefined his original parameters by placing them within my own specific cultural and social contexts.
Thus, the Social Identity Theory has partially assisted my understanding of the ways in which Coloured people constructed a sense of self during the period of apartheid, and also with regard to the ways in which the Coloured adolescents in my research view themselves and others. However, I do believe that the formation of identity is dependant on social, cultural and linguistic aspects, which work in tandem with the concept of power in a social environment. Society is therefore 'something fluid and open, concerning relationships, interactions and everyday activities which continually change and shift" (Wetherell and Maybin, 1996: 228), and cannot be encapsulated by clinical conditions in a laboratory.