Week 1
Knowledge clips
Social identity approach
The groups we are part of, form our social identities. Some are ascribed (gender,
citizenships) and some are achieved states or choices (being a student). Some can
coexist and overlap and can even contradict with our individual identity. An important
approach to understand social behavior is the social identity approach. Basis to this
approach is formed by the categorization process that happens, in which people divide
the social world in “us” and “them”. This process serves different important functions:
(1) filling our fundamental need for affiliation with others, (2) making sense of the world,
and (3) enhancing our self-esteem (if one belongs to a higher status group). The social
identity approach exists of 2 extensive theories. First, the social identity theory:
focused on explaining inter-group behavior/animosity. 2 types of behaviours in this
theory are (1) hostility towards outgroups & (2) favoring ingroup members. Secondly,
the self-categorization theory aims to explain when and why people categorize
themselves as part of a certain group and not of others. Whether a specific social
identity becomes salient, depends on an interaction between its relative accessibility
(the ease with which certain social identities are activated given implicit or explicit
social cues or given an individual’s personal tendencies) and fit (the more similar
ingroup members are to each other and the more different outgroup members are to
the ingroup, the more likely that the person will identify with that ingroup). When people
select a certain social identity, often a process of depersonalization takes place:
people start to think and act in ways they think are typical for their ingroup. This can
help explain collective and group-based behaviours like ingroup solidarity
(collaboration, altruism, sharing of resources). It also explains negative/antisocial
behaviours (intergroup animosity, hate speech, rioting, extremism) because people no
longer feel a strong sense of personal responsibility for their actions and they want to
prove themselves for their group.
So, SIT & SCT have a shared foundation: key in shaping social behavior is the
importance of group membership. But the theories differ in their emphasis: SIT focuses
on intergroup behavior whereas SCT focuses on psychological group membership
(Turner & Reynolds, 2001).
Social policy
Social policies address a wide range of social inequalities, such as those related to
race, ethnicity, disabilities, and gender (for example via governmental funding to cover
education expenses, subsidies for housing, and healthcare). Social policy is a
contested concept; it’s defined in many ways. Our lecturers Michelle Bal and Mara
Yerkes define social policy as “a crucial way of how welfare states attempt to identify
and address social inequalities as well as social risks that have societal
consequences”. There is social inequality: when the needs of individuals and groups
differ because burdens and resources are unevenly distributed in society and many
groups are undervalued compared to others. Generally, institutionalized collective
responses to this social inequality are intended to improve living conditions and
wellbeing. This means that social policy is driven by normative ideas about human
, behaviour and how to motivate individuals to act in certain ways. Individual needs and
social and economic problems are constantly evolving. But social policy ≠ welfare state
because welfare provision is broader than just social policy. Social policies, which are a
crucial way for welfare states to identify and attempt to address social inequalities and
social risks, are not solely created/implemented/regulated by the state. Markets,
employers, NGO’s, mental organizations, churches and informal networks all play a
role in welfare provision, although this varies across countries. Although the focus in
much social policy research is on government policies, it is important to note that the
government is more than just the nation state. Governments exist at multiple levels:
national, federal, regional, provincial, municipal or even local. Therefore, social policies
will differ depending on the creators, the financers, the implementors, and the
regulators of the policy. In some cases, the national government is the one to do all
these things. But in others, the government may only create the blueprint for the policy
in the form of legislation, while the rest is carried out by local governments or private
organizations. In fact, in recent years, the state’s role in social policy has gotten much
smaller in most countries: the government increasingly shares its responsibilities with
other institutions like trade unions, employers, local governments, private
organizations and even families. Together these actors provide a wide range of policies
and services, which is constantly evolving in response to social and economic issues.
Social policy has consistently covered topics such as activation, care, education,
families, healthcare, pensions and aging, poverty and social assistance, and
unemployment. But it also covers things like migration policy, environment, and the
combination of work and care. Crucially, who provides social policy and how, matters
for our feelings of solidarity and social justice. The more policies are targeted at specific
groups, the more we might question why some groups are more helped than others,
which can lead to decreased feelings of solidarity or perceived justice.
Solidarity
At its foundation, solidarity is about a shared common identity, but it can also be about
individuals having a mutual attachment in society. The attachment can be (1) practical
(we depend on doctors and nurses when we are sick) or (2) normative (when making a
group assignment, you don’t share a common identity but still expect everyone helps
with the assignment). Within sociology, multiple forms of solidarity can be
distinguished:
- Human solidarity → Historically, kinship and ties in families were important
(providing care between generations, helping each other out). Human solidarity
emphasizes these ties, starting with family, but later with human beings as a
moral imperative.
- Social solidarity → empathizes the integrative aspect of solidarity within a given
society. What holds a society together? This social idea of solidarity goes back to
Kant and Durkheim, who emphasized our dependency and interdependence
on/with others. This underlying dependence and interdependence ensure there
is some sort of cohesion.
- Political solidarity → moving beyond dependence and interdependence,
political solidarity thinks about a group in which individuals connected by shared
interests who are often willing to stand up for these interests. So, this is a more
active form of solidarity.
Knowledge clips
Social identity approach
The groups we are part of, form our social identities. Some are ascribed (gender,
citizenships) and some are achieved states or choices (being a student). Some can
coexist and overlap and can even contradict with our individual identity. An important
approach to understand social behavior is the social identity approach. Basis to this
approach is formed by the categorization process that happens, in which people divide
the social world in “us” and “them”. This process serves different important functions:
(1) filling our fundamental need for affiliation with others, (2) making sense of the world,
and (3) enhancing our self-esteem (if one belongs to a higher status group). The social
identity approach exists of 2 extensive theories. First, the social identity theory:
focused on explaining inter-group behavior/animosity. 2 types of behaviours in this
theory are (1) hostility towards outgroups & (2) favoring ingroup members. Secondly,
the self-categorization theory aims to explain when and why people categorize
themselves as part of a certain group and not of others. Whether a specific social
identity becomes salient, depends on an interaction between its relative accessibility
(the ease with which certain social identities are activated given implicit or explicit
social cues or given an individual’s personal tendencies) and fit (the more similar
ingroup members are to each other and the more different outgroup members are to
the ingroup, the more likely that the person will identify with that ingroup). When people
select a certain social identity, often a process of depersonalization takes place:
people start to think and act in ways they think are typical for their ingroup. This can
help explain collective and group-based behaviours like ingroup solidarity
(collaboration, altruism, sharing of resources). It also explains negative/antisocial
behaviours (intergroup animosity, hate speech, rioting, extremism) because people no
longer feel a strong sense of personal responsibility for their actions and they want to
prove themselves for their group.
So, SIT & SCT have a shared foundation: key in shaping social behavior is the
importance of group membership. But the theories differ in their emphasis: SIT focuses
on intergroup behavior whereas SCT focuses on psychological group membership
(Turner & Reynolds, 2001).
Social policy
Social policies address a wide range of social inequalities, such as those related to
race, ethnicity, disabilities, and gender (for example via governmental funding to cover
education expenses, subsidies for housing, and healthcare). Social policy is a
contested concept; it’s defined in many ways. Our lecturers Michelle Bal and Mara
Yerkes define social policy as “a crucial way of how welfare states attempt to identify
and address social inequalities as well as social risks that have societal
consequences”. There is social inequality: when the needs of individuals and groups
differ because burdens and resources are unevenly distributed in society and many
groups are undervalued compared to others. Generally, institutionalized collective
responses to this social inequality are intended to improve living conditions and
wellbeing. This means that social policy is driven by normative ideas about human
, behaviour and how to motivate individuals to act in certain ways. Individual needs and
social and economic problems are constantly evolving. But social policy ≠ welfare state
because welfare provision is broader than just social policy. Social policies, which are a
crucial way for welfare states to identify and attempt to address social inequalities and
social risks, are not solely created/implemented/regulated by the state. Markets,
employers, NGO’s, mental organizations, churches and informal networks all play a
role in welfare provision, although this varies across countries. Although the focus in
much social policy research is on government policies, it is important to note that the
government is more than just the nation state. Governments exist at multiple levels:
national, federal, regional, provincial, municipal or even local. Therefore, social policies
will differ depending on the creators, the financers, the implementors, and the
regulators of the policy. In some cases, the national government is the one to do all
these things. But in others, the government may only create the blueprint for the policy
in the form of legislation, while the rest is carried out by local governments or private
organizations. In fact, in recent years, the state’s role in social policy has gotten much
smaller in most countries: the government increasingly shares its responsibilities with
other institutions like trade unions, employers, local governments, private
organizations and even families. Together these actors provide a wide range of policies
and services, which is constantly evolving in response to social and economic issues.
Social policy has consistently covered topics such as activation, care, education,
families, healthcare, pensions and aging, poverty and social assistance, and
unemployment. But it also covers things like migration policy, environment, and the
combination of work and care. Crucially, who provides social policy and how, matters
for our feelings of solidarity and social justice. The more policies are targeted at specific
groups, the more we might question why some groups are more helped than others,
which can lead to decreased feelings of solidarity or perceived justice.
Solidarity
At its foundation, solidarity is about a shared common identity, but it can also be about
individuals having a mutual attachment in society. The attachment can be (1) practical
(we depend on doctors and nurses when we are sick) or (2) normative (when making a
group assignment, you don’t share a common identity but still expect everyone helps
with the assignment). Within sociology, multiple forms of solidarity can be
distinguished:
- Human solidarity → Historically, kinship and ties in families were important
(providing care between generations, helping each other out). Human solidarity
emphasizes these ties, starting with family, but later with human beings as a
moral imperative.
- Social solidarity → empathizes the integrative aspect of solidarity within a given
society. What holds a society together? This social idea of solidarity goes back to
Kant and Durkheim, who emphasized our dependency and interdependence
on/with others. This underlying dependence and interdependence ensure there
is some sort of cohesion.
- Political solidarity → moving beyond dependence and interdependence,
political solidarity thinks about a group in which individuals connected by shared
interests who are often willing to stand up for these interests. So, this is a more
active form of solidarity.
