Fire Fighters, Neighbourhoods and Social Identity: the relationship between the fire service and residents in Bristol

Identity

Social identity approaches include social identity theory (SIT) and Self Categorisation Theory (SCT), and seek to explain how individuals behave in group situations, and how groups themselves behave. It evolved in Europe in the latter half of the twentieth century as an attempt to address the wider social context of group behaviour without recourse to individual aggression or pathology (Hogg, Abrams et al. 2004). Social identity approaches are based on the assumptions that individuals are members of certain social groups, and that those groups have meaning to them, as well as contributing to the image that they have of themselves. Tajfel (1978) defines social identity as:

As such, social identity occurs along an individual-intergroup continuum, although this was not addressed until the later development of SCT, which is described in greater detail below.

Early theorists such as Henri Tajfel (Tajfel 1978, Tajfel, Turner 1986) set up experiments (the ‘minimal group paradigm’) where participants were randomly assigned to groups, and examined the way in which they then behaved as group members. In contrast with earlier work, which had suggested that people formed groups with people they felt an affinity towards, and therefore were in natural antagonism with people in other groups, Tajfel and his colleagues concluded that being in a group was a necessary and sufficient condition for favouritism towards the ingroup (one’s own group), and against the outgroup (other groups). Indeed, they were surprised to see that it was not just enough to do better than the alternative group, but to maximise the difference between groups – even at the expense of group gain. From these experiments, Tajfel deduced that there was a part of identity that was distinct from personal identity (those facets that make us unique), and that this was social identity – that part of self that functions in group situations. Further, social identity also linked into self concept, with aspects of group membership contributing to ways in which the self is defined. Being a member of a group thus provides the impetus for comparison with other groups, and which gives the individual a ‘system of orientation’ for self reflection (Tajfel, Turner 2003 (1979)). These aspects comprise a ‘conceptual tripod’ (Tajfel 1979) underpinning social identity theory in which it examined collective psychology whilst looking at status differences between groups in society and the propensity for people to consider identity issues in group or individual terms.

Social identity theories do not just attempt to explain, however, how groups behave in relation to one another, but also to examine the relationship between groups and the societies which they comprise (Reicher 2004). As such, social identity approaches link groups of individuals back to the social world, and to the socio-economic and cultural factors that impinge on it, as groups cannot be understood without reference to one another and links to the politics and ideologies that constitute those group identities and their internal traditions. As such, identities are dynamic and contextual, whilst an individual can also demonstrate different identities, depending on the context of the occasion and the intergroup encounter. The context of group behaviour has particular relevance to this research project, where fire fighters take on group identity whilst at work, and residents do so in their home neighbourhoods, and the use of social identity approaches allows the examination of conflict and hostility between groups without apportioning blame to either party – although, as will be demonstrated, this is not to suggest that conflict is either inevitable or intractable. Further, social identity approaches have been used in a number of studies that have relevance to this research project, including in small groups (Hogg, Abrams et al. 2004), organisations (Haslam 2000) and a number of studies on crowds and crowd behaviour (Reicher 2001, Stott, Hutchison et al. 2001, Drury, Stott 2001), which will be addressed below.

Self Categorisation Theory

Social identity theory only goes part of the way to explaining what happens in groups: it can account for processes undertaken once group membership is assumed. What it does less well is account for how group membership occurs in the first instance, and how the individual is affected by group membership, points which are undertaken by self categorisation theory (Turner, Oakes 1989). Although SCT developed later than SIT – and, to an extent, in response to its perceived shortcomings (Abrams, Hogg 1999) – it deals with those parts of the cognitive processes which occur prior to group membership, namely the categorisation of the self into groups. Turner (1989) suggests that the process through which self categorisation occurs is depersonalisation, the cognitive process through which consensual behaviour within a group and expectations of consensual behaviour in the outgroup is generated. As such, the level of inclusion at which and the degree to which the individual categorises the self and others as similar or different varies depending upon the social context in which it occurs. Further, the salience of social identities shared between individuals leads to the depersonalisation of self perception, and it is this depersonalisation that produces group, or social, behaviour (page 245). In this research project, and demonstrated by geographers such as Massey (1995), who is discussed below, place is determined to be a social construct, and can, therefore, contribute context to encounters between fire fighters and residents. As such, the identity of particular neighbourhoods impacts on the social identity of residents, thereby determining, or at least contributing to, their response to intergroup encounters with, for example, the FRS.

Haslam (2000) states that social identities can occur at greater and lesser ‘levels of abstraction’, which are more or less exclusive, and which become salient in different contextual conditions. As affiliation is felt at one level of abstraction, the salience of the categorisation at other levels becomes less relevant. Further, affiliation with a particular group, at whatever level of abstraction, will lead to comparison and feeling of similarity with the ingroup, and differentiation from the outgroup. This sense of ingroup distinctiveness/outgroup differentiation is crucial to the formation of social identity. As such, self categorisation is the ‘trigger’ that turns on social identity, and allows for people to behave in an intergroup context (Turner 1982).

Stereotyping

In addition to ingroup favouritism, there is a linked process of outgroup differentiation, or stereotyping. In this process, individual group members cease to be seen as individuals, but become seen as polarized prototypes (Hogg, Abrams et al. 2004) of members of that group, whereby ingroup members are seen as more similar, and outgroup members more different, whatever the subjective situation. Stereotyping is a form of shared social behaviour and as such analysis of stereotypes must not look only at individual psychology, but also at groups and intergroup relations. This process of depersonalising and stereotyping is an essentially social activity, taking place as it does within the confines of the social group and its norms, which are routinised within social groups, and occurs both individually and within and between groups as group members identify their category identities in relation to the context of the situation, and under the expectation that other group members will behave similarly. Turner (1989) describes this in relation to Athenians and Spartans being mortal enemies, who unite in antipathy to the Persian invader, but in this research project, it might be more relevant to refer to the genial rivalry between one watch and another, which then become united against changes imposed by ‘Management’ (Brunsden, Hill 2009b).

Stereotyping is of particular interest to this research project, and social identity approaches have made a number of contributions in this area. Prior to the developments made by social identity approaches, stereotyping tended to be considered as a distortion of individual psychology, whereas social identity approaches viewed it not as a distortion, but as culturally rooted, potentially not only a reliable indicator of in and outgroup behaviour, but also highly contextually contingent (Brown 2000b). As such, stereotyping can be seen as ‘expressions of cognition, of people’s attempts to make sense of the world, to create meaningful but collectively shaped representations of group realities’ (Turner, 2004, page 271). Social identity theorists addressed stereotyping as an internal categorisation process, through which members of the ingroup see members of the outgroup as having commonalities to one another that are different to ingroup members’ commonalities. As such members of one group are more like members of their group than members of other groups, although of course this is contextually dependent. As such, it is a collective misnomer within social identity approaches that this ‘homogeneity effect’ (Turner, Reynolds 2004) is multiplied in perceptions of outgroup homogeneity. Rather, different studies have shown different effects, depending on strength of identification with the ingroup and differences in status between groups, amongst others. Further, stereotyping does not equate, nor does it necessarily lead, to ingroup bias. Rather bias is just one of a number of different social strategies which might also include individual mobility or social creativity (page 264). The outcomes of these inevitable social processes therefore have great relevance to the study of the relationship between two distinct groups: the fire service and residents.

Social conflict

There is also a development through comparison, via bias to social conflict, although this does not occur in all instances and all the time. Indeed, ‘some people will display hostile intergroup behaviour under a great variety of conditions… and in some conditions most people will display hostile intergroup behaviour’ (Tajfel, 1978, page 70-1). Tajfel and Turner (1979) suggest three preconditions essential for comparison: firstly, it is necessary that the ingroup identity has been sufficiently internalised for comparison to occur; secondly, the social context must be conducive to comparison; and, thirdly, there must be an outgroup available for comparison who meet conditions of sufficient similarity, proximity and situational salience (Tajfel, Turner 2003 (1979)) page 60. Further, intergroup comparison does not inevitably lead to intergroup bias (Turner, Reynolds 2004) as often presupposed, rather, in social identity terms, a positive social identity requires ingroup distinctiveness, which does not directly equate to bias (although of course, bias can arise from the operationalisation of distinguishing behaviours). Indeed, bias is only one of a number of strategies for dealing with intergroup situations, which depend on the relative status position (page 265) of the respective groups, and the perceived permeability and legitimacy of group boundaries. Even the process of self categorisation serves to highlight social comparison and group distinctiveness, as the depersonalising process reinforces the perceived homogeneity of each group separately and distinctively from one another. It is an irony of the group process that groups whose norms promote individuality may be less cohesive than those who promote uniformity (Haslam 2000, Fincham 2007), and there are clearly implications in this for the way in which organisational identity develops in the uniformed services, and how they are positioned relative to the community, issues which are discussed both in the following chapter and in Chapters Five and Seven, on the findings from my studies with the fire service.

Following categorisation in terms of group membership, and then self definition with regard to that social category, ‘individuals seek to achieve positive self esteem by positively differentiating their ingroup from a comparison outgroup on some valued dimension’ (Haslam 2000) page 21. Such depersonalisation leads to the perception of ‘oneself more as the identical representative of a social category and less as a unique personality defined by one’s personal differences from other ingroup members’ (Turner, Reynolds 2004) page 245. As a corollary to this, outgroup members are also depersonalised. Further, there is a normative dimension to this process, for if one group’s identity is formed around their social norms, and the outgroup’s identity is seen as distinct from this, it is not inconceivable that the outgroup’s social norms are seen as not only distinct, but also deviant, paving the way for social conflict to occur, as examined in Chapter Seven of this thesis.

However, social conflict is not just the outcome of psychological processes (Hogg, Abrams et al. 2004), but also of the interplay of socio-economic and historical factors, including the possibility of a realist competition over finite resources. As such:

social antagonism can be a (psychologically) rational reaction to people’s collective understanding of themselves in interaction with their theories of the social world and social structural realities’ (Hogg, Abrams et al. 2004) page 273.

Further, that social conflict occurs in space as well as time since ‘one cannot physically separate the group from its environment’ (Paulus, Nagar 1989) page 136, - adding additional layers of complexity to the context surrounding social identity processes. These ideas are explored further by Dixon (2001), who takes up four different conceptualisations of space, arguing that in some instances, space is used as a ‘backdrop’ to interaction (Dixon 2001) , which will be discussed in greater detail below, and which link identity and place in this study of how groups behave in contact with one another.

So, social identity approaches show us that intergroup comparison is inevitable where proximate groups are in appropriate social settings, and that conflict is a ready result of these situations where people strive to achieve maximal group distinctiveness in a positive dimension. This helps us to see conflict as a natural, if not inevitable, adjunct to intergroup relations and a potential outcome to any intergroup encounter, including those between residents and the FRS. This is particularly examined below in relation to conflict emerging in crowd situations.

Download 0.87 Mb.

Share with your friends: