Social Identity Theory: Consociational Democracy of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory and the consociation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Nejra Hodžić

Course: Political Psychology

Instructor: Enisa MešićJanuary, 2015

Word Count: 3250

Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory and the Consociation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Nejra Hodžić

Contents

I. Introduction.........................................................................................................................3

II. Basic tenets of Social Identity Theory......................................................................4

III. Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina.................................................................................7

IV. Conclusion..........................................................................................................................10

V. References..........................................................................................................................11

2


I. Introduction

At the heart of social psychology lies the study of social identity. In contrast to the

common perception of identity as a deeply held belief of one-self, social identity is based

around one’s membership in a particular group. Many scholars have used this concept as a

focal point of their researches on group relationship and performance. One of the most

prominent, yet older, theories of social identity was coined by H. Tajfel, who was later joined

by J. Turner. Modern developments in social identity theory built on these studies in order to

adapt to ever changing social context. The exploration of this area of social psychology is

particularly important for understanding conflict, prejudice, stereotype, discrimination and

extremism because these phenomena cause social instability and break cohesion. In order to

discover mechanisms to combat negative products of social identification, basic relationships

between concepts need to be established. This is where social identity theory differs from

realistic theory that sees all negative outcomes of group relationship as a matter of

competition for power and influence or as a conflict of interest (Cottam, Dietz-Uhler, Mastors

& Preston, 2010). Social identity theory establishes comparison that leads to perception of

unfair advancement of the out-group as a starting point instead (ibid). Furthermore, it implies

that the very presence of divergent groups inevitably leads to destabilization for there will

always be an element of comparison present. According to Hogg “social identity theory is a

social psychological analysis of the role of self-conception in group membership, group

processes, and intergroup relations. It embraces a number of interrelated concepts and sub-

theories that focus on social-cognitive, motivational, social-interactive and macro social

facets of group life (1988).“ Nevertheless, there is a potential for decreasing hostility between

groups by changing the frameworks of social identity or removing the very causations of

separation. In order to evaluate the postulates of this theory and analyse it’s applicability in

the real world, particular cases need to be closely examined. It is therefore very interesting to

first delve into the theoretical paradigm established by Tajfel and Turner through their studies

and then turn to a case analysis of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The reasons for analysing Bosnia

and Herzegovina are many, but they mostly revolve around the identity-based conflict that

happened in 1990s and the latter institutionalization of these social identities into the political

system. It is exactly this consociation model or the political system separating the political

world into three ethnic dimensions that I claim deepens the cleavage between social identity

groups in B&H and destabilizes the country’s prospects for progressive future. The aim of this

3


paper is to analyze whether the social identity theory is applicable to the current political

setting in the country.

II. Basic tenets of Social Identity Theory

Social identity focuses on “the group in the individual” (Hogg, 1988). The group one

belongs to may be called in-group whereas all the others constitute out-groups. When the

context or social circumstances allow the group to deduce the differentiation towards another

group, or when it becomes evident that there is us against them, discriminatory or conflictual

tendencies may occur (Cottam, Dietz-Uhler, Mastors & Preston, 2010). Tajfel started by

investigating how categorization induces people to focus on similarities in one category and

difference in others (1959). He continued to relate the influence of this categorization on the

prejudice and discrimination (1971). Moreover, Tajfel conducted an experiment to test this

assumption and proved that even when there was no hostility, gain or self-interest existing

between the groups, the group members tended to favour one another over the out-group

members. The exploration of the impact of social comparison (1974) whereby “in intergroup

contexts people make comparisons that maximize differences between self and other (Hogg,

1988)” rounded up his theory. “The minimal group paradigm”, as he called it, became basis

for his further research. Thereupon, Tajfel ultimately defined social identity as “that part of

an individual which derives from his/her knowledge of his/her membership in a social group

(groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership

(1978).”

When entering deeper into the analysis of Social Identity Theory, envisioned by Tajfel

and later Turner (1979), there are several conclusions that need to be addressed in order to

comprehend possible implications. First, the studies proved that the groups tend to cultivate

the perception of positive social identity (1979). Second, positive or favourable comparisons

induce a sense of prestige and subjectivity among the members of an in-group – hence, the

image of positive social identity (ibid). Such comparisons cherish individuals’ self-esteem and

are based upon the relationship towards the out-group. In other words, in order for people to

hold an image of positive social identity they need to believe they are better than other groups

and they achieve this through comparison (ibid). Third, the very membership of the group is

dependent on this “favourable distinction”, meaning the sense of positive social identity. The

need to maintain or achieve this motivates the group to continue existing. In contrary, it

disappears. For example, if the Bosnian Serbs think of themselves as fighting for their

4


national unity and territory when engaging in a repression of other groups, their sense of

positive identity compared the sense of the out-groups will develop because the out-group is

doing something negative – taking away their integrity and sense of belonging. However, if

this sense reverses, if they see themselves as characterised by something bad, they will have

the perception of holding a negative social identity and question the group’s existence.

Collective guilt or apology is a good mechanism for making a circle from positive (whereby

group is doing the right thing) to negative (group realizes mistakes) and again positive

perception of social identity (group attempts redemption)1.

The analysis of intergroup relations and social changes a function of positive

distinctiveness is according to Hogg one of the major tenets of Tajfel & Turner’s social

identity theory (1988). Nevertheless, they build up on this to explain discrimination as a

phenomenon that occurs as a result of unequal comparison. There are three conditions that

need to take place before discrimination is told to be present. At start, the group members

must truly internalize the membership as something that is part of their identity. Then, the

context under which the in-group evaluation of the out-group and creation of their identity

perception takes place ought to be enabling rather than preventing the process. Last, and

perhaps the most important condition is that the out-group must be a relevant counter-part i.e.

point of evaluation.2 Nevertheless, other authors have attempted to summarize the major

variables that influence intergroup discrimination existent in the “minimal group paradigm” as

follows:

“(1) the degree to which subjects identified with the relevant in-group and

(2) the salience of the relevant social categorization in the setting, (3) the

importance and relevance of the comparative dimension to in-group identity,

(4) the degree to which the groups were comparable on that dimension (similar,

close, ambiguously different), including, in particular, (5) the in-group's

relative status and the character of the perceived status differences between the

groups (Rubin & Hewstone, 1998).”

All of these variables come down to a simple conclusion: social categorization under

favourable circumstances leads to intergroup discrimination that is positive for the in-group

(Tajfel and Turner, 1979). This means that the out-group is seen as less good or depending on

1 There has been plenty research on this topic and it would be useless to reference any particular one. Instead, the statement above provides a general conclusion or a parallel with reality that one can reach simply by observing. 2 Facors such as proximity, salience and similarity determine the relevance of the out-group comparison (Tajfel &Turner, 1979).

5


context less successful, less valuable or less important. Discrimination is good for increasing

self-image and people generally want to feel powerful, worthy and rightful. Sometimes, the

outcome of social comparison gets more radical or, it can be said that discrimination evolves

into high levels of hostility perpetuating conflict. Such conflicts occurred worldwide and

continue occurring even today.3 In the aftermath of the Cold War some of the worst atrocities

were committed along the lines of social identity affiliation. The case that will be analyzed in

the next section is one example upon which these theoretical frameworks may be imposed in

order to analyze the effect of institutional limitations in the post-conflict period on the

cleavage between different ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Overall, the essence of

the process through which particular image or emotion is directed towards the out-group

consists of social categorization, social identification and social comparison (McLeod, 2008).

3 The genocide in Darfur (Sudan) is being perpetrated at the moment of writing. The UN Security Council is ineffective in this case because Russia and China do not allow intervetion due to economic interests of supplying weapons.

6


III. Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina

The conflict that occurred upon the dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1990s mainly revolved

around the clash between Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks (Bosnians)4. It ended in 1995

with the signing of Dayton Peace Accords. When the current social situation is analyzed,

there would be little mistake in saying that Dayton merely institutionalized the warring groups

and that, according to most of the parameters, Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a democracy

(Linz and Stepan, 1978). By the end of the war, the territory of the country was divided in

such a way that mostly homogenous entities were present (Bieber, 2006). This territorial

division was a factor in itself allowing for harsh discrimination between the groups. The

bigger mistake was creation of actual political entities that almost exclusively supported the

division. The Republika Srpska was almost homogenously populated by Bosnian Serbs,

whereas the Federation of B&H was divided between Bosniaks and Croats via cantons (ibid).

The paradox was that ethnically heterogeneous cantons and municipalities seemed to have

more problems in functioning than ethnically homogenous parts. Nevertheless, it was an

expected development in the immediate aftermath of the war. The question here remains

whether another conflict or long period of destabilized society is the future of this country due

to its institutional set up. The underlying issue should be connected to the idea put forwards

by Juergen Habermas, that is, whether the cultural, ethnic or any such collective identity

should be politically relevant (1995). Bosnia and Herzegovina is a clear illustration of a

structure based on ethnic identities rather than political sense of well-being. The social

categorization is something that happens as a part of normal life of this country – people are

identified as member of in or out-group based on their names, religion and even appearance.

Ultimately, the socio-political circumstances are such that the country is left out of all the

important mechanisms to prosper (such as joining the EU or NATO) because of

preoccupation with comparison and negative sentiments for the out-groups.

The political system in today’s B&H can be classified as a consociational democracy.

This model of governing originated from societies in which different groups demanded equal

representation in political life and was realized by numerical division of positions in all

political bodies. According to Lijphart “consociational democracy means government by elite

4 It is difficult to categorize the second group, but it was consistent of mainly Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) and smaller amount of Bosnian patriots belonging to different religions.

7


cartel designed to turn a democracy with a fragmented political culture into a stable

democracy (1969).” Furthermore, it is characterized by four institutionalized devices:

1. Power‐sharing government, so‐called grand coalition with representatives from all primary groups;

2. Mutual veto on issues that can infringe on national interests;3. Proportionality in the electoral system and in the civil service; 4. Segmental (ethnic) autonomy (Lijphart, 1977)

B&H endorses all four features to a certain extent5. It has an inherently power-sharing6

government in which all three groups are allowed a veto and are represented proportionally.

Moreover, the country is territorially divided along the lines of dominant populations as

discussed previously. The Presidency is a good illustration of these factors. Namely, it is

comprised of three members – Bosniak and Croat are elected from Federation of Bosnia and

Herzegovina and Serb is elected from Republika Srpska - most of the decisions are made by

consensus whereby one member can block the process and they rotate for the seat of

presiding. The argument behind this model is that it gave the warring parties what they

wanted in turn for a safe amount of sacrifice by all, so that a sustainable coexistence might

take place. On the contrary, 20 years after the war little or no progress has been made.

Nationalistic rhetoric is present in everyday life; the Republika Srpska continues to publicly

accentuate its separatist tensions and the last elections were won by the same parties that

comprised first B&H’s post-war government. The consociational model clearly does not

demonstrate a potential to balance the gap between the groups and it might only serve as a

reinforcement.

When consociation is confronted to the social identity theory, it almost seems like it

enables one of the most important elements for social comparison to take place – the context

under which in-groups categorize themselves and the out-groups. By giving Bosniaks five and

Serbs eight seats in RS government, the circumstances for evaluation and negative perception

of the out-group are firmly present. Similarly, by giving Serbs three seats in FBIH

government and Bosniaks eight, the differentiation between the groups is again stronger.

Bosniaks might precipitate and feel positive social identity since they are the most represented

group in the government of what has historically been their country of origin. At the same

time they might feel the resentment for the underrepresentation in the government of

Republika Srpska. Likewise, the institutionalization of differences forces the people who do 5 Ethnic autonomy is not fully-fledged, but it could be argued that division between RS and FBIH constitutes segments with their own authorities.6 Power-sharing essentially refers to form of decision-making whereby all three ethnic groups (Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats) are given a portion of influence usually based on population share.

8


not ally themselves to Serb, Bosniak or Croat ethnic group to discriminate against them

simply because they don’t have equal rights and opportunities. On the psychological level,

this kind of system generates resentment and unhappiness and on the political level it

produces dysfunctionality and destabilization. Some countries such as Northen Ireland and

Lebanon escalated in conflict because of similar power-sharing mechanisms (Kerr, 2005), so

the question of consociation’s benefit is not only questionable from the grounds of social

identity theory, but from the historical experience as well. Authors such as Brian Barry

indicate that, when policy prescription is involved, this practice can lead to “consociational

remedies that may aggravate rather than rehabilitate (1975).” He further criticizes this form

of establishment for “a disposition to emphasize cooperative, formalistic behaviour by sub-

unit elites at the expense of power relations and manipulative devices which may be more

relevant, for the explanation of stability in the societies considered, than various

consociational or conflict-regulative practices (ibid).” The discrimination toward the out-

groups is what usually leads to lack of will for cooperation and purposeful prevention of the

efforts made by the counter side bringing the country to a status quo.

9


IV. Conclusion

The positive distinctiveness of the in-group built upon the institutional compulsion of a

consociation illustrates the applicability of social identity theory on the case of Bosnia and

Herzegovina in these post-conflict years. In other words, even if the in-group intentions were

harmonious and thoughtful, the forceful division and imposition of the norm that says “you

may not be a member of government unless you’re a member of this group” would sway the

initial attitudes. However, there is an alternative to the consociation model and Horowitz

explains it through a preferential electoral system in which a candidate's election depends on

attracting votes from outside his/her ethnic group (1971). This model is often called

integrative model for it includes the whole of population and devaluates the ethnic in- and

out- group distinction. Unlike consociation, this one gives the ethnic parties incentives to

moderate their position and engage. In addition, Horowitz promotes federalism

based on ethnically heterogeneous political units, which is argued to foster integrative dynami

cs, more moderate attitudes and fluid identities (ibid). The idea of „fluid identities“ could be a

solution to the problem stemming from social discrimination produced by the groups because

the categorization and comparison would be more complicated if a person shares many social

identities. Nevertheless, Caspersen evaluates both of these models in her research implying

that the impact of models on the social stability and harmony among the groups actually

depends on the context (2004). She confirms that integrative model would be impossible for

implementation after the war when the groups were far from reconciliation, but that the

consociation without progress towards integration has the same effect. “Given time and the

international presence, it is possible to gradually change the balance of the mix of

consociational and integrative elements, and by including these two variables in the analysis,

the two approaches can be regarded as compatible. Such combinations may prove more

effective in fostering stability - more effective in building fences low enough for good

neighbourliness to develop (ibid).“ Ultimately, it may be said that the balanced relationship

between different social identity groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina mostly depends on the

reform of its political system.

10


V. References

Bieber, F., 2006. Postwar Bosnia. Palgrave Macmillan: London.

Barry, B. 1975. The Consociational Model and Its Dangers, European Journal of Political Research, 111, 393-411.

Caspersen, N., 2004. Good fences make good neighbours? Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 5 (Sep., 2004), pp. 569-588.

Cottam, L. M., Dietz-Uhler, B., Mastors, E. & Preston, T. 2010. Introduction to Political Psychology. Psychology Press: New York.

Farsides, T. L., n.d., Self Esteem, Social Comparison and Discrimination – A Reappraisal and Development of Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory. London School of Economics and Political Science: London.

Habermas, J. 1995. Multiculturalism and the Liberal State. Stanford Law Review, Vol. 47, No. 5 (May, 1995), pp. 849-853.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. 1988. Social identif'ications. A social psychology of inter-group relations and group processes. London: Routledge.

Horowitz, D., 1971. Three Dimensions of Ethnic Politics. Cambridge University Press. Vol. 23, No. 2 (Jan., 1971), pp. 232-244.

Kerr, M., 2005. Imposing Power-sharing. Fortnight, No. 439, p. 14.

Lijphard, A., 1969. Consociational Democracy. Cambridge University Press. Vol. 21, No. 2 (Jan., 1969), pp. 207-225.

Linz, J. J. & Stepan, A. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.

Mcleod, S., 2008. Social Identity Theory. Available at: http://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html . Accessed: 05 January 2015.

Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. ( 1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 38-48) Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Tajfel, H. (1974). Familiarity and categorization in intergroup behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 159-170.

Tajfel, H. 1982. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge University Press: Edinburgh.

11

http://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html


Rubin, M. & Hewstone, M., 1998. Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis.Personality and Social Psychology Review. Available at: https://www.google.ba/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F8084591_Social_identity_theory%2527s_self-esteem_hypothesis_a_review_and_some_suggestions_for_clarification%2Ffile%2F9fcfd4fd810c2f0acf.pdf&ei=nQmsVMGyHKagyAPCr4DwCQ&usg=AFQjCNFKjAOQTNUk_lYiiUQUDhplYx0Isg&sig2=cnpISAvzbLQumYrKWhy7qw&bvm=bv.82001339,d.bGQ . Accessed: 06 January 2015.

12

https://www.google.ba/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F8084591_Social_identity_theory%2527s_self-esteem_hypothesis_a_review_and_some_suggestions_for_clarification%2Ffile%2F9fcfd4fd810c2f0acf.pdf&ei=nQmsVMGyHKagyAPCr4DwCQ&usg=AFQjCNFKjAOQTNUk_lYiiUQUDhplYx0Isg&sig2=cnpISAvzbLQumYrKWhy7qw&bvm=bv.82001339,d.bGQ



Social Identity Theory: Consociational Democracy of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Documents

Transcript of Social Identity Theory: Consociational Democracy of Bosnia and Herzegovina