Identity

Introduction

A social constructionist perspective conceives that personal identity is established within the perception of self as derived from thoughtful reflection on communicative interactions between oneself and others from the social groups. A large body of research has accumulated to specify the basic processes involved, which has led to several refinements and extensions of social identity theory over the years.

With a pragmatic approach and drawing from the work of George Herbert Mead, among others, social constructionists assume that expressive communication is coordinated meaning among individuals where each can take the perspective of the other regarding his or her own gestures and symbols. Where this reflexive objectification of the self occurs, personal identity is uniquely socialized, and one chooses how to live within society. Identity is not static and evolves throughout life in dynamic social interaction (Hogg & Abrams, 132). The conceptual framework of personal identity includes social construction of identity via the generalized other, communication, “I” and “Me” of identity, and the evolution of identity throughout a life span, resulting in an accumulated identity with many roles within a social group.

When people interact in groups or think of the way their group relates to other groups, they do not always think of themselves as unrelated individuals (I am John). Instead, they may think of themselves and act as group members (I am an environmentalist). In psychology, a distinction is made between people's personal identities (referring to their individual self) and their social identities (indicating the group self) (Valentine, 34).Membership in Social Groups

Gender, race, and sexuality are universal constructions - all three are discursive and vital forces, globally recognized notable markers of social difference - but they are also elusive, fictional regulations that are constituted relationally through (mostly) routine embodied encounters in specific times and places. These terms we feel we can easily understand, because they are often so closely linked with personal identity and embodiment in social groups (Haslam, 44). As a member of these social groups, several factors define my association to the groups and my role and status in society. However, few factors are still unrecognizable for association in these social groups.

It is this insistence on thinking spatially and contextually about these analytical abstractions that have marked out the approach of social geographers to studies of gender, race, and social class, albeit through differing stabilization of the social and spatial. Every person makes their basic learning and socialization in groups, showing the richness and dynamism of human behavior. There are different social groups that vary in structure and social objective.

Human groups are social categories that people mentally represent as prototypes complex sets of interrelated attributes (behaviors, beliefs, attitudes, customs, dress, and so forth) that capture similarities within groups and differences between groups. Prototypes represent attributes that maximize the group's identity the extent to which a group appears to be a distinct and clearly defined entity (Crisp & Hewstone, 72). Prototypes also maximize meta-contrast of differences between the group and other groups to differences within the group. One way to think of a group prototype is what comes immediately to mind, ...