Group identity: the need to feel part of something.

Humans tend to live together, but at the same time we differentiate between "us" and "them".

Probably the most important advantage of humankind as a species is its willingness to work in society, in groups. its willingness to work in society, in groups. However, the weapon appears to be double-edged, since, at times, it seems that such social behavior may be the one that leads the species itself to its inevitable end.

And there is an unexpected side effect that natural selection did not count on when deciding how beneficial social behavior is: the appearance of groups. However, this way of life does not regulate itself. In practice, when we relate socially, we often do so from a sense of group identity. from a feeling of group identity which leads us to consider the other person our equal or, on the contrary, someone with whom we do not identify.

Gregariousness in human beings: a survival resource.

Yes, the human species has managed to rise as the dominant species of its planet (and if this is a merit to be proud of or not, it would give us for another article), although social conflicts, discrimination, inequality and hatred are a price that seems very high.

But why does all this happen? There are a myriad of reasons that lead us to form part of groups.. Sometimes it is common interests, so that we end up being part of the group of cyclists, geeks or vegetarians. Other times, they are ideological issues, so we can belong to the group of anarchists, feminists or atheists, and other times they are "mere" physical or Biological differences, so that, objectively, we can be men, women, blacks, whites...

This does not seem so far-fetched, after all, everyone is as they are and differences, in any case, should be a reason to celebrate and not to hate... but, why is this not so?

Well, it's all part of a phenomenon that it all stems from a phenomenon that Tajfel coined as social identity.which is related to self-concept, that is, the way we see ourselves.

Tajfel and his research on collective identity.

Social identity is the set of aspects of individual identity that are related to social categories to which we related to social categories to which we believe we belong.. In this way, when we consider ourselves, let us say, Spaniards, all the behaviors and norms that, as we understand, are proper to Spaniards, become ours. In this process there is already an error of logic, which is to consider that all members belonging to a group share the same behavioral or psychological characteristics.

These are the famous stereotypes, which are nothing more than heuristics, or mental shortcuts, which serve to simplify our environment and save psychological resources that could be oriented to other tasks, but which, as we say, are unfounded. With them come prejudices, that is to say, the displaying attitudes towards a certain person according to the social group to which he or she may belong..

In any case, as far as we have counted, there does not seem to be much of a problem either. If we were to stop there, we would simply be living in a tremendously ignorant world that wastes immense potential with respect to the benefits that interculturality can bring. So yes, why, in addition to developing a social identity, do we compete with other social identities?

Tajfel demonstrated, with experiments he called the "minimal group paradigm," how the most trivial and superficial difference can lead to competition with other social identities. the most trivial and superficial difference can lead to competition.. By classifying participants into two groups as to whether they liked one picture or the other more, each was invited to distribute resources (money) between their group and the other.

The results showed that the participants preferred to earn less money as long as the difference between the money received and the other group was maximum... In other words, if I have chosen Klee's painting, and I can choose that both my group and Kandinsky's group earn 20 euros, I will prefer to earn 18 if they earn 10... as long as the decision is anonymous.

Emotions and group identity

If something as frivolous as choosing a picture or the color of a T-shirt already leads me to harm other groups, what will I not do when deeper elements such as ideologies or families are involved?

The mechanisms that are related to all this are closely related to self-esteem.. If I consider that the qualities of my group are applicable to me, if my group is valuable, then I am valuable...and as always, value is something relative, and it is only possible to adjudicate by comparison.

Therefore, current social conflicts are based on the search to feel valuable (self-esteem) through my group (social identity) as a result of making less valuable other people who (prejudice) belong to a different group.

Following the discourse we have taken here, the logical conclusion is that this is a war that cannot be won, because it is based on the perceptions of each of the sides, and perhaps the solution lies in gaining self-esteem through our behaviors and not our color, sexual organs or the and not our color, sexual organs or the very arbitrary geographical accident of our birth.

It is true that it is unrealistic to pretend to totally control the psychological dynamics behind the sense of identity and self-concept in general. Similarly, it is not possible to develop a self-identity separate from society; for better and for worse, we see ourselves reflected in others, either to try to imitate behaviors or to distance ourselves from them.

However, to a certain extent, it is possible to question the logics and ways of reasoning that lead us to one type of group identity or another. It is always good that, when we focus our attention on certain groups and collectives, we do it with those with a positive inspirational potential; and in the same way, it is also necessary to make sure that the fact of not feeling identified with others does not turn into a gratuitous hatred that generates discomfort in us or in others.

Bibliographical references:

• Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
• Leary, M.R.; Tangney, J.P. (2003). Handbook of self and identity. New York: Guilford Press.
• Platow, M.J.; Grace, D.M.; Smithson, M.J. (2011). Examining the Preconditions for Psychological Group Membership: Perceived Social Interdependence as the Outcome of Self-Categorization. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 3 (1): https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611407081
• Turner, J.C. (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.