Billigs Evaluation of Tajfel Theory of Intergroup Conflict.
Billig has evaluated Tajfel and Turner’s theorising of intergroup conflict as limited because of the emphasis placed on cognitive processes. Discuss Billig’s evaluation and assess his arguments for a discursive psychological approach.
In order to discuss Billig’s evaluation of Tajfels and Turners theory of intergroup conflict we shall firstly consider what is understood about the social identity theory. This will lead to the work conducted by Tajfel and Turner on intergroup conflict concentrating and the main variables of this research. We shall then consider Billig’s evaluation of Tajfels and Turners theory discussing why he feels this approach is limited because of the emphasis placed on the cognitive process. Assessment of his evaluation will be discussed for the use of a discursive psychological approach.
Social Identity Theory defines group cognitively- in terms of peoples self conception as group members. A group exists psychologically if three or more people construe and evaluate themselves in terms of shared attributes that distinguishes them from others (Hogg cited in Burk 2006).
In the social identity theory the individual has several identities that correspond to different categories of group membership. Depending on these group structures determines the way an individual will act and feel. Social identity is the individuals self concept derived from the perceived membership of social groups (Hogg and Vaughn 2000). The group is viewed as influencing the individual and this can often distort the individuals thinking and result in the production of conflict (Brown 2007).
The work of Henri Tajfel concentrated more on the study of intergroup relations. It was Tajfels personal experience as a survivor of the Holocaust that fuelled his passion to understand prejudice, discrimination and intergroup conflict. Tajfel believed that the personality approach was inadequate in explaining prejudice and he used a social psychological approach. This approach was
In order to discuss Billig’s evaluation of Tajfels and Turners theory of intergroup conflict we shall firstly consider what is understood about the social identity theory. This will lead to the work conducted by Tajfel and Turner on intergroup conflict concentrating and the main variables of this research. We shall then consider Billig’s evaluation of Tajfels and Turners theory discussing why he feels this approach is limited because of the emphasis placed on the cognitive process. Assessment of his evaluation will be discussed for the use of a discursive psychological approach.
Social Identity Theory defines group cognitively- in terms of peoples self conception as group members. A group exists psychologically if three or more people construe and evaluate themselves in terms of shared attributes that distinguishes them from others (Hogg cited in Burk 2006).
In the social identity theory the individual has several identities that correspond to different categories of group membership. Depending on these group structures determines the way an individual will act and feel. Social identity is the individuals self concept derived from the perceived membership of social groups (Hogg and Vaughn 2000). The group is viewed as influencing the individual and this can often distort the individuals thinking and result in the production of conflict (Brown 2007).
The work of Henri Tajfel concentrated more on the study of intergroup relations. It was Tajfels personal experience as a survivor of the Holocaust that fuelled his passion to understand prejudice, discrimination and intergroup conflict. Tajfel believed that the personality approach was inadequate in explaining prejudice and he used a social psychological approach. This approach was
References: Billig, M. (1996) in Langdridge, D. and Taylor, S. (2007) Critical Readings in Social Psychology, Milton Keynes: Open University, 158-9. Billig, M Brown, R. (2000) Social identity theory: past achievements, current problems and future challenges, European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745-778. Brown, S. (2007) in Langdridge, D. and Taylor, S. (2007) Critical Readings in Social Psychology, Milton Keynes: Open University, 133-159. Cooper, T. and Keye, H. (2002) in Cooper, T. and Roth, I. (2002) Challenging Psychological Issues, Milton Keynes, The Open University. Dixon, J. (2007) in Holloway, W. Lucey, L and Phoenix, A. (2007) Social Psychology Matters. Milton Keynes: Open University, 146-172 Douzinas, C Edwards, D. (1997) in Langdridge, D. and Taylor, S. (2007) Critical Readings in Social Psychology, Milton Keynes: Open University, 158-9. Hogg, M.A.(2006) in Burk, P.J (2006). Contemporary Social Psychological Theories. Stanford University Press, Stanford California. Hogg, M.A. & Vaughan, G.M. (2002). Social Psychology (3rd ed. ) London: Prentice Hall. Jung, C. (1958) ‘The Undiscovered self’, Routledge Classics (2006), Abington, Oxon. Kelly, C. (2007) in DD307 Course Guide, Milton Keynes, The Open University, 34-44 Phoenix, A Phoenix, A. (2002) in Miell, D., Phoenix, A. and Thomas, K. (2002) Mapping Psychology 1, Milton Keynes, The Open University. Rokeach, M (1960) in Holloway, W. Lucey, L and Phoenix, A. (2007) Social Psychology Matters. Milton Keynes: Open University, 147. Tajfel, H. and Turner,J. (1979) in Langdridge, D. and Taylor, S. (2007) Critical Readings in Social Psychology, Milton Keynes: Open University,136-159) Tajfel, H Wetherell, M. And Potter, J. (1992) in Langdrigde, D and Taylor, S (2007) Critical Readings in Social Psychology. Milton Keynes: Open University, 158-9.