The Political Psychology of Democratic Citizenship Multiple Categorization: A Possible Resolution? This text-section presents the alternative to the current polarization between ‘assimilationism’ and ‘multiculturalism / separatism’ as opposing political philosophies - the growing tension between the values of “national identification and solidarity” on one hand and “the recognition of group based differences and political demands” on the other. The alternative being through “cross-cutting social categories”. A form of pluralism that holds more promise for maintaining distinctive social identities within a common superordinate structure. The author highlights how complex nations are characterized by multiple hierarchical structures of embedded groupings. And these multiple groupings (differentiated by occupation, region, gender, ethnicities, religion, etc) subdivide, the whole nation, into subgroups with partially overlapping “memberships”. That is to say, in a country like this, individuals may belong to and identify with multiple political meaningful in-groups, each of which is a subset of the national collective. Out-group members on one category distinction may be fellow in-group members in another. When there are salient alternative identities the greater the overlap/realignment between in-groups with out-groups become. The key concept is that if different identifications are meaningful and functional for individuals in different times and places, “cross-cutting social categories” reduce invidious social comparison, dilute social stereotype, and “motivate conflict prevention”. Cross-cutting meaning, for example when and editor (as a film editing technique) cuts between two separate scenes that occur in two separate locations to show the audience something is happening at the same time or to create specific link or meaning between the two shots. This insight that cross-cutting patterns of social differentiation increases social stability and tolerance has been taken on consideration by a few and has been put to test. note: ‘cross-cutting cleavage’ (is a political term) which is used when groups on one ‘cleavage’ overlap among groups on another cleavage. I am wondering how to use this term ‘cleavage’ that is exclusive to things as racial, political, religious divisions in society with what i am focusing on, on how to overlap specific social classes with the mentality of the-indifferent-governance. hypothesis: 1) Differences between groups are minimized (or no greater than perceived differences within groups) when social categorization consists of many different and connected parts reducing the magnitude of in and out groups distinctions. 2) Because of overlapping memberships there is a reduction of evaluative significance for the self of intergroup comparison, thereby undermining one motivational base for intergroup discrimination. 3) multiple group memberships reduce importance of a single social identity (which would be the motivational base for in-group bias) for satisfying the very normal human need of self-definition. 4) Principles of cognitive balance basically states that if a person belonging in an in-group on one category dimension but belongs also to an outgrip in another categorization, cognitive inconsistency is introduced if that individual is evaluated positively as an in-group member but is also associated with others who are evaluated negatively as out-group members. “in an effort to resolve such inconsistencies, interpersonal balance processes should lead to greater positivity toward the out-group based on overlapping memberships”. The Political Psychology of Democratic Citizenship Apparently, identification at the national level, these ‘cross-categorization’ processes reinforce superordinate social identity. “one effect of multiple cross-cutting in-group memberships is to motivate individuals to seek a more inclusive in-group identity that incorporates or transcends their plural social identity”. Thus, consequences of active participation in different groups at the subgroup level may be a strengthened identification with the superordinate political entity. There is evidence of the benefits of cross-categorization to be enhanced when category distinctions are embedded in a common superordinate group identity. Thus, crossed categorization and dual levels of identification may work together to produce enhanced inclusiveness and reduced intergroup discrimination without eliminating distinctive subgroup identities. Experimental Evidence The experiment, was not easy to understand and it was poorly documented; The test assessed how intercategory discrimination (based on the estimator categorization) had been affected by intergroup cooperation and the assignment of role categories. Social psychologists that recognize the potential importance of cross-cutting group memberships for the reduction of prejudice and discrimination have subjected these predicted effects to experimental test (ex: Bettencourt and Dorr 1998; Crisp, Hewstone, & Rubin, 2001; Marcus-Newhall, Miller, Holtz, and Brewer, 1993; Rust, 1996)* Experiments are usually conducted by first creating ingroups-outgroup categorization in the laboratory and then by introducing a cross-cutting distinction into the social context. This was the case on a laboratory paradigm designed by Marcus-Newhall. In this experiment, participants were first divided into arbitrary social categories, based on the results of a “dot-estimation” judgment task. Experiment sessions run with 8 same-sex participants, four were assigned to be the “underestimators” and the others for the “overestimators” and all of them had to wear a large colored button that signify their estimator category membership. The first phase consisted first on segregating the groups for a brief discussion to serve as a consolidation. the second phase then consisted of reassigning to four-person teams, each team now consisting of two underestimates and two overestimates. Teams then engaged in a cooperative task that provided the opportunity for the introduction of a crossed category manipulation. The cooperative task that the teams undertook was to reach consensus, through team discussion, on a list of the most critical traits that should be considered in selection of NASA astronauts. Prior to the group discussion, each team was given a set of materials to read, this established their “expertise” regarding demands and stresses astronauts faced in preparing for and experiencing space travel. Two member of the team, where provided with cognitive and skills demands, making them the “cognitive experts”, and the two other shared the the role of the “emotional experts”. And basically team members inverted roles but first the team’s ‘overestimators’ shared same expert role and the “underestimators” were assigned the same expert level. Documentation at this phase is not enough to understand their behavior - This phase, is simply documented by stating “so, (in the convergent experimental condition where both ‘overestimators’ where assigned to the same expert role) estimator category and role were redundant differentiations. In the cross-cutting condition, however, two members of the same category were assigned to different roles, so that estimator category and role were orthogonal ”. What am I missing? How was the behavior of the overestimators? what are they over estimating anyways? Apparently this article gives more importance on the experiment by highlighting how participants rated each other at the final phase of the test and giving no information on the process of participants bias behaviors when changing roles. Marcus-Newhall founding on the convergent role assignment condition produced significant bias based on category membership on a point allocation measure (chips as a reward, but never explained on detail if this chips represented actual money). “In the cross-categorization condition, however this category-based bias was completely eliminated”. I guess everyone received 100 chips at the end? note: google effects on role assignment on in-group bias in evaluations and point allocation with cross-cutting or convergent role assignments. Cross-Cutting Identities Outside of the Laboratory Even though results from experiments are apparently promising with respect to cross-cutting category memberships in real life there are many limitations, mostly because of all the interpersonal contact between members of different (real-natural) social categories. Personalized interaction is key for reducing bias behaviors/reflexes. In the society at large, social categories tend to constrain social contact. Thus, even though individuals may belong to multiple relatively inclusive categories with overlapping memberships, their cognitive representations of those in-group categories (and their feeling of connectedness to others who share that category membership) may be limited by their range of experience with (other)category members. The first issue to be confronted in real-world context is “wether two or more social categorizations are equally salient in a given social situation”. If a single dimension of social differentiation dominates the definition of social identities in a given context, the presence of cross-cutting group will be ignored and cannot be expected to influence inter-group discrimination based on the dominant category. Category dominance may be chronic, as when a single line of social fission (ex: race or religion) comes to have pervasive social and political significance across all domains of social life. In order for crossed categories to have psychological effects, two or more category distinctions “must have functional significance within the same social context”. That is, individuals must confront the fact that their different ingroup-outgroup categories have overlapping memberships. If one category distinction dominates the social interaction, overall bias will not be reduced just because a crossed categorization is present. Text highlights that even when two or more categories are made simultaneously salient and meaningful, the effects of crossed category membership may not be sufficient to reduce in-group discrimination. The outcome will depend on how the individual interprets/analyses/construes his or her multiple group memberships. The key, key, is to embrace subdivisions within same group memberships. For example a female, black-african-american has social identities that derive from gender and ethnicity. Thus, when she considered her gender in-group, the group includes females of various ethnicity, some black and some nonblack. Also, when she considered her ethnicity in-group, it includes male as well as females. If she embraces both in-groups in both social identities the more inclusive she’ll turn out to be. - imagine the same individual, black-african-american female, when thinking of her female in-group, is aware (and thinks all the time) that she represents an ethnic minority within that gender category and hence feels socially differentiated from white females. Similarly, when she thinks of her ethnic in-group, she is aware of implications of her gender identity “vis-á-vis” African American males. Under these circumstances, she may categorize herself as an African American woman and only those who share this combined category membership constitute her psychological in-group. African Americans, male and female who are white represent out-group categories (rather than shared social identities). In such a case, potential inclusive multiple subgroup identities converge into a single exclusive minority identity. This illustration demonstrates that the relationship between multiple social identities and intergroup discrimination is not a simple straightforward one, even when the categories involved are objectively cross-cutting or overlapping. “if multiple category distinctions serve to differentiate a society into a number of highly exclusive subcategories, the consequence may be an increase of in-group bias and intergroup conflict rather than less. this, the issue, is to understand when (or under what conditions) multiple identities will be defined inclusively rather than exclusively”. Factors that would predict to promote more inclusive multiple identities include high cognitive complexity and tolerance for uncertainty, as well as secure social identity or strong activation of the need for inclusion (relative to the need for differentiation). There are also a number of external conditions or situational factors that might encourage more inclusive cross-category representations. Social mobility and increased contact across group boundaries reduce provincialism and expose the individual to direct experiences with cross-cutting group memberships. Such experience increases awareness that an in-group category includes others who are diverse with respect to alternative category memberships. Similarly, pluralistic cultural norms and social values that favor tolerance and openness to change should also encourage more inclusive in-group representations. Exploring Social Identity Complexity This issue is THE perfect example that some concepts in this life have to be analyzed on the phenomenological side rather than the objective categorization structure. I will like to prove (many others have before me) that this conceptual analysis of the cognitive representation of multiple identities is better of if focused on direct experience. In order to understand when cross-cutting categories will be effective in reducing prejudice, we need to know how the individual perceives her/his in-group. to study the complexity of multiple social identities, some method for assessing the subjective meaning of crossed category memberships at the individual level is needed. Roccas and Brewer (2002) developed a methodology to asses social identity complexity; questionnaire surveys. This text mentioned two surveys: undergraduate college students, respondents were asked to check various social categories to which they belong. The vast majority listed 4 or 5, and most of these responses represent objectively cross-cutting social distinctions (ex: Catholic religion and Ohio citizen). Thus, the raw material of cross-cutting multiple social identities is prevalent even among this relatively young population. In a subsequent questionnaire, respondents were reminded of their individual social group identities and then asked a series of questions about the relationships they perceive between different pairs of their in-groups (ex: Catholic and Ohioans). One question assesses (on a 10-point rating scale) their subjective impression of the extent of overlap in membership between the two in-groups (ex: of persons who are catholic, how many are also Ohioans? Of persons who are Ohioans, how many are also Catholic?) in general, the lower the degree of overlap between different in-groups, the more inclusive the individual is defining each in-group separately (ex: If the number of Ohioans who are also Catholic is perceived to be low, then the Ohio in-group must include many non-Catholics; If the number of Catholics who are Ohioans is low then the Catholic in-group must include non-Ohioans, etc). On the other hand, if the overlap between in-groups is perceived to be high, the categories are subjectively convergent rather than crosscutting (ex: the in-group is conceptualized as Catholic and Ohioan). Note: Based on the logic above, a rough index of the complexity of multiple category representations can be generated by averaging the overlap ratings across all possible in-group pairings. Low values in this index signify relatively high in-group inclusiveness, while high value represents low in-group inclusiveness (exclusiveness). Assessment of this psychometric properties of the index (based on pairings of nationality, religion, ethnicity, and general studies(acquired knowledge/experiences in-group identities or occupational category) reveals reasonable distribution of scores. scores are correlated in a predictable manner with respondant’s important social values. Google Schwartz’s (1992) circumplex model of value classification, Roccas and Brewer (2002) found that the overlap index (where higher scores indicate less complexity, greater exclusiveness) correlated positively with conservation and self-enhancement (individualism) values and negatively with openness to change and universalism. Roccas and Brewer also hypothesized that social identity complexity should be associated with tolerance toward out-groups, for both cognitive and motivational reasons. They noted that individuals with high levels of social identity complexity are more likely to be cognitively aware that other persons who are out-group members on some group dimension might be in-group members when considered on some different dimension. Also, they think, intergroup comparison diminishes motivations to favor one’s in-group by recognizing partially overlapping natures of in-group memberships and also reduces the particular significance of any particular social identification for an individual’s self-definition and collective self-esteem. (this is good if there are bias social identifications) Results of initial exploratory research supported the hypothesized relationship between individual differences in social identity complexity and tolerance-related variables. Roccas and Brewer presented initial data indicating that higher social identity complexity was associated with higher endorsement of openness, lower power orientation, and higher universalism values on the Shwartz Value Inventory. Note: feeling thermometer; affect. I think is important to record how their results on a study (between out-group of Russian immigrants among Israeli participants) which not included race or ethnicity but religion affiliation, occupational category and sports fan-ships (but nonetheless related to tolerance of ethnic out-groups) the overlapping scores were: individuals with high social identity complexity had low perceived overlap among their four in-groups, were more likely to endorse affirmative action and multiculturalism and show less affective distance to ethnic minorities than were individuals with low social identity complexity, that scored high overlappings. CONCLUSION Findings may be replicated with more refined measures and larger samples which will provide support to this chapters thesis “that a cross-cutting category structure and multiple social identities with awareness of in-group diversity provide an effective formula for reducing intergroup prejudice and for promoting cultural pluralism”. From this perspective, what is required is a comprehensive theory involving the dynamic interactions between individual differences, social structure, “and social cognition as the foundation of a political psychologically informed approach to social identity and tolerance in a pluralistic society”.