The concept of social identity is central to understanding a wide array of political phenomena, from civil wars and ethnic conflicts to party identification and polarisation. In recent years, it was heavily debated how various social identities map onto individual beliefs and attitudes, and how they influence political behaviour and governance. Yet, the concept and its operationalisation have remained elusive, due to its complex and multifaceted nature.
The aim of this workshop is to bring together scholars at various career stages to develop a common understanding of political identity and its application to understanding current political phenomena.
Despite their centrality to understanding a wide range of phenomena, two contrasting views exist regarding the formation and stability of political and social identities (Huddy 2001). One approach regards identities as fixed, largely unchangeable traits such as ethnic identities of ethnic group members or partisan identities, seen as the products of political socialisation during youth, shaped by family and friends, and rarely altered in adulthood. This view of identity persistence contrasts with the perspective from psychology, which treats group memberships not as fixed traits but rather as fluid and potentially subject to change based on circumstances, or even as open to manipulated in experiments that follow the 'minimal group paradigm' (Tajfel 1971).
The persistence vesrus fluidity debate is particularly relevant today in a period when identity politics are on the rise and political actors often mobilise around supposedly stable identities (such as ethnicity or gender), while others challenge these as socially constructed.
Thus, there is a need to reconcile these apparently conflicting perspectives on identities and to revise common assumptions of the study of political behaviour and attitude formation and provide a solid foundation based in psychological evidence. Such a synthesis will increase the potential of the discipline to contribute to the solution of pressing political problems.
Huddy, L., 2001. From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), pp.127-156.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M.G., Bundy, R.P. and Flament, C., 1971. Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, pp.149-178.
1: What explains the stability of identities discussed in political research, such as party identification?
2: Are there systematic differences between types of social and political identities in terms of stability?
3: How can identities driving polarisation and motivated reasoning be replaced by less polarising ones?
4: How much do patterns and the effects of political identities rely on the specific political context?
5: Are there types of political identities that have been overlooked so far?
1: Patterns of identity persistence or fluidity and their explanation
2: Variations in commitments to identities
3: Priming of identities of different levels or different types
4: Context dependency of patterns of political and social identities
5: Political identities beyond party identification
6: Identification with social groups and social strata and the effectiveness of politicians’ group appeals
7: Consequences of political identities for attitudes and behaviour
8: Interaction of multiple identities
