Us versus Them? Social Identities and Social Action

Social psychologist, Peter Herriot, explores the impact of austerity on social identities and social action…

We might sum up the impact of austerity on identities as having two main effects. After 2009/10 the rhetoric established a variety of ‘Us’ versus ‘Them’ conflicts. A virtuous ‘Us’ was encouraged to scapegoat the unemployed and poor ‘Them’ as responsible for the recession, and consequently also responsible for the nasty medicine administered as its ‘remedy’. And more recently government has continued with an assault on the nation’s public institutions and services which underpin many social identities. Thus weakened, identities which used to constitute important elements of people’s selves are now no longer realistically available to them. There is only so long one can imagine oneself as belonging to the Women’s Institute when one can never attend. So, in summary, we have lost old integrative social identities and gained new conflictual ones.

But why should we be particularly concerned about identities? Agreed, the ‘Us’ versus ‘Them’ dynamic increases feelings of superiority or shame. And the loss of specific social identities impoverishes the self. But these unfortunate psychological outcomes are surely of less consequence, we feel, than the hunger, homelessness, illness, and, occasionally, death visited on so many. Nevertheless, the psychology of identity is of immense importance. This is because the importance of identities does not lie primarily in their impact on individuals’ psychological wellbeing, powerful and sometimes tragic though this is. Rather, the process of identification is crucial to the social and political future of the nation and its citizens.

How so? The politics of austerity have already exacerbated the divisive effects of inequality. Additional us vs them identities have been successfully nurtured by government and media, scapegoating entire categories of unfortunate people. It was unsurprising that the same divisive projection of Us vs Them characterised the June 23 referendum, nurtured in particular by media and politicians in favour of leaving the European Union. The only difference between the politics of austerity and those of the leave campaign was the choice of the category to constitute Them.

The EU referendum has not only created a new division of remainers vs leavers. More importantly, it has reinforced the divisions arising from inequality and austerity. Its outcome has pointed up and exacerbated all of the following: Scotland vs England; London vs ‘Forgotten England’; young vs old; rich vs poor; more vs less educated; and immigrants vs residents. Rash promises were made in the course of the referendum campaign to Brexit voters which cannot be fulfilled. Indeed, the outcomes of the vote are likely to exacerbate the very problems which motivated the Brexiteers, and their disillusion will grow as a result. Far from being abandoned, the policies of austerity will continue unabated, justified in terms of the deteriorating economic situation. Political and social stability will be hard to maintain: indeed, reported incidents of race hatred have quintupled since the referendum. In the face of such social divisions and their corresponding oppositional identities, what hope is there for the future?

From a social scientific perspective, we can analyse this dire national crisis as one in which the necessary social equilibrium between differentiation and integration has tilted alarmingly towards differentiation. Political tactics and discourse have relentlessly created oppositional identities. Institutions which underpin social equilibrium are themselves fragmenting: witness, for example, the two major political parties, and inter-generational relationships. What possible initiatives could redress the imbalance towards integration so that its differences can contribute to the nation’s social fabric rather than destroy it?

We must return to the issue of power if we are to attempt any sort of approach to this difficult question. Multinational corporations, especially media businesses, the wealthy elite, and politicians have in alliance shaped and dominated the nation’s social and political discourse. They have succeeded in doing so by their use of the age-old technique of divide and rule, establishing popular narratives of fear, anger, and blame. Not only are institutions under threat as a consequence, but also identities are impoverished and simplistically described in binary oppositional terms. Any meaningful response has to begin with the recognition, first, that, on reflection, our identities are far more complex and nuanced than this; and second, that there are many institutions and movements within civil society which support complex identities and social integration. Both institutions and identities are central to a solution; for institutions suggest or reinforce identities, and identities motivate and justify institutional interventions.

Instead of treating globalisation as a threat, dominated by global corporations and Social Darwinist ideology, we might instead construe it as a superordinate social system of which we are all now conscious. Threats to the planet and to universal human rights, for example, engender awareness of the solidarity of humankind, and our common fate and identity as human beings. It is hard to think of a more superordinate social identity than this. This global integrative social consciousness is counter-balanced by social differentiation. Modernity has differentiated out the global social systems such as the scientific, legal, arts, religious, and political systems, each with its own assumptions, values, and practices. Intent on preserving their own power and independence, these systems are in general more interested in differentiating themselves from each other than in collaboration and integration. Global social dis-equilibrium, in other words, seems biased towards differentiation.

For many late-modern people, such as citizens of the United Kingdom, their self-concept reflects this differentiation. Their different social identities, associated as they are with different social systems, may develop largely separate from each other – the divided self indeed. Differentiated identities do, after all, enable people to access the appropriate norms of behaviour for the broad range of different social situations into which they enter. Yet the push towards personal and social integration by individuals and institutions in tandem is evident in counter-response to the divisive social and political trends of the last decade. Examples abound of integrative collaboration both within and between different social systems.

Within the religious system, you have the collaboration between different religions and different Christian denominations in fighting austerity and alleviating its consequences. Voluntary organisations which are advocates for different groups of unfortunate people such as the mentally ill and the homeless, have collaborated with each other to address austerity’s cumulative effects. Local council leaders of several different political persuasions have joined in fighting cuts which affect those whom they serve.

Such institutional collaboration both supports and is supported by superordinate social identities. Catholic and Protestant identities were integrated under a Christian superordinate identity, and this in turn was sometimes subsumed under an identity of ‘people of faith’. Party political allegiance was subsumed by council leaders under their identity as elected public servants.

But not only have we seen examples of integration within particular social systems. I have also quoted instances where people wearing the hats of different social systems have collaborated. Academics have produced research on the effects of austerity sponsored by and in association with voluntary sector advocacy groups or religious institutions. Churches have collaborated with advocacy groups in lobbying politicians. Advocacy groups and lawyers have sought to question the legitimacy of government legislation.

Such inter-systemic integration has immense possibilities. The combination of different types of knowledge and expertise and value priorities which collaboration makes available provides a high level of soft power and capability. For example, the expert power and credibility of academic research allied to the political and persuasive skills of advocacy groups are together far more effective than the sum of their parts. But such collaboration carries risks for individuals. Academics, for example, may be accused of putting at risk the objectivity and disinterested nature of research, one of the supposed key values of science. It is the values associated with even more superordinate identities, perhaps those of citizen or indeed of human being, which inform and encourage inter-systemic collaboration.

So hope springs eternal.

This is an excerpt from All In This Together? Identity,Politics and Church in Austerity Britain by Peter Herriot available now as an eBook, priced £7.99.