https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-cisnormativity/
I am starting to do research into my dissertation which is looking at identity in mmorpgs. I am specifically looking it identifying with character, comparing world of Warcraft and FFXIV. To do this I have to look at self categorization theory as well as social identity theory and I'm confused on whether self categorization is just a sub category of social identity theory.
in social identity theory, there is personal identity (character traits, etc) and social identity (identification with groups/categories, social roles, responsibilities, etc).[Is there a name or framework this theory fits into?]
In Mead's symbolic interactionism, there is the "I" (spontaneous self) and "me" (socialized self? social self?) that refer to just your impulses and desires vs. the self that takes society into consideration and is influenced by how the generalized other perceives you
In 'self concept', there is the existential self (knowledge that you are distinct from others) and the categorical self (affiliations and relation to the world)[is there a framework this fits into..? is this part of roger's and maslow's theories of self-concept.. where self concept is derived of self-esteem and self-efficacy? if so, how do these two 'self' types fit into the context of self-image, self-esteem, ideal self?]
I think i understand some of what these things mean but want to be 100% clear on which specific terms belong to which frameworks/theories, because they are starting to mush together in my brain. Terms like 'social identity', 'social self', are these generally applicable terms or should they only be understood specifically in reference to particular frameworks (eg., social identity = "social identity theory" (personal vs social identity), and social self = Mead's symbolic interactionism)
I say this as a member of gen z as well. By this point there’s no shortage of academic, peer reviewed studies that show how harmful social media is for mental health. Seeing people my age portray their lives as perfect knowing full well that it’s not is frightening.
People will gradually wake up in their thirties and realize that they wasted so much time and energy trying to convince the whole world that they were something their not. Posting photos of your ass on the beach isn’t going to bring you any sense of fulfillment. Posting photos of you with a rented lambo is incredibly shallow and fake.
I’m not saying this out of jealousy or anger that I can’t amass the same following some of my friends have. But social media should be fun and stress relieving. Not some contest to see who can get the most artificial likes.
As we know, Social Identity theory does not explain the reason behind non-conformity. Is this because the basis of either conforming or not conforming lies in our personal identity? For example, personally, I tend to not conform in some social groups since I personally feel that they might not be right, as I do not relate to them as much.
I would like to preface by saying that I'm only a high school student and might be completely out of my depth here - please let me know if this is incorrect or ignorant, but I've been really curious recently.
I recently studied Social Identity Theory, which is a popular theory that is supported by many psychologists and sociologists all over the world - the theory states that it is in our nature to complete the stages outlined in this theory, including the concepts of social categorization (the forming of 'in groups' and 'out groups') and social comparison (the tendency to compare between groups). the concept of in-group favouritism states that it is in our nature to prefer our in-group to out-groups and convince ourselves that this in-group is better. the concept of social identification also means that we are more likely to identify with people similar to us and therefore these in-groups could potentially be based off of common factors like race.
Could this mean that our primary tendency - even at a young age - is to place ourselves and others in these categories which could potentially come down to race?
What is the difference between Collective Identity Theory (CIT) as argued by Melucci, and Social Identity Theory (SIT) as argued by Tajfel and Turner?
I believe that there is apparent polarization, partisanship, and civic fracture in the United States. I'm trying to piece together how research and theory from across the fields of psychology, political science, philosophy, and educational practices offer insights about partisan identity decisions.
So I'm wondering, how much do you think our partisan identity affects the way we discuss and decide on decisions? Decisions relating to topics like critical race theory and vaccine mandates in schools.
