Why They Die: Civilian Devastation in Violent Conflict

7 | Limitations of Social Identity Theoriesin Relation to Conflict Analysis

7 | Limitations of Social Identity Theories in Relation to Conflict Analysis Again, in this book we explain civilian devastation in violent con›ict through intergroup relations between militant Other and the civilian Other. We examine notions of the two Others from the perspective of the ingroup, how both groups presumably plan, scheme, conspire, strategize, collude, join together, or unite forces in ways that threaten ingroup security . In the context of such alleged conspiratorial union, we study the instruments of civilian devaluation that operate in full force before and during protracted con›icts. Our research centers a kind of identity conversion from citizens in a body politic to civilians engulfed in protracted con›ict. Such a conversion is evident in a myriad of constructed forms—the rhetoric, categories, and doctrines of armed con›ict—that represents, in most cases, an annulment of precon›ict political identity. We draw on the categories and principles of social identity theory to reveal critical elements of this conversion. As an academic discipline, identity studies has experienced important advances in recent decades, especially in the area of understanding negativities between identity groups (racial, nationalistic, ethnic, religious). Most social scientists characterize social identity as dynamic, socially constructed, and amenable to some degree of personal choice. But to our knowledge, no body of academic research has framed the combatant/noncombatant distinction through the analytical categories and doctrines of social identity theory, and no ‹ndings give rigorous attention to this distinction through the lens of social identity and difference. We believe that this omission has contributed to many academics’ shallow explanations of civilian devastation. To redress this failing, we examine certain advances 127 in identity studies, drawing special attention to the achievements of recent researchers in the ‹eld while stressing the inattention to some important elements of social identity. In this chapter we offer a critical review of the major developments in social identity theory, noting major achievements in recent decades and evaluating de‹ciencies. We organize this review around three topics: (1) sources and motives for identity, (2) depersonalization and loyalty to the ingroup, and (3) intergroup relations. We conclude the chapter with a novel proposal for framing and de‹ning the formation of group identity. We argue that in many con›ict settings where the salience to group identity is quite high, a single, dominant identity establishes a seemingly ‹xed opposition between “we” and “they.” Such a duality is de‹ned by categories of virtues and vices, conferring on group identities an axiology of difference that underpins the sort of rationale that is common in prolonged con›icts. Sources and Motives for Identity A central topic of social scienti‹c research is the formation of social identity . By the middle of the twentieth century, social identity was recognized as the bridge between individual psychology and the structure of social groups. Every social scienti‹c discipline sought to explain the dynamics of “social identity” and its impact on social processes. Psychoanalysis examined the role of social identity in ethnic con›icts and cycles of violence (Volkan 1997, 2004). Anthropologists studied the cultural dimensions of identity formation as well as the impact of social identity on group boundaries (Barth 1969; Cohen 1986). Social psychologists analyzed social identity in the process of intergroup relations, prejudice, and group con›icts (Tajfel 1986; Turner et al. 1987). Sociologists evaluated social relationships between personality and society (Giddens 1991; Jenkins 1996; Stryker 2000). Political scientists explored the role of social identity in domestic and international con›icts (Brubaker 1996; Fisher 1997; Gellner 1994; Gurr 1970; Tilly 2005). Sociologists tend to frame group identities through internalized rules, expectations, and norms connected to speci‹c social roles (Stryker 2000; Stryker and Burke 2000). These researchers characterize a social group as a set of individuals who act according to socially de‹ned roles. By accepting a social role, a person implicitly establishes a relative stance to others 128 | Why They Die and to the social system as a whole. Thus, role identity is de‹ned in the process of interaction with others within a broad intergroup context. Sociopsychological theories of social identity emphasize intergroup relations and categorical distinctions as a source for social identity (Tajfel 1986; Turner et al. 1987). In this context, social identity is a result of the processes of identi‹cation with other group members who share common characteristics, social experiences, and behaviors. A person’s social identity re›ects his or...