People in different cultures have strikingly different construals of the self, of others, and of the interdependence of the 2. These construals can influence, and in many cases determine, the very nature of individual experience, including cognition, emotion, and motivation. Many Asian cultures have distinct conceptions of individuality that insist on the fundamental relatedness of individuals to each other. The emphasis is on attending to others, fitting in, and harmonious interdependence with them. American culture neither assumes nor values such an overt connectedness among individuals. In contrast, individuals seek to maintain their independence from others by attending to the self and by discovering and expressing their unique inner attributes. As proposed herein, these construals are even more powerful than previously imagined. Theories of the self from both psychology and anthropology are integrated to define in detail the difference between a construal of the self as independent and a construal of the self as interdependent. Each of these divergent construals should have a set of specific consequences for cognition, emotion, and motivation; these consequences are proposed and relevant empirical literature is reviewed. Focusing on differences in self-construals enables apparently inconsistent empirical findings to be reconciled, and raises questions about what have been thought to be culture-free aspects of cognition, emotion, and motivation.

/pdf/culture-and-the-self-implications-for-cognition-emotion-and-2phi5i0grk.pdf

Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.

It is argued that (a) social identification is a perception of oneness with a group of persons; (b) social identification stems from the categorization of individuals, the distinctiveness and prestige of the group, the salience of outgroups, and the factors that traditionally are associated with group formation; and (c) social identification leads to activities that are congruent with the identity, support for institutions that embody the identity, stereotypical perceptions of self and others, and outcomes that traditionally are associated with group formation, and it reinforces the antecedents of identification. This perspective is applied to organizational socialization, role conflict, and intergroup relations.

Social Identity Theory and the Organization

Three aspects of the self(private, public, collective) with different probabilities in different kinds of social environments were sampled. Three dimensions of cultural variation (individualism--collectivism, tightness-looseness, cultural complexity) are discussed in relation to the sampling of these three aspects of the self. The more complex the culture, the more frequent the sampling of the public and private self and the less frequent the sampling of the collective self. The more individualistic the culture, the more frequent the sampling of the private self and the less frequent the sampling of the collective self. Collectivism, external threat, competition with outgroups, and common fate increase the sampling of the collective self. Cultural homogeneity results in tightness and in the sampling of the collective self. The article outlines theoretical links among aspects of the environment, childrearing patterns, and cultural patterns, which are linked to differential sampling of aspects of the self. Such sampling has implications for social behavior. Empirical investigations of some of these links are reviewed.

The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts

Drawing upon philosophy and social theory, Social Theory of International Politics develops a theory of the international system as a social construction. Alexander Wendt clarifies the central claims of the constructivist approach, presenting a structural and idealist worldview which contrasts with the individualism and materialism which underpins much mainstream international relations theory. He builds a cultural theory of international politics, which takes whether states view each other as enemies, rivals or friends as a fundamental determinant. Wendt characterises these roles as 'cultures of anarchy', described as Hobbesian, Lockean and Kantian respectively. These cultures are shared ideas which help shape state interests and capabilities, and generate tendencies in the international system. The book describes four factors which can drive structural change from one culture to another - interdependence, common fate, homogenization, and self-restraint - and examines the effects of capitalism and democracy in the emergence of a Kantian culture in the West.

/pdf/social-theory-of-international-politics-3eegdnnwai.pdf

Social Theory of International Politics

We thank Massimo Bergami, Arthur Brief, Mason Carpenter, Brian Golden, Frances Hauge, Rod Kramer, Sharon Lobel, Reuben McDaniel, Debra Meyerson, Wendy Penner, Sandy Piderit, Linda Pike, Mlchael Pratt, Robert Quinn, Anat Rafaeli, Lance Sandelands, Bob Sutton, David Whetten, Batia Wiesenfeld, and three anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts of this paper. We develop a model to explain how images of one's work organization shape the strength of his or her identification with the organization. We focus on two key organizational images: one based on what a member believes is distinctive, central, and enduring about his or her organization and one based on a member's beliefs about what outsiders think about the organization. According to the model, members assess the attractiveness of these images by how well the image preserves the continuity of their self-concept, provides distinctiveness, and enhances self-esteem. The model leads to a number of propositions about how organizational identification affects members' patterns of social interaction.'

/pdf/organizational-images-and-member-identification-34qjsgg0o4.pdf

Organizational images and member identification.

Among the many traditions of research on "identity," two somewhat different yet strongly related strands of identity theory have developed. The first, reflected in the work of Stryker and colleagues, focuses on the linkages of social structures with identities. The second, reflected in the work of Burke and colleagues, focuses on the internal process of self-verification. In the present paper we review each of these strands and then discuss ways in which the two relate to and complement one another Each provides a context for the other: the relation of social structures to identities influences the process of self-verification, while the process of self-verification creates and sustains social structures. The paper concludes with examples of potentially useful applications of identity theory to other arenas of social psychology, and with a discussion of challenges that identity theory must meet to provide a clear understanding of the relation between self and society. The language of "identity" is ubiquitous in contemporary social science, cutting across psychoanalysis, psychology, political science, sociology, and history. The common usage of the term identity, however, belies the considerable variability in both its conceptual meanings and its theoretical role. Even when consideration is restricted to sociology and social psychology, variation is still considerable.'

http://kulturiskvlevebi.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/3/7/18376403/burke_pastpresent...of_identity_theory.pdf

The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory*

Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version

Identity Salience and Role Performance: The Relevance of Symbolic Interaction Theory for Family Research

The generic, indeed the defining, task of social psychology is to investigate the interrelationships among society, the social person, and social behavior. Every theoretical perspective or framework in social psychology approaches this immense task by narrowing it, by selecting particular dimensions of society, persons, and behavior as especially worthy of attention. While the ultimate goal for social psychology may be a single, unified theoretical framework sufficiently comprehensive to incorporate “all” the “important” aspects, etc., of the defining conceptual variables of social psychology,1 that goal is not in sight. In the meantime, and before the millenium, all social psychological perspectives or frameworks are partial, selective in their approaches to the world they hope to explicate. That assertion is true of symbolic interactionism, the theoretical framework out of which the theory examined in this chapter develops, although perhaps less so than for most contemporary frameworks in social psychology.

Commitment, Identity Salience, and Role Behavior: Theory and Research Example

Social psychologists currently conceptualize self as composed of many parts; often they visualize the parts as organized hierarchically by differences in salience or psychological centrality. We ask whether these concepts are equivalent, overlapping, or independent, and whether one concept «works» better in an identity theory context. Models relating commitment to role relations to salience and centrality, and salience and centrality to time spent in role, are estimated for four roles and identities related to university students. Results show that identity salience and centrality are independent for some roles, but overlap for others. When they are independent, both are predicted by commitment and both predict time in role, although salience «works» somewhat better in these terms

Sheldon Stryker

Papers

The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory*

Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version

Identity Salience and Role Performance: The Relevance of Symbolic Interaction Theory for Family Research

Commitment, Identity Salience, and Role Behavior: Theory and Research Example

Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or complementary concepts?