Solved by verified expert:these are week 7 and week 8 readings. The quiz one is due on Nov. 19Website to log in for the quiz: https://canvas.seattlecentral.edu/username: 950670418password: wangwangyou can find the quiz in the assignment of the class page.Let me know ASAP if there’s any question.
navigating_multiple_identities.pdf
policy_change…the_politics_of_nuclear_waste_management.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 72, No. 2, 2016, pp. 264–285
doi: 10.1111/josi.12166
Navigating Multiple Identities: The Simultaneous
Influence of Advantaged and Disadvantaged Identities
on Politicization and Activism
∗
Nicola Curtin
Clark University
Anna Kende
Eötvös Loránd University
Judit Kende
University of Leuven
Most identity-based models of activism assume that action is motivated either by a
disadvantaged identity (predicting own-group activism), or a feeling of solidarity
with disadvantaged groups (predicting ally activism). They do not account for
advantaged and disadvantaged identifications within the same person. Yet many
activists have both advantaged and disadvantaged identities. Two interview studies from Hungary and the United States (N = 47) were used to examine how both
disadvantaged and advantaged identities influence politicization and activism
(both own-group and ally), via both direct and indirect experiences of marginalization and privilege. We also discuss the emergence of new identities from activist
engagements and how such new activist identities recursively influence activism
and politicization. We conclude our analysis by arguing that identity-based organizations may be more successful emphasizing multiple and intersecting identities
and the structural aspects of disadvantages rather than singular disadvantaged
identities.
Every activist has a personal story about becoming an activist and what their
activism means to them. These stories may capture important common themes
that allow us to better understand the development of political identities, as well as
∗ Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nicola Curtin, Clark University,
950 Main Street, Worcester, MA 01610. Tel: 508-793-7261; [e-mail: NCurtin@clarku.edu]. Order of
the authorship is alphabetical.
264
C 2016 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
Navigating Multiple Identities
265
motivations for activism. These stories also provide the opportunity to understand
why people who occupy different positions in society, with strikingly different
personal experiences within these positions, devote themselves to activism. The
current paper used interview data collected from 47 activists across two national
contexts to examine how attending to both advantaged and disadvantaged identities within the same person might deepen our understanding of activism. We
use the terms “advantaged identity” and “disadvantaged identity” throughout the
paper to refer to identities based on membership in either advantaged or disadvantaged groups. We recognize, however, that identities themselves are not necessarily
“advantaged” or not, rather they form based on membership(s) in group(s) that
occupy particular locations on a social hierarchy. We explored how activists understood their identities to be shaped by their activism, in order to capture the
dynamic interplay of identity and activism. The main purpose of this article
is to highlight areas that are currently underexamined in the literature on activism, but which may deepen our understanding of activists: (a) whether and
how both disadvantaged and advantaged identities influence politicization (people’s deliberate engagement in the intergroup power struggles to overcome their
shared grievances; Simon & Klandermans, 2001) and activism and (b) whether
and how activism provides opportunities for (re)politicization and the emergence
of new identities that reconcile tensions among disadvantaged and advantaged
identities.
Multiple and Intersecting Identities in Activism
Most research on activism focuses on specific issues or specific groups of
activists (e.g., environmental activism or indigenous rights activists), and has
most commonly sought to explain own-group, grievance-based action related to
identity, with less attention paid to ally activism (those who are engaged in activism
in alliance with a group they do not belong to). Characteristic of this research has
been what Greenwood (2012) calls the singular identity approach. For example,
in explaining women’s rights activism, researchers have focused specifically on
gender identity or activist identity. In focusing on singular identities, researchers
tend to examine disadvantaged and advantaged identities in isolation from each
other (see van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008, for a meta-analysis of the
literature on collective action on behalf of the own-group with a primary focus on
disadvantaged identities, and van Zomeren, Postmes, Spears, & Bettache, 2011,
for an extension of their model to ally activism, with a focus on advantaged
groups).
However, as do all individuals, activists hold multiple, sometimes conflicting identities. We use the term “advantaged” and “disadvantaged” to refer to
individuals belonging to groups with relative high or low status or power, respectively, in a particular social context. Individuals may possess a basic awareness
266
Curtin, Kende, and Kende
that others perceive them as belonging to a group, or they may have a deeper
sense of shared identification with other group members. Furthermore, people
become engaged in activism for reasons other than the expression of a specific
identity, or because they belong to a specific group (e.g., Cole & Stewart, 1996;
Klandermans, 2003) and activism itself fosters identity development (which may,
in turn, increase or broaden commitment; e.g., Drury & Reicher, 2009). We examined activists’ own narratives in order to explore how holding more than one salient
identity relevant to activism—and especially holding both advantaged and disadvantaged identities—shapes activist engagement. We also examined the mutually
reinforcing and constitutive relationship between identities and activism.
Theoretical Approach and Framework
Social identity versus politicized identification.
Drawing largely on social
identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self-categorization theory (Turner,
1985), decades of social psychological research has shown that collective action
is predicted by identification with a relevant social group, the perception of groupbased injustice, and beliefs in the group’s efficacy in achieving social change
(van Zomeren, 2013; van Zomeren et al., 2008). However, although the strength
of in-group identity among members of low-status groups is important (Iyer &
Ryan, 2009), simple identification with one’s sociological group does not sufficiently explain engagement in collective action (e.g., de Weerd & Klandermans,
1999; van Stekelenburg, Klandermans, & Akkerman, 2016; for an overview see
Klandermans, 2014).
There is evidence that politicized identities (Simon & Klandermans, 2001;
van Zomeren et al., 2008), opinion-based identities (i.e., groups with whom an individual shares salient opinions, McGarty, Bliuc, Thomas, & Bongiorno, 2009) or
identification with a specific social movement (Stürmer & Simon, 2004) are better
predictors of engagement in collective action (e.g., van Zomeren et al., 2008) and
activism (e.g., Stürmer & Simon, 2004) than identification with nominal sociological categories. In using the term politicized identification in this paper, we draw
on Simon and Klandermans’s (2001) notion of politicized identification as involving an awareness of system-based group inequalities and a sense of grievance.
However, we also rely on McGarty et al. (2009) argument that some groups form
opinion-based identities based on a sense of shared beliefs about a particular social issue, in this case we argue that members share a sense of grievance about
group-based inequality. Collective action is therefore more accurately explained
by a commitment to act on behalf of a group to challenge injustices (i.e., by
the politicization of identity) than social group membership (Thomas, Mavor, &
McGarty, 2012). Politicized identities are of particular interest, as they can override
other impediments to action, such as low-efficacy beliefs (Kelly & Breinlinger,
Navigating Multiple Identities
267
1995; van Zomeren et al., 2008) or high personal costs (see Louis, Taylor, & Neil,
2004; Stürmer & Simon, 2004).
Politicized identification and activism.
The process of identity politicization is similar for both own-group activists and ally activists. Politicized collective
identity develops through the process of understanding the structural aspects of
shared grievances and injustices and the need for social change. It also involves a
conscious engagement in power struggles to achieve this change. For own-group
activists, this entails placing the in-group grievances in a political context by recognizing the collective disadvantages of the in-group (Simon & Klandermans, 2001;
van Stekelenburg & Klandermans, 2010). For ally activists, the politicization of
identities entails placing the out-group grievances and the in-group privileges (i.e.,
benefits that the in-group enjoys merely as a result of belonging to that particular
group) in context, that is, recognizing the collective disadvantages of the outgroup possibly as the result of the in-group’s privileges, but so far research has
largely neglected this issue. A notable exception is the study of Russell and Bohan
(2016) that argues that second-order change (i.e., the recognition of the need for
structural changes; see also Curtin, Stewart, & Cole, 2015) are necessary for true
allyship.
We also drew on intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1991) that argues that
social identities cannot be understood in isolation, and that people’s lived experiences are informed simultaneously by multiple identities, and intersections
of multiple group memberships create distinct identities. As Cole (2009) pointed
out, some members of disadvantaged groups also identify with advantaged groups.
Thus, we attended to the degree to which multiple—especially the intersections
of advantaged and disadvantaged—identities played a role in participants’ political socialization and activist commitments toward promoting social change to
overcome social injustices that produce the system of privileges and inequalities
(Case, Iuzzini, & Hopkins, 2012). The degree to which identities are politicized
is central to predicting activism. However, we need to consider that the process
of politicization is shaped by the multiplicity of available identities and their intersections, as well as experiences of marginalization and privilege connected to
one’s identities. Here we use the term marginalization to mean experiences of
feeling considered less or different from others based on disadvantaged identities
(e.g., discrimination, stigmatization, invisibility, or exclusion, see Smart Richman
& Leary, 2009).
Recursive Relationship between Politicized Identification and Activism
Though typical unidirectional models of activism assume a sequential relationship wherein identity predicts activism, there is evidence that activism provides opportunities for (re)politicization and the emergence of new identities
268
Curtin, Kende, and Kende
in a recursive way (Drury & Reicher, 2000). Furthermore, as we have stated,
some activists become engaged for reasons other than identity concerns (in particular in issue-based activism or ally activism) and activism itself could foster
identity development (which may, in turn, increase or broaden commitment).
Therefore, we assumed that politicized identification and activism were dynamically related; and that while activism might follow the development of a politicized identification, it may also be the case that engagement in activism could
precede the development of a politicized identity or further shape it. We paid
attention to the ways in which activist narratives highlighted the recursive relationships between identity and activism, and how identifications emerged or
changed over time, especially in case of ally activism, where in-group identity played an indirect role, rather than influencing activism through in-group
grievances.
Overview of Current Project
Our goal was to understand activists’ narratives of how experiences connected
to their multiple advantaged and disadvantaged identities led to activism, as well as
how activism informed (re)politicization or the emergence of new identities. The
use of qualitative methods is justified by our interest in how multiple identities,
the process of politicization and activism are connected, and by the fact that the
quantification of these concepts is limited due to their heterogeneity described
earlier. Finally, we wanted to use our analysis as the basis for suggestions for how
theories of collective action might be served by attending to multiple identities
and recursive processes.
Data were drawn from two interview studies, conducted in Hungary and
the United States. The two sets of interviews were conducted separately and
focused on different groups of activists. The Hungarian study recruited people
engaged in many different forms of activism (own-group, ally, and issue-based),
and offered a broad perspective to understanding the interplay between multiple – advantaged (e.g., Hungarian majority, heterosexual, and upper middle
class) and disadvantaged (e.g., Roma, gay, and homeless) identities and forms
of activism. The U.S. study targeted “ally” activists in particular (people who
held advantaged group identities, such as heterosexual, cisgender, or European
American, and were engaged in alliance with disadvantaged group members,
such as lesbian, gay or bisexual people, transgender people, or people of color).
Both studies examined participants’ understandings of their identities and activism, the specific people and events that influenced their decisions to become
or stay engaged, and challenges to being an activist. These two samples provided
a unique opportunity to explore a broader set of questions related to the tensions and opportunities that multiple identities play within the same individual in
activism.
Navigating Multiple Identities
269
Method
Sample 1: Hungarian Activists
Semistructured interviews (ranging in length from 48 to 215 minutes,
M = 122 minutes) were conducted with 24 self-identified activists from the capital
city, Budapest. Respondents participated voluntarily without receiving compensation for their participation. Convenience and snowball sampling were used. All
participants were engaged in own group, ally, or issue-based activism. Twelve
participants were involved with activism related to (or as a part of) their paid
work, and all but two participants were currently engaged in some kind of unpaid
activist work as well; 13 women, and 11 men were interviewed. The average participant age was 39 years (range of 23–59 years). All interviews were conducted in
Hungarian by the 3rd author and trained research assistants. All excerpts included
here were translated by the 2nd and 3rd authors.
Sample 2: U.S. Activists
Semistructured interviews (28–136 minutes, M = 89 minutes) were conducted
with 19 ally activists from several cities in the Northeastern U.S. Participants were
given a $20 gift certificate in compensation for their participation. Convenience
and snowball sampling were used. Participants had to be over 18 years, identify
as an “ally,” and have participated in, or be currently active in, “community-based
engagement” (paid or unpaid). All participants identified as an advantaged-group
ally to at least one disadvantaged group (as opposed to being a disadvantaged
ally to another disadvantaged group). A number of the participants were involved
with activism related to their paid work, but almost all participants were currently
engaged in some kind of unpaid activism. Thirteen women and 6 men participated,
with an average age of 45 years (range of 22–78 years). Although participants
were recruited as allies, most of them mentioned that they had also engaged in
activism on behalf of groups to which they belonged. Therefore, although they
were conceptualized as “ally activists,” many were also active in own group
or issue-based activism (e.g., environmentalism or antiwar). Participants selfidentified the groups with whom they felt they were allied. All interviews were
conducted in English, by the 1st author.
Interview Procedure
Similar procedures were used for interviews in both Hungary and the United
States. Interviews took place at a location chosen by participants, usually their
home, but also interviewers’ offices and private rooms at public libraries. In both
samples, interviewees were first asked to give general background information
270
Curtin, Kende, and Kende
about themselves before answering questions related to their identity and activism.
All interviews were semistructured, and interviewers followed up on specific issues raised by participants, even while adhering to a general question outline. The
specific interview guides and questions are available upon request. All interviews
were audio-recorded and were fully transcribed by research assistants or professional transcribers. All interviews were imported into NVivo 10.0 (QSR, 2012)
for data management and analysis.
Analytic Procedure
We thematically coded all interview texts using deductive and inductive “theoretical” thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 84). We used an
iterative coding process (Galletta, 2013), moving from a general discussion based
on our readings of both sets of interviews, to coding first the Hungarian interviews,
then the U.S. interviews (where we developed additional codes), and then moving
back to the Hungarian interviews. The two studies used a different interview protocol, asking somewhat different questions of the participants. However, the purpose
of our analysis was not to focus on specific responses to specific questions, but
rather to focus on similar themes that emerged across the interviews, across the
two countries. It is, therefore, not our claim that we are comparing responses,
either across or within the two countries, but rather that we are examining each set
of interviews using a set of themes that were developed both deductively (based
on the relevant themes of the literature) and inductively (based on the interviews
themselves; Braun & Clarke, 2006) in order to identify patterns of the dynamic
interplay between identity and activism. An initial coding system was developed
based on the readings of the Hungarian interviews, and applied to the Hungarian
dataset (Phase 1). The Phase 1 codebook consisted of 16 codes. These codes were
then applied to the U.S. interviews by the first author and trained research assistants. While coding the U.S. interviews, we identified five additional codes (Phase
2). These Phase 2 codes were applied to the Hungarian interviews (Phase 3). In
this way, there was a layered iterative approach to data analysis. Within each set
of interviews there were several rounds of discussion and coding, but the analysis
of each sample also fed into the analysis of the other sample.
After all analyses were completed, all authors read through our coded data and
decided on the general findings that were most relevant in addressing our research
interests (Phase 4). To reiterate, our interest here was a focus on participants’
narratives related to intersecting advantaged and disadvantaged identities, the
politicization of their identities and their role in activism, and the influence of
activism itself on identification and/or politicization. We do not present the themes
and data here (the full codebook is available as supplementary material). Rather,
we discuss general findings, extrapolated via discussion from the codes, as they
relate to each of our areas of interest.
Navigating Multiple Identities
271
Results
Disadvantaged and Advantaged Identities Influence Politicization and Activism
All our participants held multiple disadvantaged and advantaged identities and the interpl …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
