Tajfel

Both SIT and the social constructionist theories can help understand and explain some features of the development of identity, but have also been subject to critiques. For example, SIT is an invaluable tool in the process of understanding social and politic phenomena such as international conflicts, racism, electoral processes, religion and crime in our society (and others). In this way, the theory is much more than of academic interest only; some of its principles can influence areas of education and policy-making for instance, and so be used as means for social change (Hornsey, 2008). But SIT has also been extensively criticized. Tajfel and his colleagues only paid attention to the observable behaviour of individuals and therefore completely ignored the individual’s personal sense of their own identity. The method used in SIT did not allow the exploration of new ideas and possibilities that are not directly measurable and therefore many important aspects of identity might have been overlooked. It has been argued that SIT is not really a ‘social’ theory because it treats groups as if they were individuals (Phoenix, 2007). Indeed, in SIT research, the participants react to individuals and not to groups and so the reaction observed could be the product of other factors and not necessarily the group membership. Moreover, it is important to note the group experiments were made in laboratory settings that are very different from the individual’s complex everyday reality; by oversimplifying the social processes, these experiments and their findings can be criticized for not being ecologically valid. Finally, a major critique of SIT is that their findings on social phenomena were compiled in a specific cultural and historical context; for that reason, they cannot be seen as universal truths about human nature. This idea runs counter to the very goal of empirical research, that is to build a universally applicable theory, and so SIT cannot be seen as a comprehensive...