Political identity
Political identity is a form of social identity marking membership of certain groups that share a common struggle for a certain form of power. This can include identification with a political party, but also positions on specific political issues, nationalism, inter-ethnic relations or more abstract ideological themes.
Political identities develop in individuals and evolve over time. A significant amount of research has focused on parental influence on the political identity of individuals. In addition to the socialisation of politics through the family, the influence on the political identity of personal factors such as genetics or certain personality traits, has also been the subject of much debate.
In the course of their lives and experiences, some individuals take particular political trajectories and sometimes change their political identity. Militancy and radicalisation are two forms and expressions that political identities can take.
Apart from family and personal influences, there are also more general factors that can have an impact on an individual's political identity. Every person is part of a historical context, a culture, a political system and a generation, all of which influence the way people perceive politics.
Political identities underpin a range of behaviours and have many implications, such as collective political mobilisation and voting behaviour.
Definition of political identity
When the influential political psychology book The American Voter was published, political identity, and in particular partisan identity, was described in terms of emotional attachments to certain social groups. Nevertheless, there are many definitions of political identity, from both political science and psychology. The literature does, however, seem to agree on the idea that political identity is a form of social identity marking membership of certain groups sharing a common struggle for a certain form of power.In political psychology, the development of social identity theories in the 1970s led to a reinterpretation of political identity in terms of attachment to social groups. The emergence of this new theoretical framework has improved the predictive power of individual political behaviour and attitudes.
This theory showed that each person can be linked to many groups at any time. The circumstances of the moment then determine which category the individual chooses to interpret his or her environment. In this context, political identity is one possible form of social identity among others.
The development of political identity
Socialisation
Given that political attitudes show remarkable stability throughout life, the acquisition of political orientations during the early years of life is of fundamental importance in determining the positions that will be maintained thereafter.As far as party orientations are concerned, party identification develops in the period leading up to adulthood but is not accompanied by an elaborate ideology. This form of identification is the most powerful factor in predicting voting intentions and positions on more specific political issues. The strength of partisan identification increases with age, as the individual gains experience with the electoral system.
For a long time, parental transmission was seen as a central element in shaping the political identity of their children. It was considered that "a man is born into his political party just as he is born into his future likely membership of his parents' church". However, more recent research indicates that the similarity of parent-child political positions decreases during the early adult years of the offspring, which means that the children's political preferences play a more important role in their partisan identification in early adulthood.
Even so, families differ considerably in their ability to pass on their political views to their children. Variations in relationship patterns do not, however, seem to influence the quality of this transmission. Instead, it seems that the parents who are most successful in passing on their political ideas are those who are the most politicised and have the most stable political positions, as they are the most capable of clearly communicating their political positions.
The transmission of parent-child political identity takes place in the context of a game of reciprocal influences that enables not only parents to influence their children, but also children to influence their parents. In fact, it seems that children are also capable of influencing their parents' political positions on certain occasions, particularly when they introduce more 'modern' attitudes into the family.
The tradition of research into parental transmission of the political identity was initially developed at a time when two-parent families were more common than they are today. It is therefore highly likely that a change in family transmission patterns will emerge in future studies, given that divorced parents present more political disagreements.
Individual factors related to political identity
The link between personality and political identity is a sensitive subject that can be placed within debates attempting to distinguish between the influence of personality traits and the influence of context on politics, as well as the debate on the personal factors influencing the political arena. Nevertheless, according to some authors, individual personality becomes a particularly important factor in situations where power is concentrated, institutions are in conflict or major changes are taking place.When it comes to measuring the personality's influence on political identity, two main methods can be adopted: direct assessment via personality questionnaires, or indirect assessments produced by third parties. Nevertheless, in all cases, the variable most studied in this field is authoritarianism, which can be defined as the set of beliefs about power, morality and social order. This variable is measured using Altemeyers' Right Wing Authoritarianism Questionnaire.
Some researchers have also attempted to assess the genetic factors influencing political behavior. Following this logic, given that personality traits have a relative influence on political identity, and that genes in turn have an influence on personality traits, genetics should have an indirect impact on political behavior. To determine the nature of this link, studies comparing dizygotic and monozygotic twins indicate that genetics partly determine the intensity of political commitment, but not the direction of political orientation. These results can be explained by the fact that inclination towards group affiliation is itself partly determined by genetic elements.
Nevertheless, the relationship between genetics and political behavior is still far from clear, and heated debates on the subject continue to this day. In any case, future research will have to reconcile the findings of genetic studies with those of studies focusing on social learning.
Political action
Many authors consider that interest in, and knowledge of, politics is significantly low in society at large. Research has therefore focused on the reasons why some citizens join political groups aimed at influencing the ruling power.At the root of this thought lies the idea that people who share common interests have a reason to work together to defend and pursue their interests. But many people share interests without actually working together. The first studies then turned to a rational interpretation of political activism, according to which commitment is the result of a comparison between the costs and benefits of the activity.
Apart from those who are paid to be involved in politics or those who are disinterested in it, there are two categories of people who share a common interest in politics. On the one hand, the "active public" include those who voluntarily contribute their time and money to a political organization. On the other hand, "sympathizers" refer to those who support a group's efforts without actually becoming involved. The current literature on activism has thus attempted to study the most important factors in determining the category in which people can be placed. Some of these factors are individual. For example, available resources, level of education or interest in a particular political issue can all be predictors of political involvement.
Radicalization
is the process by which individuals adopt extreme positions on political, social or religious issues.From a psychosocial perspective, van Stekelenburg and Klandermans see it above all as a process intimately linked to relations between groups, where individuals adopt radical trajectories as a result of interactions between identity dynamics and features of the socio-political context. In other words, according to this perspective, individuals do not radicalize on their own, but rather because they are full-fledged members of a group. Identity issues are therefore central to understanding the "us versus them", "good versus bad" polarization in the relationships among individuals who turn radical. However, according to van Stekelenburg and Klandermans, radicalization cannot be analyzed independently of the socio-political context that feeds or, on the contrary, hinders this process of legitimizing the use of radical actions and demonizing the enemy perceived as the source of problems and discontent. Researchers have identified several contextual levels. Firstly, supranational factors such as technology, information flows and ideologies have a significant influence on radical groups. Van Stekelenburg and Klandermans highlight three main trends in today's world: globalisation, migration and Europeanisation. Secondly, this approach to radicalisation emphasises the impact of the reappropriation of these supranational movements by national politics. A good example is undoubtedly the use of either an assimilationist or a multiculturalist model for managing migratory flows within European countries. The authors also note that the way in which national policies have decided to repress radical movements is a significant factor in the radicalisation process of certain groups. Finally, the last contextual level is linked to the particular situation of the movement and therefore to the social organisation of the movement, the political entrepreneurs of the mobilisation, but also to the potential number of citizens likely to take part in the political action.
Following the same psychosocial perspective, Moghaddam proposes a dynamic model of radicalisation, taking up the same central concepts as van Stekelenburg and Klandermans and articulating them in a succession of stages through which individuals pass before finally becoming radicalised. These different stages of radicalisation lead people first of all to become politicised to improve their living conditions. Then they polarise the social environment in which they live as a result of dissatisfaction with the situation and the feeling that their demands are not being listened to. Moghaddam also adds that as individuals become more radicalised, their margin of freedom in terms of what they can do becomes narrower.
Other authors have taken an interest in the issue and developed concepts related to the processes of radicalisation. Della Porta has highlighted the notion of "double marginalisation". By detaching themselves from society and the moderate sections of the movement to which they belong, radical groups tend to become isolated. This isolation would gradually lead to a deviation from the "normal" perception of reality and an increase in the propensity to use violent means.
This dynamic view of radicalisation contrasts with a body of literature that has attempted to identify the existence of a "terrorist personality". In this respect, an article by Lichter and Rothman concludes that radicalism is associated with particular family characteristics and a series of psychological traits linked in particular to measures of narcissism, motivations concerning power and lack of affiliation. Other researchers have also sought to link radicalisation with certain psychopathologies such as schizophrenia. This theoretical position is now widely criticised.
In addition to this psychosocial perspective, many authors have looked at the applicability of rational choice theory to the analysis of radicalisation processes. This approach postulates that individuals act by measuring the costs and benefits of their actions to maximise their personal advantage. By way of example, by mobilising this type of argument, Berman provides insights into the destructive and even self-destructive behaviour of the Taliban and other radical religious militias.