When in or out can mean everything- why social identity theory is hurting us all.

"The drained public pool has, for me, become the best metaphor to explain the mess we’re in — refusal to share across race leaves a country with nothing left for itself." Heather McGhee

"My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together." Desmond Tutu

"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."Groucho Marx

What groups do you belong to? Some groups can be central to one's identity- like professions, religions, race, or political party. Other groups are voluntary and can change over a lifetime- sports allegiances, celebrity fan groups, informal clubs, or neighborhoods. Does ones' group of choice or circumstance define them, or does it imprison them and encourage bigotry and prejudice?

Being an individual human being can be hard. There's too many choices, too much information, and too many people to make decisions about. The popular shortcut is to align with a group and utilize their tools and beliefs in order to have a chance at an orderly or predictable life. Humans are social creatures, and joining groups comes naturally. The problem comes when group identity trumps everything, and people suppress their true selves in order to belong, while falling for the lies about those who aren't in the group. Going against a group can often result in ostracism, and that is the worst type of pain one can imagine. Cults use this to their advantage.

Social identity theory is the concept that we all derive part of our self-concept and sense of belonging to the groups that we belong to. Because of the importance of those groups to our sense of self, we create spheres of influence consisting of in-groups and out-groups. In-groups are people we share things with, and we tend to think more highly of them and treat them preferentially. Out-groups, however, are the "other", and we tend to fear, look down on, and even demonize them to make our group look better.

This theory was pioneered by Henri Tajfel, a French psychologist who lost many friends and family members in the holocaust. He spent many years studying group dynamics to try to figure out how atrocities like the genocide of European Jews was possible. He tested groups of people to find what possible allegiances could activate an us vs them dynamic. This experiment, called the minimal group paradigm, found that even the silliest, most meaningless group distinctions, like how someone performed on a simple test, activated desires to favor those perceived as the in-group. Other experiments have confirmed this that even random names and characteristics could activate this ugly propensity.

If random distinctions like hair color or left-handedness can activate group identities, what does that say about the big four- race, gender, politics and religion? Those four groups are so powerful that they can control an individuals entire identity and choices. We all need some sort of framework through which to make senses of the world, but choosing to align with a cult-like devotion to only one identity can be dangerous and self-defeating. Race and gender, including sexual preference, are baked into us from birth, and judging people based on that alone is a waste. There's no single mold that race or gender can predict, so why bother? Politics and religion are more a matter of choice, but tend to get passed down generationally. Politics and religions define one's ethics, beliefs, and values, and their track records through history are not great. Those who are comfortable thinking critically about nuanced issues tend to do better than those who blindly accept dogmas.

Which brings me back to social identity theory. American politics have merged the big four into one super-identity. White, male, Christian, Americans tend to identify with Republicans and conservatism. In a polarized environment, they read the same news, watch the same television shows, and avoid anything to do with the "other" side. If they are good, then Democrats must be the outsiders, the threats, and even evil. Democrats are a less homogenous bunch, but they demonize Republicans almost as much while sticking to their preferred sources of information and entertainment. How can anything possibly be accomplished anymore with an eternal tug-of-war between demonizing groups going on?

There is a darker side to all of this. Swimming pool theory has shown that people are willing to knowingly harm themselves as long as they believe that the out groups will be hurt more. When de-segregation began, community swimming pools closed down rather than admit African-American swimmers. Social welfare programs are a favorite target for cuts, even in areas that depend on them, because people are convinced that others who don't deserve them are getting too much. Even public education is now under attack, and voters seem willing to let schools fail while religious schools get more public funding, because somehow private, Christian education for a preferred few is better than guaranteed public education for all.

Tribalism and in-group favoritism is a race to the bottom. If we truly are willing to hurt ourselves and each other to maintain some sort of group superiority, then we are doomed as a society and there will never be enough trust or cooperation to do important or difficult things.

Just remember this sobering thought- 100 years from now or sooner, almost all of us will be stripped of all our group allegiances. There are no Americans in the afterlife. There are no political parties, races, disabilities, professions, castes, hair colors, or fraternities to distinguish us in whatever follows. It's my belief that yes, there is something after death, but all that will matter then is one's soul and the bulk of wisdom that they've accumulated in their lifetime. If there is instead a segregated Heaven with in and out groups just like here on earth, then I tend to agree with Groucho Marx's comment above.

Don't fall victim to the false promises of group identities. We are all humans trying to make our way in a confusing world, and assuming the worst about those who are different is a fool's choice.