The idea of narrative has become increasingly appropriated in empirical research in both psychology and politics, yet there is a notable absence of integrative frameworks that specify a conceptual and methodological approach to narrative research in political psychology. An integrative conceptual framework is proposed and anchored in four principles of a narrative approach: (1) the mutual constitution of language and thought, (2) the need for personal coherence through narrative identity development, (3) the need for collective solidarity through shared meaning, and (4) the mediational property of narrative in social activity and practice. Theory and empirical research related to these principles are reviewed. We argue that a narrative framework has the potential to enhance the relevance and amplify the voice of political psychology within and beyond the academy and to offer new knowledge on the complex and dynamic relationship between context and mind.Since its emergence in the 1970s as a scholarly enterprise seeking to link politics, mind, and behavior, political psychology has struggled to find an anchoring paradigm. Horowitz (1979) argued that the sustenance of political psychology, and its ability to unify social science disciplines, would be determined by its ability to offer solutions to real political dilemmas. This sentiment is echoed in Barber's (1990) call for a progressive and relevant political psychology, as well as Winter's (2000) contention that political psychology must address the practical problems of real life. Both Horowitz (1979) and Smith (1979) suggested that the emergence of political psychology was directly connected to historical concerns and processes related to disciplinary structures. And Smith (1979, 1980) cautiously argued that political psychology might provide a multidisciplinary paradigm for the social and behavioral sciences through its commitment to an analysis of the mind in political context.In some ways, the lack of a coherent unifying paradigm within political psychology is related to the demands of continued disciplinary training for emerging scholars. Hence political psychologists trained primarily in political science might privilege rational choice theory over, say, social identity theory, because that paradigm is considered canonical to their disciplinary practice (e.g., Jervis, 1989). Yet the interdisciplinary nature of political psychology commands the development of conceptual frameworks that can cross borders in fields of knowledge production and, in the process, construct novel ways to approach political problems. In this article, we argue that a paradigm has begun to emerge which not only transcends disciplinary boundaries within the social sciences but also provides a bridge to the humanities. That paradigm is narrative.Calling upon social psychologist Ted Sarbin's (1986a) classic statement of narrative as a "root metaphor" for psychology, we argue that narrative represents an ideal root metaphor for political psychology in its ability to resolve the analyti...
Youth with same-sex desire undergo a process of narrative engagement as they construct configurations of identity that provide meaning and coherence with available sexual taxonomies. This article presents a theoretical analysis and four case studies centering on the relationship among context, desire, and identity for youth with same-sex desire. Through an interpretive, holistic analysis of the personal narratives of youth, we examine the integration of same-sex desire, behavior, and identity in the general life story and the selective appropriation of elements of "master narratives" of sexual identity development. Narratives were characterized by challenges to integrate desire, behavior, and identity into a configuration that conformed to the received sexual taxonomy. Implications for theory and further research on sexual identity development are discussed.
Groups in conflict routinely use historical narrative to compete for status in intergroup encounters. This study examines power dynamics in conversations about history facilitated according to distinct social psychological theories. Israeli and Palestinian youth participating in an existing intergroup contact program were randomly assigned to either a (1) coexistence condition consistent with a prejudice reduction model in which the goal was to foster the construction of a common in‐group identity, or (2) a confrontational condition consistent with a collective action model in which the goal was to raise awareness about identities and empower the low‐status group. Dialogue facilitated in the coexistence condition reproduced power asymmetries, with a pattern of Jewish Israeli dominance. Dialogue facilitated in the confrontational condition suggested a pattern of Palestinian dominance, consistent with a collective action model. Findings are discussed in terms of theoretical approaches to intergroup contact and dialogue about history among groups in intractable conflict.
Informed by social identity theory and a rhetorical approach to the study of social category construction in social interaction, this study analyzed the nature and function of participant utterances in two conditions of intergroup dialogue about history between Israelis and Palestinians. Across conditions that sought to either emphasize recategorization into a common in-group identity or subcategorization into mutually differentiated identities, Palestinian and Arab Israeli utterances primarily reflected the theme of victimization, while Jewish Israeli utterances primarily reflected themes of justification and victimization. The way in which these utterances produced social competition for victim and perpetrator roles and reproduced master historical narratives of Palestinian victimization versus Jewish Israeli "righteous" victimization is illustrated. Findings are discussed in terms of the role of narrative and rhetoric about social categories in settings of intractable political conflict, and implications for dialogue-based intervention about history are addressed.KEY WORDS: Israel-Palestine conflict, history, identity, social categorization, intergroup contact, discourse analysis, rhetoric, victimization, narrative As a scientific discipline, political psychology is concerned with the relationship between particular political configurations and accommodations (e.g., government, public policy) and the mental-the stuff of thought, feeling, and motivated, situated action. A recent significant movement in political psychology concerns the increasing centrality of the idea of narrative as a mechanism through which to interrogate this complex and dynamic relationship between politics and the mind (Hammack, 2008;Hammack & Pilecki, 2012). Scholars have increasingly argued (and demonstrated empirically) that narratives represent sense-making devices of the social and political world that individuals call upon as they explain, justify, and legitimize their political behavior, be it related to their decision to vote for a particular political candidate or to engage in acts of political violence (e.g., Andrews, 2007;Couto, 1993;Hammack, 2010;Witteborn, 2007). The stories with which individuals engage as they ascribe a sense of purpose to their acts tell us much about the nature of human political behavior and contribute to our larger theoretical concern with the relation among politics, mind, and action.Political Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 6, 2014 doi: 10.1111 In this article, we examine the way in which narratives that explain and justify violence are deployed in conversations about history among Israeli and Palestinian youth, seeking to apply this rich theoretical perspective on narrative and politics to the naturalistic setting of an existing program ostensibly seeking to alter the rhetoric of conflict through conversation. We addressed three research questions in this study. What are the dominant themes that emerge in historical dialogue among utterances of Israeli and Palestinian youth? How does this thematic content...
To address the dearth of research on the process and meaning participants make of intergroup contact in settings of intractable conflict, Israeli, Palestinian and US youth were randomly assigned to conditions of dialogue-based contact rooted in distinct social psychological theories. Over a 2-week period, participants completed diaries containing surveys of psychological experience and space for free reflection. US youth reported lower levels of engagement, social identity salience and positive mood relative to Israelis and Palestinians. Qualitative data revealed a pattern of detachment and dissatisfaction among US youth. Compared with participants in a recategorization condition, participants in a mutual differentiation condition of dialogue reported lower levels of self-consistency and higher levels of intergroup differentiation over time, suggesting the effectiveness of this approach to initiate a process of self-reflection and intergroup distinctiveness. Palestinian participants in the mutual differentiation condition reported higher levels of empowerment and positive mood throughout contact relative to all other participants, suggesting the effectiveness of this approach to challenge power asymmetries and its positivity for the low-status group. Results are discussed in terms of innovative methodological approaches to study intergroup processes in contact settings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.