Dis-Embedded Identity of Majority Members: The Case of Catholics in Poland

Abstract

In this article, we focus on the process of dis-embedded identification (the accentuation and prioritization of the identification with a particular subordinate ingroup relative to the identification with the relevant superordinate ingroup) among majority members and examine possible antecedents and consequences. To this end, we conducted research with Catholics in Poland. We hypothesized societal respect for Catholics would negatively predict dis-embedded identification, whereas intragroup respect would positively predict dis-embedded identification—especially under the condition of lacking societal respect. We further hypothesized dis-embedded identification to positively predict the pursuit of hegemony. These hypotheses are mainly based on Honneth’s theory of recognition and Turner’s self-categorization theory. Employing a longitudinal research design and latent variable modeling, we obtained supporting evidence for our hypotheses. The implications for further research, especially on intergroup relations and politics in pluralizing societies, are discussed.

The vertical structure of collective identities and its predictive value for (in)tolerance of religious groups.

“…This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Embedded identity can be conceptualized as the analogous identification with a particular subordinate group and the relevant superordinate group, combined with the perception that the former is hierarchically nested in the latter (Paffrath & Simon, 2020a). Disembedded identity can be conceptualized as an accentuation and prioritization of the identification with a particular subordinate group against the identification with the relevant superordinate group, combined with the perception that the former is hierarchically unnested from the latter (Paffrath & Simon, 2020a).…”

“…On the one hand, this may be due to a pursuit of hegemony resulting in the usurpation of society, that is, Level 2, by definite majorities. The possibility that embedded identity becomes an eroded concept in the case of definite majorities should thus be considered (Paffrath & Simon, 2020b;see Wenzel, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.…”

“…On the one hand, this may be due to a pursuit of hegemony resulting in the usurpation of society, that is, Level 2, by definite majorities. The possibility that embedded identity becomes an eroded concept in the case of definite majorities should thus be considered (Paffrath & Simon, 2020b; see Wenzel, 2004; Wenzel et al, 2007). On the other hand, this may also be due to an increased motivation of definite minorities to engage in intergroup discrimination (Simon et al, 2001), eventually elicited by own experiences of intolerance (see Reininger et al, 2020; Schaefer & Simon, 2020).…”

“…A superordinate (Level 2) group usually follows from a recategorization of all relevant subordinate (Level 1) groups into a common and inclusive (Level 2) group, so that a superordinate identity equals a common ingroup identity (see Gaertner et al, 1993). Embedded identity can be described as the analogous identification with a particular subordinate group and the relevant superordinate group, combined with the perception that the former is hierarchically nested in the latter (Paffrath & Simon, 2020a). For instance, a Protestant in Germany would identify with his/her particular Protestant community (Level 1) and would perceive this group to be embedded in the German society (Level 2), which he/she would also identify with.…”

“…This hypothesis is empirically supported by previous research, which revealed that both Level 1 and Level 2 identification have positive effects on a conceptually similar form of identification (Fleischmann & Verkuyten, 2016). Alongside, dis-embedded identity can be described as an accentuation and prioritization of the identification with a particular subordinate group against the identification with the relevant superordinate group, combined with the perception that the former is hierarchically unnested from the latter (Paffrath & Simon, 2020a). For instance, a Muslim in Germany would emphatically and primarily identify with his/her particular Muslim community (Level 1) but would perceive this group to be dis-embedded from German society (Level 2), which he/she would only unemphatically and secondarily identify with.…”