Journals / Türk Psikoloji Yazıları / 2006 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 18

Self Representation at Different Levels of Abstaction -I- : Individual and Collective

Farklı Soyutlama Düzeylerinde Benlik Temsilleri -I- : Bireysel Benlik ve Kolektif Benlik ya da 'Ben'lik ve 'Bizl'lik

Pages
81–99
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Based on this classification, in the second article, the possible relations between the individual and the collective self are addressed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this review study is to classify the different variants of self, namely individual self and collective self, in order to explore the interrelation between these different variants.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Due to the breadth of material covered, this study was prepared as two separate but related articles the second of which can be considered as continuation of the first.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Based on this classification, in the second article, the possible relations between the individual and the collective self are addressed.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this review study is to classify the different variants of self, namely individual self and collective self, in order to explore the interrelation between these different variants. Due to the breadth of material covered, this study was prepared as two separate but related articles the second of which can be considered as continuation of the first. In the first article, various self representations are scrutinised and classified under two titles: Individual self and collective self. It is proposed that the self theories in mainstream social psychology, cross-cultural perspective and sociological social psychology are mainly concerned with the individual self-concept, as all three approaches share the notion of the uniqueness of self-concept. On the other hand, under the 'collective self title, the assumptions of social identity theory are reviewed as 'we'ness is only addressed by this theory. Furthermore, there is a discussion of how collective self differs from individual self, based on empirical findings. Based on this classification, in the second article, the possible relations between the individual and the collective self are addressed.

Özet

Bu derleme çalışmasının amacı, farklı benlik biçimlerini bireysel ve kolektif benlik başlıkları altında sınıflamak ve böylece bu iki benlik biçimi arasındaki ilişkileri incelemektir. Konunun oldukça kapsamlı ve yayın hacminin de kısıtlı olması nedeniyle, bu çalışma birbirinin devamı olan iki ayrı makale olarak hazırlanmıştır. Bu ilk makalede, sosyal psikolojide ele alman benlik biçimleri incelenerek bireysel ve kolektif olmak üzere iki başlık altında sınıflandırılmaktadır. Bu sınıflamaya göre, her üç yaklaşımın da benliği 'kendine-özgün' bir yapı olarak görmesi sebebiyle, sosyal psikoloji ana akımı içerisindeki kuramların, kültürlerarası yaklaşımın ve sosyolojik sosyal psikolojinin benlik kavramsallaştırmalarmın bireysel benlik olarak ele alınması gerektiği ileri sürülmektedir. 'Kolektif benlik' başlığı altındaysa, benliğin bir başka biçimi olan 'bizlik' üzerinde durulmakta, sosyal kimlik kuramının 'bizlik'le ilgili varsayımları ve kuramsal yaklaşımı sunulmaktadır. Ayrıca, görgül bulgular ışığında, kolektif benliğin bireysel benlikten nasıl farklılaştığı tartışılmaktadır, ikinci makalede ise, bu makalede yapılan sınıflama temelinde, bireysel benlikle ilgili etmenlerin kolektif benlik üzerindeki etkileri incelenecektir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ARSLAN, S. (2006). Self Representation at Different Levels of Abstaction -I- : Individual and Collective. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 18, 81–99. https://ajindex.com/articles/128461

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. (1999). Social identity and so­cial cognition: Historical background and current trends. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 1-25). Oxford: Blackwell. Abrams, D. & Hogg, M. (2004). Collective identity: Gro­up membership and self conception. In M.B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Self and social identity (pp. 147-181). Oxford: Blackwell. Allport, F.H. (1924). Social psychology. New York: The Riberside Press.
  2. Asch, S.E. (1952). Social psychology. New York: Pren­tice Hall. Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80-114.
  3. Baumeister, R.F. (1987). How the self became a prob­lem: A psychological review of histQiical rese­arch. Journal of Personality and Social Psycho­logy, '52, 163-176.
  4. Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T.F., & Tice, DM. (1993). When ego threats lead to self-regulation failure: Negative consequences of high self-este­em. Journal of Personality and Social Psycho­logy, 64(1), 141-156.
  5. Bond, M.H., & Hewstone, M. (1988). Social identity the­ory and the perception of intergroup relations in Hong Kong. International Journal of Intercultu-ral Relations,12, 153-170.
  6. Brewer, M.B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this "we"? Levels of identity and self representation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93.
  7. Brown, J.D. (1998). The self. California: McGraw-Hill. Burke, PJ. (1980). The self: Measurement implications from a symbolic interactionist perspective. Soci­al Psychology Quarterly, 43, 18-29.
  8. Capozza, D., Voci, A., & Licciardello, O. (2000). Indivi­dualism, collectivism and social identity theory. In D. Capozza, & R. Brown (Eds.), Social iden­tity processes: Trends in theory and research (pp. 62-80). London: Sage. Cooley, C. H. (1970). Human nature and the social order. New York: Schocken Books (1st ed. 1902).
  9. Durkheim, E. (1947). The division of labour in society. Chicago: Free Press (1st ed. 1858). Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 161-186.
  10. Fair, R.M. (1996). The roots of modern social psycho­logy. Oxford: Blackwell Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison pro­cess. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
  11. Geertz, C. (1975). On the nature of anthropological un­derstanding. American Scientist, 63, 47-53.
  12. Göregenli, M. (1997). Individualist-collectivist tendenci­es in