National Identity, Citizenship and Immigration: Putting Identity in Context

Abstract

In this paper we suggest that there is a need to examine what is meant by 'context' in Social Psychology and present an example of how to place identity in its social and institutional context. Taking the case of British naturalisation, the process whereby migrants become citizens, we show that the identity of naturalised citizens is defined by common-sense ideas about Britishness and by immigration policies. An analysis of policy documents on 'earned citizenship' and interviews with naturalised citizens shows that the distinction between 'elite' and 'non-elite' migrants is evident in both the 'reified' sphere of policy and the 'common sense' sphere of everyday identity construction. While social representations embedded in lay experience construct ethno-cultural similarity and difference, immigration policies engage in an institutionalised positioning process by determining migrants' rights of mobility. These spheres of knowledge and practice are not disconnected as these two levels of 'managing otherness' overlap -it is the poorer, less skilled migrants, originating outside the West who epitomise difference (within a consensual sphere) and have less freedom of mobility (within a reified sphere). We show that the context of identity should be understood as simultaneously psychological and political.

Don’t forget to remember: Collective memory of the Yugoslav wars in present-day Serbia.

“…In essence, historical memory is parallel to reified representations of history as both concern knowledge of the past transmitted and legitimized by social institutions. In contrast, lay representations refer to the common-sense ideas that people hold and draw on in everyday conversations (Andreouli & Howarth, 2013). In the present study, reified representations are exemplified through the official version of the past found in history textbooks and lay representations are exemplified through the use of focus group data.…”

‘Changing the context’: Tackling discrimination at school and in society

“…Our focus is thus on both stability and change, in line with theory and research in the social representations tradition (Kessi & Howarth, in press). Since in this paper, our interest is on discrimination and stigma, we understand context here in terms of societal processes of representation which mediate social relations and permeate institutionalised practices of stigmatisation (Andreouli & Howarth, 2013;Howarth, 2011). We suggest that the theory of social representations, originally formulated by Moscovici in the 1950's, can help us conceptualise and study the relationship between the micro context, the specific local community context and the macro context of broader systems of representation.…”

“…As others have also argued, it is important to "ask how psychological processes are constituted through and operate in social context" (Subašić, Reynolds, Reicher, Klandermans, 2012;p. 6; see also Israel & Tajfel, 1972;Jovchelovitch, 2007;Andreouli & Howarth, 2013). Here we focus particularly on approaches to tackle discrimination and prejudice in schools.…”

Territoriality and migration in a divided society: Lay theories of citizenship and place in Northern Ireland.

“…In turn, these deviations were used to rhetorically undermine their rights and entitlements as members of the community. As Hopkins, Reicher and Harrison (2006) argue, migration across boundaries is shaped by understanding of the relationship between identity, place and entitlements and as Andreouli and Howarth (2013) point out, the inscription of official models of citizenship into policy can act to reify and perpetuate exclusive understandings of this relationship.…”

“…Taking the case of the UK, Andreouli and Howarth (2013) identified different rationales for exclusion among official and lay discourses of citizenship: official discourses focussed on the concept of 'earning citizenship' as well as rights of mobility across national boundaries, while lay discourses focussed on issues of similarity and difference between immigrants and host nationals. In each instance, the rights of skilled migrants from countries of greater cultural similarity were privileged over poorer, unskilled, 'less similar' immigrants.…”