Social Identity and Social Policy: Engagements with Postmodern Theory

Abstract

This article argues for the centrality of the concept of social identity in contemporary analyses of social policy. It attempts to transcend arguments for or against postmodernism and argues that debates about ‘identity and difference’, when combined with an analysis of social relations, need not undermine a focus on structural inequalities and should be at the heart of theoretical considerations in social policy. It suggests that the concept of social identity is still poorly understood in recent debates and goes on to outline a provisional theory which distinguishes between ontological and categorical identity. Such a discussion, it is argued, may help suggest ways in which the role of social policy in the process of identity formation may be better understood.

Critiquing capabilities: The distractions of a beguiling concept

“…supposedly 'new') politics of identity, recognition and respect may be emerging, this is valorised within, and largely confined to, the personal or private sphere of the self (cf. Taylor, 1998). The personal and the private are not properly connected.…”

Social Policy and Human Rights: Re-thinking the Engagement

“…It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that a concern with the issue of human identity must necessarily lead to an individualistic conception of rights. Taylor (1998) has drawn a distinction between two aspects of identity: 'categorical' and 'ontological'. Our individual identities are constructed through a multiplicity of overlapping categorical identities relating to gender, age, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, abilities, etc.…”

Geography and social policy: spatial divisions of welfare

“…Although a focus on identity and difference has a long pedigree in social policy (Taylor, 1998), the novel contribution here may be in drawing attention to the symbolic elements of the landscapes of the welfare state. Work drawing on cultural geography has shed light on the attachments people have for symbolic elements of welfare systems (such as hospitals: Moon and Brown, 2001) or has treated welfare as a landscape of consumption (Kearns and Barnett, 1999).…”

“…Admittedly, their review relies on some rather elderly geographical texts, mainly on the human geography of the UK, but I argue here that much has already been done to rectify the weaknesses they claim to discuss. Indeed they might usefully have consulted Pinch (1997;1998) which emphasized the role of 'geographical imaginations' in understanding the diverse 'worlds of welfare' and which makes the case for a 'spatially-aware social policy'. The aim of this review is to consider both the validity of the argument of Powell and Boyne (2001) and the extent to which Pinch's challenges have been taken up.…”