Colorado Resilience Collaborative: Research for Preventing Identity-Based Violence

Transcription

1 Colorado Resilience Collaborative: Research for Preventing Identity-Based Violence The Colorado Resilience Collaborative hosted a year-long intensive study on the research and empirical work on the topic of identity-based violence. This group brought together academics from disciplines and institutions across academia in one metropolitan city. As a result of knowledge sharing from each discipline, dedicated study, and thoughtful discussion, the Research Collaborative identified three key research agendas for ongoing practice and knowledge development in preventing and ending identity-based violence. These questions include:

2 1. How do communities foster resiliency? What factors contribute to resilience in communities and groups? a. Unit of analysis: Group b. DV: Resiliency c. IVs: Risk factors, Protective factors (social support) d. Key considerations for this research - understanding the role of school communities (higher education and secondary) 2. How do individuals develop identity? When do intersectional identities prove to enhance prosocial behaviors? a. Unit of analysis: Individuals b. DV: prosocial behaviors c. IVs: characteristics of identity d. Key considerations: Need to clarify how various theories of identity development explain that development over the lifespan and at fixed points in time (i.e. young adults - age 25). From there, take identity development and connect to the outcome of prosocial behaviors and civic activity. 3. How do individuals become part of communities of values? What is the interplay/ intersectionality of group membership and identity? How do people experience belonging? a. Unit of analysis: social / societal (multilevel or nested analysis) b. DV: Belonging or Shared Values c. IVs: Community characteristics, Environmental factors, individual level traits, Events or programmatic experiences d. Key considerations: Experiencing the sense of belonging appears to be essential to preventing violence. What is it about the feeling of belonging that allows people to feel heard, valued, or connected? The next three sections provide a brief literature review in each of the aforementioned research areas and contextualizes the concepts identified as key variables. This document is intended to provide a proverbial jumping off point for students, scholars, and community members who are hoping to developing strategies for preventing or intervening in identity-based violence and radicalization to violent extremism.

3 How do communities foster resiliency? What factors contribute to resilience in communities and groups? When looking at characteristics that define a community, one has to look at the broader concept of social networks and the relationships that exist within those networks. Granovetter (1973) analyzed social networks linking macro and micro levels of sociological theory, and used that analysis to look at strong and weak ties within social networks and the effects of those ties, especially in comparison to one another. Granovetter concluded that weak ties are seen as indispensable to individuals opportunities and to their integration into communities (p. 1378). This is in contrast to what has been assumed of weak ties: that they are just that, weak. In terms of strong ties, while it is true that the stronger the connection between individuals the more likely communities will be cohesive, strong ties can also lead to overall fragmentation. This creates a paradox; both the strength (or weakness) of the tie is just as important as the content of the connection. This finding adds a new dimension to take into account when considering how communities can intervene and foster resilience. A question Granovetter ends with is, How can negative ties be handled? (p. 1378). Knowing how to handle the negative ties, in addition to promoting the positive content in connections of both strong and weak ties, can play a role in determining how communities can best foster resiliency. Social networks also extend to activity travel patterns, such as communication and social activities. Carrasco, Hogan, Wellman and Miller (2008) looked at the relationship between travel behavior and social networks. They hypothesized that activity related travel emerges from one s social network. In other words, an individual s social network can predict their communication and social patterns. Using both a survey and in person interview, they looked at the frequency of interactions. Their results showed that an individual s network is a

4 context to elicit social activity-travel generation, spatial distribution, and information communication and technology use (p. 961). While social networks can predict one s communication and social engagement, social networks can also add to one s social capital. Bourdieu s theory on social capital ar gues that judgments of taste are related to social position, or more precisely, are themselves acts of social positioning. Taking these theories into account when thinking about communities role in resiliency building, social networks, social ties, and social capital may all be factors that contribute to resiliency at the group level. Determining what factors contribute to resiliency will require an understanding of the risk and protective factors that are present for individuals that reside within those communities. Van Brunt, Murphy, and Zedginidze (2017) wanted to know how to identify and intervene with at-risk individuals who have radical thoughts and behaviors that are escalating to extremist violence and terrorism. The authors specifically wanted to explore ideologies related to radical thoughts and extremist actions that occur broadly outside of the college population to allow inferences to those that might occur within the college population--they looked at the broader community outside of college to better understand the community within college. They analyzed case studies from 1983 to 2017 to identify risk and protective factors. Wolkow and Ferguson (2001) explored community factors in the development of resiliency. Specifically, they looked at children and resiliency to determine why some children are more resilient than others in the face of adversity. Protective factors were shown to be diverse and exist within the child, family, and community. Children with high self-esteem, positive social orientation, warm cohesive families, additional support from external adults and

5 community tend to cope with hardship more effectively than with those that do not have these. When looking at interventions, the study stressed the importance of sense of acceptance leading to increased self-esteem and self-efficacy which betters helps the child face adversity. Social support can be introduced at any stage of a child s life and can help to compensate for lack of other protective factors. Social support is also multi-leveled and can act in conjunction with any of the other classes of protective factors and can also help break cycles by encouraging sense of control and self-efficacy in relation to making important life decisions. References: Carrasco, J., Hogan, B., Wellman, B., & Miller, E. (2008). Collecting Social Network Data to Study Social Activity-Travel Behavior: An Egocentric Approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 35 (6), Fearon, J. D., & Laitin, D. D. (1996). Explaining interethnic cooperation. The American Political Science Review, 90 (4), 715. Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology, 27 (1), Van Brunt, B., Murphy, A., & Zedginidze, A. (2017). An exploration of the risk, protective, and mobilization factors related to violent extremism in college populations. Violence and Gender, 4 (3). Wolkow, K. & Ferguson, H.B. (2001). Community factors in the development of resiliency: considerations and future directions. Community Mental Health Journal, 37 (6).

6 How do individuals develop identity? When do intersectional identities prove to enhance prosocial behaviors? Marcia s Identity Status Theory views identity through four stages: identity moratorium, identity foreclosure, identity diffusion, and identity achievement. It is believed that one s sense of identity is determined largely by the choices and commitments made regarding certain personal and social traits. Where they reside within the stages of identity development influences the way they behave, the choices they make, and the groups they decide to join. This could help explain why some people fall into specific groups it may relate to what stage they are in. This is but one theory of identity development. Guan and So (2016) took a different approach and conducted a study that explored self-efficacy beliefs, social identity and perceived social support at the individual level. They found that individuals with stronger social identity with a given social group perceived greater social support, had higher self-efficacy of engaging in a health-related behavior advocated by the group, and had greater behavioral intention. This study displays the intersectionality between one s individual and social identity, and how the junction of those identities influence their behaviors. But what happens to those individuals who do not have a strong identity? Hogg (2014) sought to answer this. He looked at the uncertainty-identity theory and how that can be used to determine why people join and form groups. The uncertainty-identity theory states that self-uncertainty can motivate people to identify with social groups, particularly groups with a distinctive and clearly defined identity and associated normative beliefs and behavioral prescriptions. Group identification resolves uncertainty and generates group and intergroup behaviors. The more uncertain one is the more rigid and clearly defined

7 group membership they gravitate towards. Their identity development is determined by the groups they chose to belong to. Related to identity development, is how intersectionalities of identities enhance social behavior, whether in a positive or negative way. When thinking about group membership, identities, and behaviors, one can look to extremist groups and the reasons why individuals join and leave these groups. After reviewing case studies of previous White Supremacy Groups, there are some common reasons as to why some individuals join these groups: group membership gives them a sense of power, a sense of belonging, a place to fit in, an identity, and meaning and purpose that they were previously lacking. Bubolz and Simi (2015) interviewed 34 individuals about their exit from U.S. White Supremacy Groups to determine if any commonalities existed. Thirty-one of the individuals interviewed were male, and three were female, all of various ages and socioeconomic status. The results of the interviews showed that there is no single reason for leaving that cuts across the majority of the participants. People s motives for leaving vary. Some common themes that were found were: 1/3 left because of contact with law enforcement, 21% left the movement at the same time as other group members, 35% left with their spouse, 21% left the movement and returned (this was referred to as ideological relapses ). These analyses on why individuals join and leave extremists groups, combined with the many theories on identity development, lend a better understanding on how identities can develop. It also creates an avenue to better determine how the space of intersecting identities can be used to promote prosocial behaviors, versus negative and detrimental ones. References:

8 Bubolz, B., & Simi, P. (2015). Leaving the World of Hate: Life-Course Transitions and Self-Change. American Behavioral Scientist, 59 (12), Guan, M., & So, J. (2016). Influence of Social Identity on Self-Efficacy Beliefs Through Perceived Social Support: A Social Identity Theory Perspective. Communication Studies, 67 (5), Hogg, M.A. (2014). From uncertainty to extremism: Social categorization and identity processes. Association for Psychological Science. SAGE. How do individuals become part of communities of values? What is the interplay/ intersectionality of group membership and identity? How do people experience belonging? When analyzing the interplay between identities and group identities, Sears, Huddy, and Levty (2013) looked at various social identity theories and how those relate to political cohesion. They cited the social identity theory, which states that group membership is objective, but group identity is subjective. This distinction between group membership and group identity is essential in understanding how groups define themselves, and how members of these group identify themselves--it helps to explain how individuals become part of a community and the values they uphold. The article also looked at self-categorization theory, which is the shift from personal to collective identity. This shift is accompanied by an increased adherence to group norms and heightened self-stereotyping. These theories look at the intersection between group and individual identity, and how one influences the other. Additionally, the authors found in their research that anger was found to strengthen group identity and cohesiveness. This is an interesting finding that should be explored further. Why does anger strengthen ties within groups? When does anger become part of the group identity?

9 Borum (2011) determines identity as a key element to radicalization, as group affiliation can fill a need to belong or provide a sense of meaning. This sense of belonging has been present throughout the literature. References: Borum, R. (2011). Radicalization into Violent Extremism II: A Review of Conceptual Models and Empirical Research. Journal of Strategic Security, 4 (4), Sears, D., Huddy, L., & Levty, J. (2013). Group identity and political cohesion. The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

10

11