Tajfels Social Identity Theory and the

consociation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Nejra Hodi
Course: Political Psychology

January, 2015
Word Count: 3250

Tajfels Social Identity Theory and the Consociation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Nejra Hodi

Contents
I. Introduction..........................................................................3
II. Basic tenets of Social Identity Theory...................................4
III. Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina..........................................7
IV. Conclusion.......................................................................... 10
V. References..........................................................................11

Tajfels Social Identity Theory and the Consociation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Nejra Hodi

I.

Introduction

At the heart of social psychology lies the study of social identity. In contrast to the
common perception of identity as a deeply held belief of one-self, social identity is based
around ones membership in a particular group. Many scholars have used this concept as a
focal point of their researches on group relationship and performance. One of the most
prominent, yet older, theories of social identity was coined by H. Tajfel, who was later joined
by J. Turner. Modern developments in social identity theory built on these studies in order to
adapt to ever changing social context. The exploration of this area of social psychology is
particularly important for understanding conflict, prejudice, stereotype, discrimination and
extremism because these phenomena cause social instability and break cohesion. In order to
discover mechanisms to combat negative products of social identification, basic relationships
between concepts need to be established. This is where social identity theory differs from
realistic theory that sees all negative outcomes of group relationship as a matter of
competition for power and influence or as a conflict of interest (Cottam, Dietz-Uhler, Mastors
& Preston, 2010). Social identity theory establishes comparison that leads to perception of
unfair advancement of the out-group as a starting point instead (ibid). Furthermore, it implies
that the very presence of divergent groups inevitably leads to destabilization for there will
always be an element of comparison present. According to Hogg social identity theory is a
social psychological analysis of the role of self-conception in group membership, group
processes, and intergroup relations. It embraces a number of interrelated concepts and subtheories that focus on social-cognitive, motivational, social-interactive and macro social
facets of group life (1988). Nevertheless, there is a potential for decreasing hostility between
groups by changing the frameworks of social identity or removing the very causations of
separation. In order to evaluate the postulates of this theory and analyse its applicability in
the real world, particular cases need to be closely examined. It is therefore very interesting to
first delve into the theoretical paradigm established by Tajfel and Turner through their studies
and then turn to a case analysis of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The reasons for analysing Bosnia
and Herzegovina are many, but they mostly revolve around the identity-based conflict that
happened in 1990s and the latter institutionalization of these social identities into the political
system. It is exactly this consociation model or the political system separating the political
world into three ethnic dimensions that I claim deepens the cleavage between social identity
groups in B&H and destabilizes the countrys prospects for progressive future. The aim of this
3

Tajfels Social Identity Theory and the Consociation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Nejra Hodi

paper is to analyze whether the social identity theory is applicable to the current political
setting in the country.

II.

Basic tenets of Social Identity Theory

Social identity focuses on the group in the individual (Hogg, 1988). The group one
belongs to may be called in-group whereas all the others constitute out-groups. When the
context or social circumstances allow the group to deduce the differentiation towards another
group, or when it becomes evident that there is us against them, discriminatory or conflictual
tendencies may occur (Cottam, Dietz-Uhler, Mastors & Preston, 2010). Tajfel started by
investigating how categorization induces people to focus on similarities in one category and
difference in others (1959). He continued to relate the influence of this categorization on the
prejudice and discrimination (1971). Moreover, Tajfel conducted an experiment to test this
assumption and proved that even when there was no hostility, gain or self-interest existing
between the groups, the group members tended to favour one another over the out-group
members. The exploration of the impact of social comparison (1974) whereby in intergroup
contexts people make comparisons that maximize differences between self and other (Hogg,
1988) rounded up his theory. The minimal group paradigm, as he called it, became basis
for his further research. Thereupon, Tajfel ultimately defined social identity as that part of
an individual which derives from his/her knowledge of his/her membership in a social group
(groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership
(1978).
When entering deeper into the analysis of Social Identity Theory, envisioned by Tajfel and
later Turner (1979), there are several conclusions that need to be addressed in order to
comprehend possible implications. First, the studies proved that the groups tend to cultivate
the perception of positive social identity (1979). Second, positive or favourable comparisons
induce a sense of prestige and subjectivity among the members of an in-group hence, the
image of positive social identity (ibid). Such comparisons cherish individuals self-esteem and
are based upon the relationship towards the out-group. In other words, in order for people to
hold an image of positive social identity they need to believe they are better than other groups
and they achieve this through comparison (ibid). Third, the very membership of the group is
dependent on this favourable distinction, meaning the sense of positive social identity. The
need to maintain or achieve this motivates the group to continue existing. In contrary, it
disappears. For example, if the Bosnian Serbs think of themselves as fighting for their
4

Tajfels Social Identity Theory and the Consociation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Nejra Hodi

national unity and territory when engaging in a repression of other groups, their sense of
positive identity compared the sense of the out-groups will develop because the out-group is
doing something negative taking away their integrity and sense of belonging. However, if
this sense reverses, if they see themselves as characterised by something bad, they will have
the perception of holding a negative social identity and question the groups existence.
Collective guilt or apology is a good mechanism for making a circle from positive (whereby
group is doing the right thing) to negative (group realizes mistakes) and again positive
perception of social identity (group attempts redemption)1.
The analysis of intergroup relations and social changes a function of positive
distinctiveness is according to Hogg one of the major tenets of Tajfel & Turners social
identity theory (1988). Nevertheless, they build up on this to explain discrimination as a
phenomenon that occurs as a result of unequal comparison. There are three conditions that
need to take place before discrimination is told to be present. At start, the group members
must truly internalize the membership as something that is part of their identity. Then, the
context under which the in-group evaluation of the out-group and creation of their identity
perception takes place ought to be enabling rather than preventing the process. Last, and
perhaps the most important condition is that the out-group must be a relevant counter-part i.e.
point of evaluation.2 Nevertheless, other authors have attempted to summarize the major
variables that influence intergroup discrimination existent in the minimal group paradigm as
follows:
(1) the degree to which subjects identified with the relevant in-group and
(2) the salience of the relevant social categorization in the setting, (3) the
importance and relevance of the comparative dimension to in-group identity,
(4) the degree to which the groups were comparable on that dimension (similar,
close, ambiguously different), including, in particular, (5) the in-group's
relative status and the character of the perceived status differences between the
groups (Rubin & Hewstone, 1998).

1 There has been plenty research on this topic and it would be useless to
reference any particular one. Instead, the statement above provides a general
conclusion or a parallel with reality that one can reach simply by observing.
2 Facors such as proximity, salience and similarity determine the relevance of the
out-group comparison (Tajfel &Turner, 1979).
5

Tajfels Social Identity Theory and the Consociation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Nejra Hodi

All of these variables come down to a simple conclusion: social categorization under
favourable circumstances leads to intergroup discrimination that is positive for the in-group
(Tajfel and Turner, 1979). This means that the out-group is seen as less good or depending on
context less successful, less valuable or less important. Discrimination is good for increasing
self-image and people generally want to feel powerful, worthy and rightful. Sometimes, the
outcome of social comparison gets more radical or, it can be said that discrimination evolves
into high levels of hostility perpetuating conflict. Such conflicts occurred worldwide and
continue occurring even today.3 In the aftermath of the Cold War some of the worst atrocities
were committed along the lines of social identity affiliation. The case that will be analyzed in
the next section is one example upon which these theoretical frameworks may be imposed in
order to analyze the effect of institutional limitations in the post-conflict period on the
cleavage between different ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Overall, the essence of
the process through which particular image or emotion is directed towards the out-group
consists of social categorization, social identification and social comparison (McLeod, 2008).

3 The genocide in Darfur (Sudan) is being perpetrated at the moment of writing.

The UN Security Council is ineffective in this case because Russia and China do
not allow intervetion due to economic interests of supplying weapons.
6

Tajfels Social Identity Theory and the Consociation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Nejra Hodi

III.

Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina

The conflict that occurred upon the dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1990s mainly revolved
around the clash between Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks (Bosnians) 4. It ended in 1995
with the signing of Dayton Peace Accords. When the current social situation is analyzed,
there would be little mistake in saying that Dayton merely institutionalized the warring groups
and that, according to most of the parameters, Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a democracy
(Linz and Stepan, 1978). By the end of the war, the territory of the country was divided in
such a way that mostly homogenous entities were present (Bieber, 2006). This territorial
division was a factor in itself allowing for harsh discrimination between the groups. The
bigger mistake was creation of actual political entities that almost exclusively supported the
division. The Republika Srpska was almost homogenously populated by Bosnian Serbs,
whereas the Federation of B&H was divided between Bosniaks and Croats via cantons (ibid).
The paradox was that ethnically heterogeneous cantons and municipalities seemed to have
more problems in functioning than ethnically homogenous parts. Nevertheless, it was an
expected development in the immediate aftermath of the war. The question here remains
whether another conflict or long period of destabilized society is the future of this country due
to its institutional set up. The underlying issue should be connected to the idea put forwards
by Juergen Habermas, that is, whether the cultural, ethnic or any such collective identity
should be politically relevant (1995). Bosnia and Herzegovina is a clear illustration of a
structure based on ethnic identities rather than political sense of well-being. The social
categorization is something that happens as a part of normal life of this country people are
identified as member of in or out-group based on their names, religion and even appearance.
Ultimately, the socio-political circumstances are such that the country is left out of all the
important mechanisms to prosper (such as joining the EU or NATO) because of preoccupation
with comparison and negative sentiments for the out-groups.
The political system in todays B&H can be classified as a consociational democracy. This
model of governing originated from societies in which different groups demanded equal
representation in political life and was realized by numerical division of positions in all
political bodies. According to Lijphart consociational democracy means government by
4 It is difficult to categorize the second group, but it was consistent of mainly
Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) and smaller amount of Bosnian patriots belonging to
different religions.
7

Tajfels Social Identity Theory and the Consociation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Nejra Hodi

elite cartel designed to turn a democracy with a fragmented political culture into a stable
democracy (1969). Furthermore, it is characterized by four institutionalized devices:
1. Powersharing government, socalled grand coalition with representatives from all pri
mary groups;
2. Mutual veto on issues that can infringe on national interests;
3. Proportionality in the electoral system and in the civil service;
4. Segmental (ethnic) autonomy (Lijphart, 1977)
B&H endorses all four features to a certain extent5. It has an inherently power-sharing6
government in which all three groups are allowed a veto and are represented proportionally.
Moreover, the country is territorially divided along the lines of dominant populations as
discussed previously. The Presidency is a good illustration of these factors. Namely, it is
comprised of three members Bosniak and Croat are elected from Federation of Bosnia and
Herzegovina and Serb is elected from Republika Srpska - most of the decisions are made by
consensus whereby one member can block the process and they rotate for the seat of
presiding. The argument behind this model is that it gave the warring parties what they
wanted in turn for a safe amount of sacrifice by all, so that a sustainable coexistence might
take place. On the contrary, 20 years after the war little or no progress has been made.
Nationalistic rhetoric is present in everyday life; the Republika Srpska continues to publicly
accentuate its separatist tensions and the last elections were won by the same parties that
comprised first B&Hs post-war government. The consociational model clearly does not
demonstrate a potential to balance the gap between the groups and it might only serve as a
reinforcement.
When consociation is confronted to the social identity theory, it almost seems like it enables
one of the most important elements for social comparison to take place the context under
which in-groups categorize themselves and the out-groups. By giving Bosniaks five and Serbs
eight seats in RS government, the circumstances for evaluation and negative perception of the
out-group are firmly present. Similarly, by giving Serbs three seats in FBIH government and
Bosniaks eight, the differentiation between the groups is again stronger. Bosniaks might
precipitate and feel positive social identity since they are the most represented group in the
5 Ethnic autonomy is not fully-fledged, but it could be argued that division
between RS and FBIH constitutes segments with their own authorities.
6 Power-sharing essentially refers to form of decision-making whereby all three
ethnic groups (Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats) are given a portion of influence
usually based on population share.
8

Tajfels Social Identity Theory and the Consociation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Nejra Hodi

government of what has historically been their country of origin. At the same time they might
feel the resentment for the underrepresentation in the government of Republika Srpska.
Likewise, the institutionalization of differences forces the people who do not ally themselves
to Serb, Bosniak or Croat ethnic group to discriminate against them simply because they dont
have equal rights and opportunities. On the psychological level, this kind of system generates
resentment and unhappiness and on the political level it produces dysfunctionality and
destabilization. Some countries such as Northen Ireland and Lebanon escalated in conflict
because of similar power-sharing mechanisms (Kerr, 2005), so the question of consociations
benefit is not only questionable from the grounds of social identity theory, but from the
historical experience as well. Authors such as Brian Barry indicate that, when policy
prescription is involved, this practice can lead to consociational remedies that may
aggravate rather than rehabilitate (1975). He further criticizes this form of establishment for
a disposition to emphasize cooperative, formalistic behaviour by sub-unit elites at the
expense of power relations and manipulative devices which may be more relevant, for the
explanation of stability in the societies considered, than various consociational or conflictregulative practices (ibid). The discrimination toward the out-groups is what usually leads to
lack of will for cooperation and purposeful prevention of the efforts made by the counter side
bringing the country to a status quo.

Tajfels Social Identity Theory and the Consociation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Nejra Hodi

IV.

Conclusion

The positive distinctiveness of the in-group built upon the institutional compulsion of a
consociation illustrates the applicability of social identity theory on the case of Bosnia and
Herzegovina in these post-conflict years. In other words, even if the in-group intentions were
harmonious and thoughtful, the forceful division and imposition of the norm that says you
may not be a member of government unless youre a member of this group would sway the
initial attitudes. However, there is an alternative to the consociation model and Horowitz
explains it through a preferential electoral system in which a candidate's election depends on
attracting votes from outside his/her ethnic group

(1971). This

model

is

often

called

integrative model for it includes the whole of population and devaluates the ethnic in- and
out- group distinction. Unlike consociation, this one gives the ethnic parties incentives to
moderate their position

and engage.

In

addition,

Horowitz

promotes

federalism

based on ethnically heterogeneous political units, which is argued to foster integrative dynami
cs, more moderate attitudes and fluid identities (ibid). The idea of fluid identities could be a
solution to the problem stemming from social discrimination produced by the groups because
the categorization and comparison would be more complicated if a person shares many social
identities. Nevertheless, Caspersen evaluates both of these models in her research implying
that the impact of models on the social stability and harmony among the groups actually
depends on the context (2004). She confirms that integrative model would be impossible for
implementation after the war when the groups were far from reconciliation, but that the
consociation without progress towards integration has the same effect. Given time and the
international presence, it is possible to gradually change the balance of the mix of
consociational and integrative elements, and by including these two variables in the analysis,
the two approaches can be regarded as compatible. Such combinations may prove more
effective in fostering stability - more effective in building fences low enough for good
neighbourliness to develop (ibid). Ultimately, it may be said that the balanced relationship
between different social identity groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina mostly depends on the
reform of its political system.

10

Tajfels Social Identity Theory and the Consociation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Nejra Hodi

V.

References

Bieber, F., 2006. Postwar Bosnia. Palgrave Macmillan: London.

Barry, B. 1975. The Consociational Model and Its Dangers, European Journal of Political
Research, 111, 393-411.
Caspersen, N., 2004. Good fences make good neighbours? Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41,
No. 5 (Sep., 2004), pp. 569-588.
Cottam, L. M., Dietz-Uhler, B., Mastors, E. & Preston, T. 2010. Introduction to Political
Psychology. Psychology Press: New York.
Farsides, T. L., n.d., Self Esteem, Social Comparison and Discrimination A Reappraisal
and Development of Tajfels Social Identity Theory. London School of Economics and
Political Science: London.
Habermas, J. 1995. Multiculturalism and the Liberal State. Stanford Law Review, Vol. 47,
No. 5 (May, 1995), pp. 849-853.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. 1988. Social identif'ications. A social psychology of inter-group
relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
Horowitz, D., 1971. Three Dimensions of Ethnic Politics. Cambridge University Press. Vol.
23, No. 2 (Jan., 1971), pp. 232-244.
Kerr, M., 2005. Imposing Power-sharing. Fortnight, No. 439, p. 14.
Lijphard, A., 1969. Consociational Democracy. Cambridge University Press. Vol. 21, No. 2
(Jan., 1969), pp. 207-225.
Linz, J. J. & Stepan, A. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. The
Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.
Mcleod, S., 2008. Social Identity Theory. Available at:
http://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html . Accessed: 05 January 2015.
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. ( 1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In W. G. Austin
& S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 38-48) Monterey,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Familiarity and categorization in intergroup behavior. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 159-170.
Tajfel, H. 1982. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge University Press:
Edinburgh.
11

Tajfels Social Identity Theory and the Consociation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Nejra Hodi

Rubin, M. & Hewstone, M., 1998. Social identity theorys self-esteem hypothesis.Personality
and Social Psychology Review. Available at: https://www.google.ba/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&
url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication
%2F8084591_Social_identity_theory%2527s_selfesteem_hypothesis_a_review_and_some_suggestions_for_clarification%2Ffile
%2F9fcfd4fd810c2f0acf.pdf&ei=nQmsVMGyHKagyAPCr4DwCQ&usg=AFQjCNFKjAOQ
TNUk_lYiiUQUDhplYx0Isg&sig2=cnpISAvzbLQumYrKWhy7qw&bvm=bv.82001339,d.bG
Q . Accessed: 06 January 2015.

12