What do you think?
Rate this book
Social Identity
Without social identity there is no human world. Without frameworks of similarity and difference, people would be unable to relate to each other in a consistent and meaningful fashion. In the second edition of this highly successful text, Richard Jenkins develops his argument that identity is both individual and collective, and should therefore be considered within one analytic framework. Using the work of major social theorists, such as Mead Goffman and Barthes, to explore the experience of identity in everyday life, Jenkins considers a range of different issues,
* embodiment
* categorization and boundaries
* the institutionalizing of identities
* identity and modernity.
Written in an open and student-friendly style throughout, this multidisciplinary text has been thoroughly revised and updated, and is essential reading for all students interested in the concept of identity in the contemporary world.
* embodiment
* categorization and boundaries
* the institutionalizing of identities
* identity and modernity.
Written in an open and student-friendly style throughout, this multidisciplinary text has been thoroughly revised and updated, and is essential reading for all students interested in the concept of identity in the contemporary world.
232 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
26 people are currently reading
163 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
January 4, 2025
Read it for uni. The topics were very interesting, but the book itself was immensely hard to read (and quite repetitive). Overall, an interesting read that I would not repeat.
January 5, 2012
As someone who has studied identity theory mostly within the context of one specific subculture/movement/religion, I found this book an enlightening introduction to this particular discourse in cultural anthropology and sociology. While Jenkins' work confirmed many of my own hunches and conclusions based on my limited fieldwork and discourse analysis, it also opened my eyes to new ways of viewing the relationships between individual and collective identities. It is a fairly easy read for newcomers to relevant fields, referencing supporting studies without elaborating on quantitative data within the text. Jenkins also provides helpful clarifications in terminology - e.g. group, category, institution, organization, individual, person, self - challenging common usages of terms we may take for granted or give little consideration in everyday conversation. In this sense, again, Social Identity is a useful starting point for social theorists, and an eye-opening text for anyone else interested in key concepts in identity theory.
Also, this is only the 3rd book I have read on my Kindle for Mac app, and I'm still getting used to this type of reading. This is the kind of text I would prefer to read on paper, making it easier to highlight and write notes in the margins.
Also, this is only the 3rd book I have read on my Kindle for Mac app, and I'm still getting used to this type of reading. This is the kind of text I would prefer to read on paper, making it easier to highlight and write notes in the margins.
December 5, 2018
Was drawn in by the cute epigrams ("Everybody needs somebody"), but this is turgid. A sociology/anthropology mix, and an airless, evidence-poor circle-jerk of citations.
Identity is confusing because it means so many completely contradictory things, it is what individuates or what generalises, equation or inequation, label or being. This is not the book to clear up this mess.
Identity is confusing because it means so many completely contradictory things, it is what individuates or what generalises, equation or inequation, label or being. This is not the book to clear up this mess.
January 31, 2020
A very good book. I found the affinities with Berger & Luckmann (my long time idols) inspiring. Will check Jenkins's other writing, too.
May 31, 2017
Notes from C.S.:
Jenkins (2014) reflects on the interaction and the role of the public in shaping up digital media, and how, or more specifically, if, the people do in fact get to really participate in the process of production. There is the tendency to assume that users of social media are active participants rather than passive receivers in the age of technology, but Jenkins questions how and if the media does or could include make the users as vital players in the game of information-making, and if they in fact take part in setting the reality.
The argument Jenkins (2014) makes is that the so-called democracy in today’s information-sharing world does not necessarily mean that there is more democracy among in policy. It may be optimistic, he indicates, or even naïve to simultaneously connect between the access and availability of people’s voices and interpret that as an automatic sign that those voices are active, that have influence, or that they are neither swayed nor manipulated to form the opinions which they consider as their own. While it is crucial that emerging voices do get to participate in the technological age of information, yet it is worth looking into how things get shaped and consider what is happening in reality.
Issues related to social justice are particularly relevant in this regard, as there might be an abundance of social media activism, but whether that is as influential or democratic as we would like to believe is put in question. Another important consideration is the notion of “alternative voices”: it is noteworthy to reflect on whether the power structure that sets the platforms for information-sharing is coming from a corporate, elitist or more dominant mindset and which in turn sets the tone of what gets to be put attention to and how.
In some respect, reading Jenkins (2014) would make one ponder about if and how the mobilization of the masses on social media changes policy. The influence of ‘corporations’ is not limited to the business or political, but it has expanded in a way that it now includes all different fields and aspects including the educational and religious setting-of-the-tones. By the time researchers do their work to figure these fast-changing behaviors, Jenkins (2014) notes, the publications’ rigid and time-consuming methodologies often make the analyses of what is happening lag behind – therefore not catching up with the fast-changing trends and changes. By the time material is published, the social media reality would have been substantially changed, and changing.
An important phenomena worthy of consideration, as Jenkins (2014) additionally demonstrates, is that of “fandom” and the decision that goes around investing, identifying or choosing to take an active part in a cause or interest, and to look into how much of that assumed ‘active’ role is in fact active to begin with. While, on the one hand, things get to be too controlled by a central, there is a shift, on the other hand, that shows of instances where things go out of control when there is collective mobility online, and all of those changes happen so quickly.
The direction may be that the more participation would lead to actual decision-making and participation on the real ground, but it might still be naïve to assume that democracy has been attained now because of social media access and availability. One of the main reasons for that, as Jenkins (2014) explains, has heavily to do with the fact that not all people have the access (or the same amount of access) to begin with – so there are powers and power structures reflecting dominance and privilege that are set in the medium itself. Moreover, the context changes as based on how governments are set up, and corporations often have a say in what sets up the status quo. The emphasis, Jenkins (2014) notes, should be on developing and finding ways that work for more people towards bringing about positive change.
Jenkins (2014) reflects on the interaction and the role of the public in shaping up digital media, and how, or more specifically, if, the people do in fact get to really participate in the process of production. There is the tendency to assume that users of social media are active participants rather than passive receivers in the age of technology, but Jenkins questions how and if the media does or could include make the users as vital players in the game of information-making, and if they in fact take part in setting the reality.
The argument Jenkins (2014) makes is that the so-called democracy in today’s information-sharing world does not necessarily mean that there is more democracy among in policy. It may be optimistic, he indicates, or even naïve to simultaneously connect between the access and availability of people’s voices and interpret that as an automatic sign that those voices are active, that have influence, or that they are neither swayed nor manipulated to form the opinions which they consider as their own. While it is crucial that emerging voices do get to participate in the technological age of information, yet it is worth looking into how things get shaped and consider what is happening in reality.
Issues related to social justice are particularly relevant in this regard, as there might be an abundance of social media activism, but whether that is as influential or democratic as we would like to believe is put in question. Another important consideration is the notion of “alternative voices”: it is noteworthy to reflect on whether the power structure that sets the platforms for information-sharing is coming from a corporate, elitist or more dominant mindset and which in turn sets the tone of what gets to be put attention to and how.
In some respect, reading Jenkins (2014) would make one ponder about if and how the mobilization of the masses on social media changes policy. The influence of ‘corporations’ is not limited to the business or political, but it has expanded in a way that it now includes all different fields and aspects including the educational and religious setting-of-the-tones. By the time researchers do their work to figure these fast-changing behaviors, Jenkins (2014) notes, the publications’ rigid and time-consuming methodologies often make the analyses of what is happening lag behind – therefore not catching up with the fast-changing trends and changes. By the time material is published, the social media reality would have been substantially changed, and changing.
An important phenomena worthy of consideration, as Jenkins (2014) additionally demonstrates, is that of “fandom” and the decision that goes around investing, identifying or choosing to take an active part in a cause or interest, and to look into how much of that assumed ‘active’ role is in fact active to begin with. While, on the one hand, things get to be too controlled by a central, there is a shift, on the other hand, that shows of instances where things go out of control when there is collective mobility online, and all of those changes happen so quickly.
The direction may be that the more participation would lead to actual decision-making and participation on the real ground, but it might still be naïve to assume that democracy has been attained now because of social media access and availability. One of the main reasons for that, as Jenkins (2014) explains, has heavily to do with the fact that not all people have the access (or the same amount of access) to begin with – so there are powers and power structures reflecting dominance and privilege that are set in the medium itself. Moreover, the context changes as based on how governments are set up, and corporations often have a say in what sets up the status quo. The emphasis, Jenkins (2014) notes, should be on developing and finding ways that work for more people towards bringing about positive change.
January 29, 2018
Pensum
Dette har vært en av de pesumsbøkene jeg ikke er helt sikker på hvorfor er så viktige. Og siden den er så viktig ikke ha oss til å lese hele boka på to uker.
Dette har vært en av de pesumsbøkene jeg ikke er helt sikker på hvorfor er så viktige. Og siden den er så viktig ikke ha oss til å lese hele boka på to uker.
November 9, 2018
Alanında Türkçeye çevrilen en önemli kitaplardan biri. Ancak kuramcıları birbirleriyle karşılaştırarak yaptığı anlatım yorucu.
Read
September 27, 2020çevirisini okumayın
January 8, 2021
It is a must to read to understand how we develop a social identity and will deffo help you understand your child
December 30, 2016
This is, really, an excellent book. Jenkins covers most of the central issues regarding social identity, and handles the debates and secondary literature with precision and charity. For his own part, Jenkins' conclusions are fair, and his arguments are reflective of "real life," as opposed to the arguments of many other academic social theorists. I intend to use this book in my own research.
So why the average score? The book suffered from two rather large drawbacks. First, the book promises to be an introduction, and it certainly only serves as such to someone who specializes in other related fields. Even as a PhD student I found that some of the jargon assumed far too much knowledge to the reader, and anyone without advanced formal education is likely to be completely lost. As a contrast, I just finished Carlo Rovelli's introduction to physics, and any thinking adult could easily read and benefit from that work. Introductions serve best when they instill confidence in the reader. My second criticism has to do with Jenkins' treatment of religion, which is my own specialty and the primary reason that I read the book. Jenkins either does not at all understand, or endeavored not to adequately treat, social identity from within religious communities. This is surprising considering that religion is such a central issue in regard to the process of shaping social identification. For example, Jenkins mentions briefly the concept of religious "rights of passage." However, he fails to mention that, for many religions, these rituals only contribute to identity, but do not in any way originate or define religious identity. For example, in most protestant communities a person could forgo baptism, eucharist, catechism, and all other rituals and rights of passage, and still be considered "in" by others in that group. This is just one of many issues where Jenkins could have easily treated religion within the confines of his arguments, and such treatments were completely missing.
Overall the book is great for anyone able to make it through the jargon. Jenkins is fair minded and offers excellent feedback on secondary literature, and this is a book I know I will revisit.
So why the average score? The book suffered from two rather large drawbacks. First, the book promises to be an introduction, and it certainly only serves as such to someone who specializes in other related fields. Even as a PhD student I found that some of the jargon assumed far too much knowledge to the reader, and anyone without advanced formal education is likely to be completely lost. As a contrast, I just finished Carlo Rovelli's introduction to physics, and any thinking adult could easily read and benefit from that work. Introductions serve best when they instill confidence in the reader. My second criticism has to do with Jenkins' treatment of religion, which is my own specialty and the primary reason that I read the book. Jenkins either does not at all understand, or endeavored not to adequately treat, social identity from within religious communities. This is surprising considering that religion is such a central issue in regard to the process of shaping social identification. For example, Jenkins mentions briefly the concept of religious "rights of passage." However, he fails to mention that, for many religions, these rituals only contribute to identity, but do not in any way originate or define religious identity. For example, in most protestant communities a person could forgo baptism, eucharist, catechism, and all other rituals and rights of passage, and still be considered "in" by others in that group. This is just one of many issues where Jenkins could have easily treated religion within the confines of his arguments, and such treatments were completely missing.
Overall the book is great for anyone able to make it through the jargon. Jenkins is fair minded and offers excellent feedback on secondary literature, and this is a book I know I will revisit.
Read
January 6, 2014Jenkins book on identity is a great, if not even brilliant book, for an introduction of the concept of identity within sociology. Having said that, the word 'introduction' in no way implies simple. I think it serves one very well to have a degree of some philosophical, humanistic or social science sort in order ot understand this, or at least I think I needed it. There is quite a dense terminology and Jenkins assumes a fair bit of knowledge. But that means that he also manages to get into quite some depth in this rather limited format. I think his attempt to combine the identity of sameness and difference is particularly interesting. He also manages to argue for a combined view between individuality and groups identity. I am not completely sure whether this is done satisfactory, although he admits himself, that this problem might be irreconcilable.
Anyway, I fully recommend this book to anyone interested in the question of self and identity. I think it will benefit my research that is made from a theological/philosophical perspective will have benefitted much from this.
Anyway, I fully recommend this book to anyone interested in the question of self and identity. I think it will benefit my research that is made from a theological/philosophical perspective will have benefitted much from this.
September 29, 2015
This is without a doubt the worst book ever written. The point of the book is lost in a fog of jargon. You have to really search for what the author is trying to say through his use of ambiguous wording and reliance of terminology which while correct to the field means that the reader is clawing through the book. Richard Jenkins takes a simple idea and makes it ridiculously hard to read; the exact opposite of something by Richard Dawkins who takes a complex idea and makes it simple.
Read
August 8, 2016Took me a long time to finish - some really interesting bits, but the writing itself could have been clearer.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews