Hello, and welcome back. We've laid a good foundation for the importance of difference and diversity, learning that these are key dynamics for group communication, both in terms of why difference matters and what difference matters we should attend to in our groups. Now we build on this foundation by examining the concept of identity and how it relates to group communication. The differences in our groups and the diversity of our members make us who we are and who we are as a group. That's what identity is all about. And our identities are a huge influence on how we interact with each other. We communicate with other group members based on how we see ourselves, how we see other people, how we think others see us, and even how the group itself develops its own sense of collective identity. That's a lot to think about, but that's why identity is so important for group communication. However, the problem is that the conventional wisdom about identity isn't always helpful for understanding and explaining the complexities of human interaction in our groups. We're tempted to think about identity as a fixed, static attribute that people simply have and carry with them across a variety of contexts and situations, especially if we only think about identity in a physical or biological sense. But it's a bit more complicated than that. It's more helpful to think about identity as a social construct that people create, maintain, and alter in their interactions with other people. And so, it's better to talk about identity in terms of social identity. Understanding identity from this perspective can help us improve our group communication because we'll have a better sense of what's actually going on when we interact with each other and our fellow group members. So let's dive in and learn more about social identity and group communication. OK. Who are you and who are these other people in your group? Might seem like odd questions but this gets at the heart of group communication and how our social identities influence our interactions with each other. Chances are you'd answer these questions based on social characteristics, like your occupation or family status. Like if I was in your group and identified myself, I'd probably mention things like professor, husband, and father. I might also mention things I'm involved in, like coaching youth soccer or serving on a board of directors for a nonprofit organization. It would be weird if, instead, I said that I'm a 6'1" Caucasian male with German heritage. Of course, those physical and biological aspects are very important but it's the social aspects of our identity that usually matter most in our groups. Therefore, identity is best understood as a relational property, something that is produced, sustained, and changed in and through our communication with other people. Think of any meaningful aspect of your identity and consider how it's virtually impossible to understand any of those aspects apart from their relation to other people or other aspects of our society. I can't be a professor without students. I can't be a husband without a spouse. And I can't be a father without children. All these characteristics exist relationally. And if my interactions with those people change dramatically or cease altogether, those aspects of my identity change too. Even more stable properties like my race and biological sex only get their meaning in relation to other categories. Being white, for example, wouldn't mean much if there weren't other races and ethnicities. Same thing for being male. That wouldn't make much sense as a category if there weren't any other categories. Now, I realize this can start to get a bit philosophical but it has real practical value especially for improving our group communication. See, here's the problem. If we don't understand or appreciate the relationality of identity, we'll default to the idea that identity is a more fixed, static property that people simply have, something that is innate or intrinsic to their being. We call this idea essentialism, the belief that social characteristics are inherent or essential to who people are, to their identity. And yes, there is a certain degree of stability to our identities much of the time. But essentialism is dangerous when it causes us to think that our behavior is determined by our identity characteristics as if they were part of our DNA and we have no other choice but to act like that. Essentialism underwrites all those thoughts and comments like "That's just how women talk," "That's just what black people do," "That's just how white people think." Yes, that may be what certain people are saying, doing, and thinking right now but not simply because they are female, black, or white. Similarly, essentialism is also dangerous because it usually equates behavior with character. They may be related but behavior and character are not necessarily synonymous. Instead, we need to appreciate the social forces and webs of relationships that influence our behavior in any given situation. It's tempting to see the lazy, selfish, mean, or irresponsible behavior of a fellow group member and conclude that's just who they are, like their eye or skin color, but that's a mistake and can really damage the way we interact with each other in our groups. In fact, scholars call this the fundamental attribution error. We make a fundamental mistake when we attribute the cause of others' behavior, positive or negative, to their personal character rather than the broader situational factors that may exist. Incidentally, we usually do the opposite for ourselves. When we exhibit negative behavior we're quick to explain the mitigating factors that explain or justify our behavior because, of course, we're good people. So this is where essentialism gets us in trouble. We see people's identities as innate character traits instead of a more complicated mix of social forces and situational factors. If you think about it, identity really isn't something we have, it's more like something you inhabit, you embody, you live in. Yes, it often feels like being a professor is just in my blood. It's part of my DNA. But of course, there's no genetic sequence for professor. And if I'm honest with myself, I realize that my identity as a professor, or anything else, is wrapped up in a complex web of relationships and interactions with different people and institutions, and the feeling of permanence or stability in my identity comes from the continuity of those relationships and interactions. As those change, my identity changes. I literally become a different person. I know this might seem different from how we talk about identity in our everyday lives. It is not that drastic. It's just a more accurate reflection of what actually happens when people interact with each other. But what does all this mean for our understanding of group communication and how we work with other people in a variety of group contexts? Let's take a look at two practical applications of this relational approach to identity that can make a significant difference in our groups. One, how we make sense of the actions of other people, and two, how we manage our own identities through our interactions with other group members. First, taking a relational approach to social identity means that we'll focus more on situational factors to understand and explain the actions of our fellow group members, rather than reduce their behavior to an extension of their essential character. Let's face it. Working in groups, you are inundated with all sorts of stuff, all the time: new information, people talking, asking questions, making decisions, taking action. And it's all you can do to figure out what it means for you and your group. In the midst of all this activity we have to take mental shortcuts because there is just too much information to process. And the temptation is to treat identity as a catch-all heuristic, an overarching mechanism to explain the actions of our fellow group members. We see some behavior we don't like or don't understand – like a sarcastic comment, an irresponsible decision, or a lack of participation – and we conflate this behavior with people's identities. What else would you expect from a lawyer? That's why you can't trust politicians. Of course, a corporate executive would do that. This is one of the many mistakes of essentialism. And here's the key problem. This mistaken attribution often becomes the anchor point for our subsequent interactions with those people – a broad category we use to make sense of who they are and why they do what they do – and it constrains the possibilities of our communication and what we can accomplish in our groups. Instead, we have to think more critically about the larger situational factors that influence people's actions regardless of their various identity markers. Then we can focus our attention on addressing those situational factors rather than just writing things off as just the way he is or just the way those people do things and staying stuck as a group in our interactions with each other. The second practical application of a relational approach to social identity is that we have to focus more on managing our own identity as we interact with others in our group. You certainly know who you are but other group members may not. I'm not talking about basic introductions. I'm talking about other group members understanding who you are, how they make sense of your comments, decisions, and actions. The more you communicate with other group members, the more you help construct a robust, complex identity that makes it more difficult for them to reduce your behavior to simplistic notions of your identity and make the same essentialist mistakes I mentioned before. This is especially relevant in groups that aren't necessarily teams, where you don't know the other people that well, and you don't work together on a normal basis, like a professional committee made up of people from different departments or a civic group composed of community members representing different interests and motivations. In these situations, you're likely to wear a lot of different hats, a great metaphor for social identity. Too often in groups people present a monolithic identity that makes it easier for others to discard or marginalize their ideas, preventing the sort of breakthroughs, innovations, compromises, and aha moments that are so crucial for effective group communication. But our group communication is more effective if you tell people what hat you're wearing in your discussions so people can have a richer understanding of where your comments are coming from. Of course, you can't control every little perception and interpretation people may have of you. That's not what I'm talking about. What I mean is communicating with other group members in such a manner that you socially construct your identity with them in ways that enhance the quality of your interactions and expand the possibilities for your group. So we need to move away from essentialist understandings of identity to a more relational approach based on our interactions with each other which should impact how we make sense of the actions of our fellow group members and should motivate us to focus more on managing our own identities through communication. I want to cover one more aspect of identity that is significant for group communication and effective group work and that's the notion of collective identity. This is the overall character of the group as a group, beyond just the sum of its parts. A vast amount of research from a variety of contexts demonstrates that one of the hallmarks of more effective groups – groups that have quality relationships, work well together, and accomplish their goals – is a distinct personality that transcends any individual group member. Scholars call this the group's collective identity, the we-ness of the group. Not all groups achieve a collective identity. Despite simple attempts to name or label the group, they never really become more than just a aggregation of the individual members. As you might have guessed, these groups tend to be low-performing, short-lived, and not very fun to be involved in. And since we want to have effective groups and quality group experiences, especially for groups that will be working together for a while, we need to focus on how we can develop a collective identity. We do this through communication – how we interact with our fellow group members. We look for appropriate times to refer to ourselves as a collective. We personify the group as a singular entity and talk as if it exists and has the power to do stuff on its own. We talk about the group in relation to outside entities and influences that are not part of the group. Of course, all this has to be backed up with our actions – we can't just make stuff up by the way we talk. But actions aren't enough. We also have to communicate with each other about those actions and make sense of them together in ways that create and sustain our collective identity as a group. So that concludes our examination of the concept of identity and its importance for group communication. In our final video of module three, we'll explore the topic of gender, one of the most significant aspects of our identity related to difference and diversity and sure to play a significant role in most aspects of group communication. I'll see you next time.
