ANOVA Values

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

75

certain norms and strengthens identity, whereas bridging social capital can blur social divisions, as well as allow for better linkage to external assets and diffusion of information. Having strong bridging social capital is an important peace-building mechanism, and is crucial in post-conflict or multi-ethnic societies (Varshney, 2001).

For Putnam, bridging social capital exists between heterogeneous groups of people and bonding social capital exists between homogeneous groups of people.

Interpreting this in terms of social networks, Heterogeneous groups have trust and cooperation that lies in the way in which people‘s different characteristics fit together in a set of networked relationships in some functional way. Though members can be similar in many respects, how their differences are networked is what allows them to cooperate. Thus, the division of labor idea explained that people have different roles in the group, and it is the connections between these roles enabled them to trust one another and cooperate. Interpreting bonding social capital in social network terms, in homogeneous groups the basis for trust and cooperation exists in some single characteristic or set of characteristics that links together people in different network locations perhaps quite distant from one another. In this case, trust and cooperation emerge when people‘s differences are submerged. People trust one another and cooperate because they can multiply their individual powers by acting on a single motive. Bridging and bonding social capital are thus quite different forms of social capital. It seems reasonable to suppose, then, that if people trust others and cooperate in these two different ways, their particular motivations for doing so should be different as well. That is, trust and cooperation are quite different phenomena according to whether others are like or different from oneself, and social networks are accordingly held together on different behavioral grounds.

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

76

(2010), for an inter-group (e.g., racial, ethnic, or religious) conflict to occur, the opponents must have a sense of collective identity about themselves and about their adversary, each side believing the fight is between "us" and "them." In this vein those conflicts become intractable, persisting destructively for a very long time, despite efforts to resolve them. Thus, in some such conflicts the antagonists seem to be fighting each other about the identities that they hold about themselves and those they attribute to the other side. Such conflicts are sometimes called identity-based conflicts and regarded as particularly prone to becoming intractable.

Social identity theory proposes that the membership of social groups and categories forms an important part of self-concept. Therefore when an individual is interacting with another person, they will not act as a single individual but as a representative of a whole group or category of people. Even during a single conversation an individual may interact with another person both on a personal level and as a member of a particular group( Tajfel, 1981 and Gardner, 1994 Haslam, Turner, Oakes, McGarty, & Reynolds, 1998) Social identity theory is based on the idea that membership in social groups is an important determinant of individual behavior. Social groups are collections of individuals who coordinate their action in some way. But a social group world is complex in two ways. On the one hand, individuals vary in the degree to which they participate in social groups and also regularly change their group memberships. On the other hand, social groups vary in size and structure, and differ in the ways in which they establish trust and cooperation among their members (Tajfel and Turner (1979). This implies that the social group world is a dynamic one, and that, in contrast to standard economic analysis, which simplifies social interaction by restricting it to market competition between atomistic individuals framed in terms of equilibrium states, an analysis of social interaction in terms of social groups and individuals is better developed in an evolutionary manner.

Social identity theory, as developed in social psychology, explains how a person has a social group identity in terms of the ‗identification with‘ idea. When a person identifies with others, their individual identity is somehow re-framed in terms of others‘ identities. The main conceptualization of this among social identity theorists is associated with John Turner‘s idea of ‗self-categorization‘ (Turner and Oakes, 1986; Turner, 1999; Haslam, 2001). In effect, when people ‗self-categorize‘

themselves in social group terms, they are motivated by social group goals rather than

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

77

individual goals, make the group‘s characteristics their own personal characteristics, and thus incorporate social group identities in their personal identities. But given that people ‗identify with‘ others in at least two ways in that they have both categorical and relational social identities, we need to distinguish two ways in which they ‗self-categorize‘ themselves. Relational social identities are said to ―derive from interpersonal relationships and interdependence with specific others,‖ while categorical social identities are said to ―derive from membership in larger, more impersonal collectives or social categories‖ (Brewer and Gardner, 1996). That is, relational social identities are established where people interact in some functional way with particular individuals, such as in a division of labor that assigns them different interconnected roles, while categorical social identities are established where people see themselves being linked to many people, whether they know them or not . Social identity theory takes a parallel but slightly different view of relational social identities as an analogue to bridging social capital. In role settings, people typically come into contact with a relatively small number of people who are different from themselves. So relational social identities bring together heterogeneous groups of people, and have a similar connective tissue nature. However, social identity theory takes a quite different view of categorical social identities as the analogue to bonding social capital. Categorical social identities (such as ethnicity or nationality) hold between people who share some single characteristic with a large number of other people. Because these groups are commonly large in number, most people will never have contact with most of those who share such an identity.

The social identity theorists suggest that we create our social identities in order to simplify our external relations. Furthermore, there is a human need for positive self-esteem and self worth, which we transfer to our own groups. We also order our environment by social comparison between groups, and this concept of creating our own social identities leads to the formation of in-groups and out groups. The theory identification concept usually leads to group categorization, formation and identification, or what is known as the in-group-out-group formation, Tajfel and Turner argue that conflicting interests develop through competition, into overt social conflict. It appears; too that inter-group competition enhances intra-group morale, cohesiveness and cooperation. Thus real conflicts of group interests not only create antagonistic inter-group relations but also heighten identification with, and positive

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

78

attachment to, the in-group. In a nutshell, the similarity of opinion and interests creates a psychological bond between individuals in a group, i.e. the notion of an in-group, while differences in opinion or competition from a social identity theory sought to explain the relationship between ethnocentrism in the minimal group paradigm. Further to this, it suggests that upon the assignation to a group, people automatically begin to think of that group as better for them than any alternative out-group. As a result of such group assignations, people are motivated to keep a positive self-image, consisting of two component parts: i.e. personal identity and social identity. The two component parts of personal identity can be described as i.e. identity of self as an individual member of the group, and social identity which is identifying with the group as a social community. The resultant effects of such group assignations are that any action or cognition, which seeks to elevate the social identity, will therefore tend to elevate also the self-image.

Meanwhile, there are three fundamental psychological mechanisms underlying social identity theory Hinkle & Brown, 1990; Turner, 1999).. The first psychological process is categorization which refers to the process whereby objects, events and people are classified into categories. By doing so, it tend to exaggerate the similarities of those in the same group and exaggerate the differences between those in different groups. The second psychological process is social comparison. Social comparison refers to the process of comparing one‘s own social group with others. Some social groups have more power, prestige or status than others and therefore members of a group will compare their own groups with others and determine the relative status of their own group. This also results in the tendency for members of a group to distance themselves from membership of a group which does not share the same beliefs and ideas of their group and take more account of the beliefs and ideas of their social group. The third psychological process relates to the tendency for people to use group membership as a source of positive self esteem. Maintaining positive self esteem is seen as a basic motivation for humans therefore if a group does not compare favorably with others we may seek to leave the group or distance ourselves from it.

However, social identity theory application to peacebuilding in Kaduna state is therefore based on the need for a peaceful and constructive transformation of conflict systems; support for processes of comprehensive social change for a transformative

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

79

approach in which local actors must be in the driving seat of social change; and the need for a holistic human rights pursue of an inclusive approach;

Moreover, Kaduna peacebuilding would be a success on the basis of social identity approach to change, if the two religion group believed that religious tolerance and harmony are collective habit, process and thinking with active participation from heterogeneous community and stakeholders as a whole in the society. Further to this, complex and web of relationships within the religious community are expected to work together and also dealt with conflicts from a wholistic system approach.