For self development addicts.

How politics got involved in identity formation

May 21st, by Attila Borcsa in Conscious living, 4 Comments

According to developmental psychologists, after the adolescent ages, we all end up with some sort of identity. The way it reaches a stable stage differs a lot at each of us. Developmental psychologists often try to define certain stages for how identity is reached. Usually, they include into this process the attitude of the person towards politics. For some reason politics shows up in these proposals for stages. But I ran into a problem here.

Don’t expect much in terms of scientific clarifications. This is just a result of some hasty conclusions I sometimes like to draw.

According to James Marcia’s 4 stages, the process goes from those who never reach a level of commitment up to those who successfully commit themselves to a political ideology. I am just interested here in the political one, but there are other ideologies involved in the presentation of levels.

It is said that those who act cynical towards politics, are usually before the identity crisis or after it, failing to form an integrated self-image. Those in the crisis are actively seeking for answers, so they are often committed intensively. And those who have reached identity are truly committed.

Here I give you the exact phrase from the psychology book where I first found this theory. So, the cynical and confused ones say: “Politics is crap.” My problem with this is that I know people whom I considered as having a well formed, healthy identity, and those people often say that “Politics is crap.” They don’t seem cynical or confused at all.

If you enjoyed this post Share This !

Comments on "How politics got involved in identity formation":

  1. kulcsi says:
    May 21st, 2007 at 10:55 am

    Of course there might be exceptions, but as a tendency I think Marcia’s approach is correct! It is very easy to say politics is crap and I don’t want to be involved, so I don’t have any opinion. This is the easy way, which emphasize the immaturity of the person.

    I think we can go even further: if someone has to do with some topic, and if he has no maturity problems, he forms a concrete idea about it. In case of he/she has no opinion about it, that suggests his level of maturity…

  2. marcus says:
    May 21st, 2007 at 2:10 pm

    Attila I totally agree with you on this; there seems to be something is off with this approach.

    It would be equally possible to to say that those that identify strongly with politics have an identity issue. Simply because they feel the need to focus on something external to themselves with which to create their identity.

    The process begins with the assumption that “identity” is something external to the individual. You aren’t your political alignment. Just as you aren’t your bank balance, or your job, or your shoes.

    Of course politics has its purpose and is there for necessary, just as many other systems are. It’s true to say that people identify themselves with all types of systems.

    Taking it further, I would say that those that spend their lives arguing over political possibilities and alignment have totally missed the point of life.

    Stating that “Politics is Crap” isn’t necessarily being cynical. It could merely be an observational statement - claiming that the differing positions of each political ideal ultimately serve the same agenda. At least that is so in the real world.

    Politics is idealistic - an obvious statement - but the real world isn’t idealistic. So in the end that comes as close as anything to explaining why people would want to associate their identity with politics. It’s nice to feel idealistic.

  3. Attila Borcsa (author) says:
    May 21st, 2007 at 9:08 pm

    @ kulcsi:

    Sure, Marcia’s stages are all right. It was just fun to see how inadequately was used political conviction to express it. But there is also Erikson’s model (the stages of development) from which Marcia was inspired. Also, very plausible approach.

    As you say, it is easy to affirm that politics is crap for the ones who never reached any level of commitment. Refusing to grow up is not a viable choice, but the option is there. On the other side, I think it is very much possible to get detached from politics and still not loose your identity or maturity. I am not saying that it should be considered as another level or stage, but you have to admit that it might show up at some people. Maybe being able to detach yourself instead of forming an opinion is not deficiency. You were quite strong on the necessity of forming opinions, so I would be curious to hear your opinion on this.

  4. Attila Borcsa (author) says:
    May 21st, 2007 at 9:09 pm

    @ marcus:

    I like your approach here. You see in this the possibility of development or a possible evolution. At first there is the need for external proofs. But in time, as consciousness might develop, it is possible to withdraw these external “crutches”.

    You say that “each political ideal ultimately serve the same agenda.”. If I understood it correctly, you refer to the false hopes and ideals to be followed there. It is a pity, but disillusionment follows when false hopes were made. And there might be another possible stage. Not a descriptive, factual perspective, as in Marcia’s theory, but a developmental perspective. And that’s what can get really interesting for the self developmental view. Don’t you think that it changes the perspective?

Leave a Reply

« Who said that honesty pays?
Peculiar disguises of the law of attraction »

Categories: