Social Identity Theory and Biblical Interpretation

Boundaries and Ritual and Their Relation to Social Identity

In his article on Ritual Studies, Lamoreaux notes that ancient persons “had a tendency to build strong social boundaries around their communities” (162) and that rituals “provide group boundaries between insiders and outsiders” (159). Indeed, boundaries define limits. With reference to SIT, boundaries serve as identity markers, helping to distinguish between ingroup and outgroup (Tajfel & Turner: 16–17). In short, “boundaries … define who is in and who is out” (Bowie: 71) Boundaries correspond to what social identity theorists call group norms, which maintain and enhance group identity (Brown: 56–63).

Though, as Lamont and Molnár demonstrate, the study of social boundaries was already employed in the works of Durkheim, Marx, and Weber, the study of the interrelationship between identity and boundaries originated with Fredrik Barth, who brought together two prior theoretical propositions—the bounded ethnic group and the management of identity—for the first time. Barth argues that

categorical ethnic distinctions do not depend on an absence of mobility, contact and information, but do entail social processes of exclusion and incorporation whereby discrete categories are maintained despite changing participation and membership in the course of individual life histories [9].

Thus, just as identity is a fluid construct, boundaries are also subject to modification depending upon the context. Shifting identities and boundaries must be understood in relation to the identities and boundaries “through and against which they are created” (Fuller: 3).

One of the most influential scholars on the issue of boundaries was the British anthropologist Mary Douglas. Though not specifically related to SIT, Douglas' work (1966/2005; references here are to the 2005 ed.) does help us better understand boundaries that separate that which belongs and that which does not. Douglas rejects the traditional notion that external purity boundaries serve merely as hygiene stipulations; Douglas states, “it is one thing to point out the side benefits of ritual actions, and another thing to be content with using the by-product as a sufficient explanation” (37). Rather, uncleanness, or dirt, is merely matter out of place within an ordered system. This out-of-place matter must be excluded if proper order is to be maintained. Margins and boundaries represent the division between the clean and the unclean, or in Social Identity terms, that which belongs and that which does not.

Social boundaries may be characterized in reference to the body. Douglas notes, “[t]he body is a model which can stand for any bounded system. Its boundaries can represent any boundaries which are threatened or precarious” (142). Furthermore,

[A]ll margins are dangerous. If they are pulled this way or that the shape of fundamental experience is altered. Any structure of ideas is vulnerable at its margins. We should expect the orifices of the body to symbolise its specially vulnerable points (150).

The emphasis on bodily boundaries, particularly the bodily orifices, represents a perceived danger to the community's boundaries. Accordingly, Douglas concludes, “when rituals express anxiety about the body's orifices the sociological counterpart of this anxiety is a care to protect the political and cultural unity of the minority group” (124). An example of this concern may be seen in the controversy over food and meal practices among Judeans and Christ followers in the first century ce.

If boundaries serve to define who is in and who is out of the group, rituals are, in part, processes that enable a new person to join the group. If identities require boundaries, boundaries require boundary-crossing customs (rituals) for newcomers. Anthropologists refer to these boundary-crossing customs as rituals. Boundaries and boundary-crossing rituals are an important aspect of social identity, particularly with reference to the development of a common ingroup identity.

Common Ingroup Identity

In 1981, Turner proposed a theory that emphasized “redrawing group boundaries so that those who were once classified as outgroupers can be regarded as fellow ingroupers with a larger superordinate category” (Capozza & Brown: xiv; Turner 1981). Gaertner and his colleagues refined Turner's approach with the Common Ingroup Identity model, arguing that boundaries should be redrawn to bring the two identities into one superordinate identity so that ingroupers and outgroupers recognize their commonality and view one another as members of the same group while maintaining some elements of their subgroup identity (Gaertner et al. 1993; Gaertner & Dovidio; Gaertner et al. 2000). According to this model, ingroup members and outgroup members are recategorized into a superordinate ingroup while continuing to form distinct subgroups with unique identity markers.

Subsequent studies (e.g., Haslam & Platow) have examined the role of leadership in the recategorization process, emphasizing that the leaders of a recategorization attempt must

be “one of us,”

According to these criteria for recategorization leadership, three elements are crucial for the recategorization process:

establish superordinate identity boundaries that define “us,”

Leaders of recategorization attempts, therefore, must create a sense of commonality between differing subgroups while allowing each to maintain its own particular salient features and differentiating between the new superordinate group and new outgroups. The requirement that leaders embody the identity of the group and demonstrate ingroup qualities has led many social identity theorists to suggest that ingroup members categorize themselves in terms of an ingroup prototype that best represents the identity and expected behavior of the group. In the process of recategorization, when two subgroups are recategorized into a common superordinate ingroup identity, one or more prototypical ingroup members may serve as leaders in the recategorization process (Hogg).

Social Identity and the Ingroup Prototype

In their study of why people join groups, Hogg, Hohm-ann, and Rivera offer a definition of an ingroup prototype:

According to social identity theory, people cognitively represent social groups as fuzzy sets of attributes that define one group and distinguish it from relevant other groups. Called prototypes, these fuzzy sets not only describe the group's attributes but also, very importantly, prescribe how one should think, feel, and behave as a member of the group. Psychologically identifying with a group involves a cognitive process of categorizing oneself as a group member. The consequence of this self-categorization process is that one actually sees oneself and the world through the lens of the prototype—one's perceptions, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors are configured and dictated by the group's prototype [1273–74].

Prototype theory itself was developed by Eleanor Rosch. Smith and Zarate refined Rosch's theory by arguing that a prototype is a representation of a person that embodies the identity of the group, but may not necessarily be an actual or current member of the group but rather an ideal image of the group's character (245–45). That is, while a group prototype may be the actual current leader of the group, it may also be an idealized figure from the past that embodies the group's identity. These prototypical ingroup members from the past must be remembered and commemorated in various ways for their prototypical status to remain effective. This remembering and commemoration of prototypical ingroup members may be elaborated upon by using the insights of Social Memory theory, which has also been the topic of a recent article in this journal (Williams) and will, therefore, not be discussed here.

To summarize, SIT is concerned with the ways social identity is constructed by distinguishing between ingroups and outgroups and is often rooted in group norms which consist, in part, of shared beliefs and practices. To embody their identity, groups attribute the role of prototype to some ideal person(s) from the past through the vehicle of social memory. Prototypical ingroup members, and thus the identity of the group, are not static but are capable of change depending upon the situation of the group as the group remembers its prototypical figures in new ways to address new situations. This process of reinterpreting prototypical ingroup members from the past in order to address present group situations may be especially useful in the process of recategorizing two groups (or subgroups) into a common superordinate identity. The prototypical ingroup members serve as the leaders of the recategorization process by creating a sense of commonality between differing groups (or subgroups) while allowing each to maintain its own particular salient features and differentiating between the new superordinate group and new outgroups.

Hebrew Bible

Compared with the Christian Testament (discussed below), relatively few studies have employed SIT in the study of texts from the Hebrew Bible. A small, but growing, number of scholars are now using insights from SIT to examine texts from the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism.

Bosman employs SIT in an attempt to demonstrate that the “Oracles Concerning the Nations” in Nahum construct a “life-giving ethic which can lead to peaceful and responsible co-existence between different communities” (12). The premise underlying Bosman's study is that understanding a group's social identity is “the first step in finding out what living ethically means to the group” (3). In acknowledging this concern as being rooted in the global reality of intergroup conflict and his own social identity, Bosman not only demonstrates the rich field of research using SIT in the Hebrew Bible, but also points toward important theological contributions of the method.

Finitsis utilizes SIT in his analysis of the postexilic prophets, Haggai and Proto-Zechariah, noting that, despite their common goal of defining postexilic Judean identity, these prophets differ in their approach to the outgroup. For Haggai, the ingroup consists of all the people of postexilic Judah, who are contrasted with an outgroup of political and military enemies who have decimated the prophet's community and reduced it to a mere remnant. In contrast, Pro-to-Zechariah “seems to adopt a strategy that prevents him from drawing impenetrable barriers between his in-group and the out-group” (123). In one oracle, Proto-Zechariah ignores social categories of ingroup and outgroup in favor of an inclusive message of welcome to anyone, any nation, willing to consent to yhwh's reign.

Lau (2011) also uses SIT in relation to ethics for his interpretation of the narrative of Ruth. Emphasizing the need to join narrative theory, identity theory, and ethics, Lau examines the identity and actions of the main characters in the Ruth narrative through the lens of SIT and subsequently analyzes the potential impact the ethical decisions made by the characters might have on the implied reader of the narrative. Thus, SIT is used here to understand how the narrative functions to shape the identity of its audience.

Hakola (2007) uses SIT to understand better the relationships between various Judean subgroups in Second Temple Judaism. He notes the highlighting of distinctions and minimizing of similarities between subgroups within a common group and relates this to the polarization seen in the writings of the Qumran community and early Christians. Hakola suggests that SIT can help scholars understand why Judean sectarianism came to an end after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 ce. “[I]t can be proposed that those aspects of Jewish identity that bound different groups together and that were earlier suppressed, gained more dominance at the cost of more narrowly oriented group categorizations after the catastrophe in 70 ce” (274).

Focusing more exclusively on the Qumran community, Jokiranta (2006) has used SIT to suggest that the “teacher of righteousness” in the Qumran pesharim might be understood as a figure who functions as a prototypical group member, rather than a historical individual described in detail. Likewise, she has argued that the penal code from Qumran need not be viewed simply as a reflection of the group's strict mentality, but rather as the result of their shared social identity (2007). She has also examined the identity constructing elements in the Psalms Pesher, noting that the Pesher reflects group processes, which may cause “an in-group member … to view him- or herself as being part of God's chosen people, the congregation of the poor, very different from the out-group members whose actions were replete with violence, destruction and lies, but intimately similar to other in-group members who, by being faithful to the in-group, remain inheritors of the covenant blessings” (2008: 109).

Christian Testament

Most studies that employ SIT have focused on the Christian Testament. Perhaps the best known studies are those of Philip Esler, whose work on Galatians (1996 and 1998), Romans (2003a), and John (2006) have charted the course for the use of SIT by biblical scholars. In his commentary on Galatians, Esler focuses on the distinctions made between ingroup and outgroup members, arguing that Paul's primary goal was to create and to maintain the identity of the Christ group. In contrast, his study of Romans focuses on identity formation between subgroups of a larger superordinate group and the developing of a common ingroup identity. Romans represents Paul's attempt to create a common ingroup identity between estranged Judean and non-Judean Christ-followers. The goal, rather than force each subgroup to forsake its own cultural identity, was to widen the scope of Christian group identity so that it might encompass both. Finally, Esler's work with Ronald Piper on the Gospel of John sets forth the argument that the characters of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha are “prototypes of the identity of Johannine Christ-followers in the first century ce” (43). Here, Esler and Piper note the potential combination of prototypicality (one aspect of the Social Identity Theory mentioned above) and narrative theory (see Baker, 2011a: 12–30).

Many other recent studies have explored the implications of SIT for New Testament interpretation. So many, in fact, that only a few representative studies may be mentioned here (other important recent studies, such as Roitto, Shkul, Hakola 2008, 2009a, and 2009b, are listed in the bibliography below). Marohl argues that those addressed in Hebrews understood themselves as a distinct social group, noting the use of “us” and “them” throughout the letter and that the author relates both the ingroup (“us”) and the outgroup (“them”) to faith; the ingroup is “faithful” and the outgroup is “unfaithful.” Marohl examines the comparison of Moses and Jesus in terms of a shared life story and prototypicality, concluding that the author of Hebrews integrates the addressees and Jesus into a shared life story (narrative) in which Jesus is prototypical of their shared common identity, faithfulness. In contrast, the author constructs a symbolic outgroup with whom the addressees are to compare themselves, namely the unfaithful.

Tucker, in his study of social identity formation in 1 Corinthians, argues that “some in Corinth were continuing to identify primarily with key aspect of their Roman social identity rather than their ‘in Christ’ identity and that this confusion over identity positions contributed to the problems within the community” (35). Tucker asserts that Corinthian civic identity was in transition during the first century CE and that there is evidence that Christ-followers in Corinth were well-integrated into the civic and social life of the city and that some Corinthian Christ-followers were more “at home” within this Roman social identity rather than their Christ-follower identity.

Baker (2011a) argues that “the narrative of Acts attempts the recategorization of Judean and non-Judean Christ followers and those on either side of the debate over non-Judean inclusion in the Christ movement into a common ingroup by presenting Peter and Paul as prototypical of a common superordinate Christian identity” (xv). Combining SIT with social memory and narrative theories, Baker sets forth an approach for reading early Christian literature as identity-forming documents for their intended audiences. Baker asserts that the characters of Peter and Paul act as prototypes of a common ingroup identity that transcends ethnic and cultural boundaries, while allowing these subgroup identities to remain.

Kuecker argues that, in Luke-Acts, “the Holy Spirit is the central figure in the formation of a new social identity that affirms yet chastens and transcends ethnic identity” (18). Kuecker asserts that the role of the spirit in social identity formation is established in Luke 1–4 by focusing on ingroup benefits and existing boundaries. Regarding Luke's second volume, Kuecker notes, “sections of the text where group and social identity are at stake contain the highest density of Spirit references in all of Acts” (16). Kuecker's approach allows for continuing subgroup identities within the superordinate Christ-movement identity (19).

Rosell Nebreda's study of the Philippian hymn (Phil 2:5–11) focuses “on its function as a vehicle for social communication, part and parcel of its social milieu, but aiming at transforming the Christ-following community, in search for an identity which ultimately derives from Jesus the Christ as described in the hymn” (27). In contrast to Kuecker, Nebreda asserts that the identity constructed in Philippians gives birth to a new people no longer defined in ethnic origin or social merit terms” (344). That is, subgroup identities are obliterated in favor of a superordinate identity.