Collective Identity - Science topic

Plant identifier apps typically use a combination of computer vision and machine learning techniques to identify plant species. The coding involves creating a database of plant images with associated labels, training a deep learning model using this data to recognize different plant features and patterns, and then implementing algorithms to process input images and compare them with the trained model to make predictions about the species. While there are advanced plant identifier apps available that can identify a wide range of species from a single image, accurately differentiating multiple species within a bouquet of flowers in a single frame may still be challenging due to overlapping plant parts and variations in lighting and angles. However, ongoing advancements in computer vision and machine learning continue to improve the capabilities of these apps.

Thanks Keith Brownlee. Yes, it is helpful. What I like about this paper is its focus on social identity in different contexts and group situations. As far as I’m concerned, this allows for a bit more analytic variety, but without deviating too much from more traditional social identity perspectives. That said, I still feel that social identity theory and the notions of ingroup and outgroup are a bit restrictive for my own research. Hence, I developed a simple internal–external distinction, which merely suggests that some represent an internal perspective, which indicates that some individuals or a group possess epistemic privilege (e.g., have access to their own experiences and thoughts: Keith Brownlee has direct experience of what it is like to be a university lecturer), and some represent an external perspective, whose standpoint can only be observational, analytic or based on others’ thoughts and experiences. Both perspectives may be heterogeneous (e.g., just because we both [Keith and Julius] share the identity of being university lecturers, doesn’t mean that we share the same professional experience, ideas about academia or any allegiance).

Try to read "Can the Subaltern Speak?" Spivak discusses the lack of an account of the Sati practice, leading her to reflect on whether the subaltern can even speak. Spivak writes about the process, the focus on the Eurocentric Subject as they disavow the problem of representation; and by invoking the Subject of Europe, these intellectuals constitute the subaltern Other of Europe as anonymous and mute. Reading Edward Said should help critics like you understanding this topic. All the best!

The round table is a great idea! I'll be happy to participate in it. Thanks a lot for this initiative.

Yes, of course, I've heard about these planned exhibitions.

I've know about that approximately since 2012, but... :)

I'm also planning an interview with Prof. D. Lortkipanidze and other specialists and I hope it will be successful.

Thank you again for your initiative.

sincerely, G.M.

I believe that every identity has an ideological component, in some identities it is stronger in some identities it is weaker (Ehala 2015). This ideologgical component is expressed in the form of "core values" (Smolicz 1981), or "sacred values" (Tetlock 2003). So in your case, the core values of Maoist identity/ideology and ethnic identities were in conflict, I think. All three papers should be available online. If you do not have access, I can send. 

Ehala, M. 2015 "Blurring of collective identities in the post-Soviet space". Sociolinguistic Studies, 9 (2 August 2015), 1 - 26. Available From: http://ekkam.ut.ee/et/data/uploads/martini-artiklid/blurring-published.pdf

Smolicz, J. (1981). Core values and cultural identity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 4(1), 75-90.

Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7(7), 320-324.

EURAC in Bozen works on minorities and minority media. They will be sure to have some information for you.

Here is a simple way to see it:

Individualistic cultures, such as Europe and America, emphasize personal achievement regardless of the expense of group goals, resulting in a strong sense of competition.

Collectivist cultures, such as those of China, Korea, and Japan, emphasize family and work group goals above individual needs or desires.

There are MANY sources on the web explaining this in more detail that you can Google.

Paul, yes, there is no question that life expectancy increases with income.  As you noted, there appear to be multiple factors involved, and the poor lifestyle choices you listed are major contributing factors.  Because education level is correlated with income and lifestyle, I suppose it is another factor.  I've read that in California, the average education level of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America is 3rd grade, and reports indicate that as a group they are among the most unhealthy.  Thus, it appears that access to health care is only one factor in creating a healthy society.  

I would argue that politicians bear great responsibility in such an endeavor.  In my lifetime, however, I have not observed many US politicians dedicated to doing so.

James

You might try searching variations on "personhood" and "self", which are terms used in medical anthropology and cross-cultural psychiatry.

These authors might get you started:

Comaroff & Comaroff (2001) On Personhood: An Anthropological Perspective from Africa, Social Identities, 7:2, 267-283, DOI:10.1080/13504630120065310

Moore-Gilbert, B., 2009. Postcolonial life-writing: culture, politics, and self-representation. Routledge. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mkh8AgAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Vaughan, M., 1991. Curing their ills: Colonial power and African illness. Stanford University Press. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yfqkuCN_JuwC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false (Chapter 5, in particular)

The classic approach to making observational measures of group functioning is Robert Bales' Interaction Process Analysis (1950), later modified and called Systematic Multiple Level Observation of Groups (SYMLOG).

If you just Google "Bales IPA" you'll find lots of very usable information. It works very well, especially if you have multiple observers.

It might be informative to look at Singapore where the government has consistently torn down important buildings. Among them, the National Theatre (1974), the National Library (2000s?), and the National Stadium. The clearing of Bukit Brown cemetery is another big case. Also related is the neutralisation of the Nanyang University campus so that though some buildings remain, there is hardly hint of the historical significance it once held. You might also wish to find out if the removal of the pair of lion statues marking Merdeka Bridge (Independence Bridge, very political) so that hardly any Singaporeans can now point out the bridge from the roads around it. 

The impact on Singapore identity is hard to assess, but I am guessing that there is as much erosion as there is a triggering of emotions against the government's moves.

To add: where is the 'choice' in pronomiality? We are given pronouns at birth and in parental, medical, family discourse. Rarely given the chance to correct or escape them.

As Domenika Topa-Bryniarsksa suggests above, non-gendered, third person pronouns can be used to indicate intimacy and distance/antagonism.

There is some research, I think by Roman Jakobson, on pronouns.

The International Social Survey Program ran two National Identity related surveys. One of them in 1995, and  another one in 2003. The batteries of questions asked measure both civic and ethnic national identity. It may be worth looking at to see if these measures apply in your context as well. 

A lot of scholarly articles about Europe and Canada have been published based on it. You may want to have a look a look at them as well.

Dear Spyros,

I am currently in the midst of directing a project with gay Muslim men along with my colleague, Eric M. Rodriguez, Ph.D.. Depending upon your timeline and needs (empirical studies vs. literature review), it may be helpful for us to connect. Please feel free to reach out!

Gwen, I think one of the important factors to consider in this respect is the possibility of majority voting or, differently stated, the possibility that a sub-group of members of an organization imposes its will on all members. This is very much a feature of the EU, both via (qualified) majority voting in the legislative procedures at the Council, the decisions taken by the Commission, for example in anti-trust or state aid cases, and the judgments of the European Court of Justice. All of these are binding on the Member States whether or not they agree to a particular case. One term of art used to describe this feature of the EU is its "supranationality", i.e. the EU has powers ABOVE the state level.

By contrast, most other organizations either do not have such powers at all and have to take any and all decisions by unanimous vote or by consensus (for example the EFTA) or they have only very narrow powers that could bind a state against its wishes, for example via judgments of the European Court of Human Rights or in the context of decisions taken by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter.

The next question in this context is the enforceability of the decisions. Even if an international organization does have some supranational powers, it is not very "scary" for the (potential) members, if the enforcement powers are weak. As you surely know, public international law has very few options at enforcement, chiefly among them the naming and shaming of perpetrators/violators and the idea of tit-for-tat, i.e. retaliation in kind. For example, if a country is found by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body to be in violation of the rules, it has to rectify this breach (for the future only, no retroactive obligations to pay damages or the like). If it does not do so, the worst thing that can happen to it is pretty much retaliation in kind, i.e. the complaining or injured country can get permission from the WTO to suspend trade concessions roughly equal to the losses incurred because of the initial breach. This is not very scare for a country and they can make a cold calculation whether a certain breach is worthwhile maintaining. It is also not affecting countries equally because, for example, a trade embargo from the US against New Zealand will be much more damaging than the other way around.

Similarly, in the ECHR system, the worst thing that can happen to a country found in breach of the Convention by the Court is that it will be named and shamed (not very effective if it happens a lot, since public and international opinion tires easily, see Russia) and that it is convicted to pay damages. Since member states of the Council of Europe have been reluctant to pay large amounts in damages - they simply won't comply - the EuCtHR is nowadays imposing very modest amounts that countries will pay without much hesitation. For example, Italy has been convicted many many times over many years for undue length of criminal trials. Instead of fixing the problem, the country just pays a few thousand Euros to every complainant who makes it all the way to a judgment in Strasbourg.

However, the EU is a very different animal altogether. First, it administers a large budget and more than half of the Member States are net recipients and they can simply see their allocations withheld if they do not follow the rules (example Greece). This is more powerful than another tool, suspending voting rights. Second, and most important, the European Court of Justice, via the procedure of Article 267, has a tool of ensuring compliance with its judgments that no other court on the planet comes even close to. In the end, Member States of the EU have to follow EU law in very nearly every case, whether they voted for it or against, and whether they like it or not. This is unique and not comparable to other international organizations.

You may not like this proposal but I think that it would be too simplistic to look merely whether something is economic integration or not. You should also look whether it is purely international (between states) or whether it has at least some supranational elements and real enforcement powers.

Social Identity Theory introduces a way of explaining intergroup behaviours, particularly the discrimination of in-group members (‘us’) against out-group members (‘them’). Self-Categorisation Theory focuses on individuals who tend to categorise themselves into certain psychological groups in a given context in which a series of values and interpretations are shared.

Here are some good readings:

Turner, J. C. & Reynolds, K. J. (2010). The Story of Social Identity. In: Rediscovering Social Identity: Key Readings, Postmes, T. & Branscombe, N. R. (eds.), pp. 13-32. Psychological Press, New York.

Turner, J. C. (1987). A Self-Categorization Theory. In: Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory, Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D. & Wetherell, M., S. (eds.), pp. 42-67. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

Hogg, M. A. & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social Identity and Self-Categorization Processes in Organizational Contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.

Ashforth, B. E. & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.

If your goal is to develop communities, then surely they need to be involved in the research through participatory action research methods (which can be both qualitative and quantitative). Communities are "experts" in their own development, and as nearby resident stakeholders, they likely have ideas of how the university is influencing their lives, which would hint at pathways to take.

Depends highly on your specific research questions, I d say. In any case I expect that lit on nationalism is important for this kind of phd i.e. the role of the media in constructing/reproducing the nation i.e. Billig's banal nationalism, Anderson's Imagined communities etc. Sorry I cant advice on lit associating in particular social media and nationalism. But there should be recent publications on sth similar. Maybe search in journals such as 'new media and society'. 

Please note that in certain languages of the Iberian Peninsula, (Castilian and Catalan), a community is incorporated into the first person plural nominative.  Castilian uses "nosotros" and Catalan employs "nosaltres."  The pronouns originally meant in spoken Latin "we others."  In other words, into the identity of some members of a group an otherness or heterogeneity from the rest of the group was thereby signified. 

The FP7 projects PIONEURS (2003-2006) and EUCROSS (2011-2014) focused specifically on this question of European integration "from below". See the book "Pioneers of European Integration" (2009) by Ettore Recchi and Adrian Favell...

I suggest you read Erving Goffman. In particular The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, but also Stigma.

Yes, Lluis, I agree with that view that we are quite far from having it liquidated. We may never reach that point also, but then who knows what the future holds?

By your observation above, you added an interesting dimension to the discussion. For the sake of the discussion I am taking the caption that appears on the UN website: It's your world! Five or six decades ago we did not talk of one world. We talked of peace, prevention of war, sovereignty and freedom. Six decades down the line we talk of one world - our world. We talk more of compliance with international law than domestic law. We criticise countries for not complying with international norms and laws and even intervene into their sovereign space to uphold 'one world' norm, however blusteringly we do it.

Since we appear to be moving, however hesitantly, towards the one world norm, will this notion of nationalism become redundant at some point of time? Or, just because we can not do without our cultural and national identity, further movements towards 'one world' norm will become cause for clashes between national entities?

Apologies for flubbing, the preponderance of evidence is of course the easier test.

Though I can plead dyslexia, I can also plead the tendency of law to badly phrase concepts. 'Reasonable doubt' constitutes the rough definition for a negative generalization, whereas preponderance implies deduction from what what can be fairly accurately mensurated, whence presumably goes to the higher level. The same sloppiness accounts for the failure of so much law to poorly reflect underlying jural constructs, especially when concepts of office are at stake (as they are in half of law, the half that is 85% of commonly occurring issues).

Too harsh an assessment? Not at all. This is why we have had a recent worldwide financial crisis, why professionals are far less professional than we would like, and why we have a healthcare crisis while also not finding (or punishing when found) most white collar criminals, and why our system is so expensive and slow, and much more than this. When words mean what they mean it usually signifies ethico-moral concepts than mean what they mean, ergo are taken seriously, ergo that we work harder to meet mythic desiderata, which we assuredly do not ensure for too much of our legal precepts as put into practice. Loose thinking usually translates not only to loose constructions but also to loose or changing values. Geez, where in moral philosophy have we heard that before? Start maybe with Thucydides?

Nor is it that reflecting jural constructs must be impracticable. Rather, there are folks who just don't want a system that functions better than their wallets grow fat (because not able to meet the demands of wealthy clients to gain unjust advantages). The essential theory of the professions was that if they were correctly prosecuted the generous livery would follow, and if not, would constitute a justification for modification. That wasn't supposed to mean we would evolve boutique law, boutique medicine and boutique education. Fortunately a serious segment of the population is catching on to the nonsense.

And the reason most will not listen to any of this is doubtless because Marx, the great American bogey man, would roundly approve my remarks.

As a lesson in definition: You may consider this as the example par excellence of the newest critical definition of a "rant".

I think that, in respect to what is discussed here, music can be a means to discover and understand what others think or perceive and thus reflect in their musical acts. I guess we do tend to listen to music we got exposed to when we were young by mere exposure effect (i.e. it did not harm us, so it was all in all acceptable) or because it let us discover something(s) that we thought could not be expressed otherwise or at least in music. As mentioned earlier, there is definitely a time component in the development of the personal appreciation of music, and group or peer polarization of opinion may play a significant role mostly in early times -- think of collective concert hysteria for teenagers -- as an aid to integrate within circles or even put up some identity of sort. Later on I think we tend more and more to stand on our own and evolve taste according to habit, boredom, specialization, sophistication and other possible twists without much caring for others' tastes except for putting them up when in socially aggregating situations.