Oldal 133 [133]
Fear and securitisation | 131
to fear and why to be careful. Thus, in our socialisation, we internalise
different types of fears, which become one of the defining pillars of our
(personal) identity. Different childhood experiences and socialisation attitudes
may eventually result in different political orientations in adulthood from
conservatism to communism (Andrews 1991; Smith et al. 1956).
The developmental psychology literature introduced the concept of internal
threat, which includes factors of the self (self-image) that we do not like or that
we fear will be realised in the future. The concept of internal threat manifests
in the so-called ‘feared-for-self’. The feared-for-self develops in every social
context, such as the fear of failing an exam or a job interview, for instance.
In addition, the feared-for-self can be interpreted as one of the possible selves
of the individual. In the case of possible selves, the person sees role models:
he/she may want to become a famous cancer researcher, for example, which
is his/her ‘ideal future self’ In contrast, an unsuccessful model (homeless,
unemployed) may be a model for a person’s feared-for-self. The feared-for¬
self can also become socially and politically relevant: the individual easily
projects these inner fears onto others, and often creates an enemy by them
(Oppenheimer, 2001).
We cannot ignore the fact that our identity is in any case the result of
social construction processes. According to Calhoun (1993), identity is
highly constructed in modern societies, and according to Giddens (1991),
in late modernity identity is not a fixed factor at all. In Gidden’s theory, the
individual forms his or her own identity by constantly reflecting on the
changes that take place in his/her life, so identity is nothing more than a
reflective interpretation of various life events and the maintenance of the
narrative created about them. And the former process can be influenced and
manipulated, especially when our political identity comes to the fore, since it
is often based on ideals and moral considerations of which we are not really
aware (Calhoun 1993).
Regarding the individual and societal levels, it is a key factor that people
constantly switch back and forth between their personal and social identities
(Turner 2008). The unique life stories of group members - which are shared
with each other - create a group identity, while the social identity ofthe group
creates the individuals personal identity. Thereby the personal and societal
levels are organically linked, which is also explained by the fact that culture is
always available to people through some kind of microculture. Participation
in social groups is thus essential for the formation of personal identities
(Bruner and Feldman 1996). Social identities often target our subconscious,
that is our deepest fears (which were already part of our personality) can be
transformed into politically relevant emotions, amplified, and elevated to
the societal level.
Moreover, the emotions experienced at the societal level may be stronger
and more pervasive than the feelings experienced at the individual level
(Mercer 2014). In other words, group-level emotions are more controlled by