Page 134 [134]
132 | Beata Kovacs
the outside and therefore perceived as more ‘objective’ than their individual
peers, which in many cases may appear subjective and individually constructed
in our eyes (Smith et al. 2008). Group members share and regulate each other's
feelings (Mercer 2014), and interactions within the group allow us to accept
emotions as valid and justified without any doubts.
In addition, the existence of symbolic and realistic threats towards the
group contributes to its (political) cohesion (Huddy 2013). The feeling of
being threatened (typically by some kind of external threat by an out-group)
strengthens the unity of the in-group, as well as the hostility towards the out¬
group (Stephan and Stephan 2000). For example, a reminder of the possibility
of death increases the intensity of attachment to the group and the rejection
of the out-group (Greenberg et al. 1990).
Based on the above, we can argue that the formation of (political) identities
inherently includes the dimension of fear. Although the desire for belonging
somewhere is a very important factor, we can only define identity boundaries
if we distinguish ourselves from others. In the formation and maintenance of
group identities, negative emotions can be more important than their positive
peers, that is ‘being afraid together’ is often a stronger experience than the
empathy or appreciation felt for the members of our group.
In addition, when we speak about political identities, we emphasise the
constructed nature of fear. By this I do not mean that our fears are completely
irrational and manipulated, but rather that they are highly dependent on
processes of social interaction and interpretation.
Nevertheless, uncertainty itself is the most important motivating factor in
identifying with certain social groups, as “individuals need to feel secure in who
they are, as identities or selves. Some, deep forms of uncertainty threaten this
identity security” (Mitzen 2006, 342). Jennifer Mitzen distinguishes between
physical security and ontological security (the need to preserve a stable sense
of identity).' According to her, ontological security concerns often outweigh
concerns about physical security in the motivations of individual behaviour.
Group identification is one of the best ways to reduce feelings of insecurity
in a given socio-political context. In general, people like to know who they
are, how to behave, and what to think. Group identity prescribes what we
should think, feel, and act on, and validates our worldview and self-image
(Hogg 2007), because “a clear sense of identity is often viewed as the central
means through which actors are able to generate a sense of certainty about the
world and their position within it” (Browning and Joenniemi 2016, 7). Most
of the time, we vote for an identity that stands on solid ground, increases our
self-esteem, and evokes a sense of efficiency (Salmela and Von Scheve 2018).
* “Ontological security refers to the need to experience oneself as a whole, continuous person
in time - as being rather than constantly changing - in order to realize a sense of agency”
(Mitzen 2006, 342).