Seite 134 [134]
OCR
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 outgroup (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).
