IDENTIFYING THE ‘PEOPLE’ IN ‘WHAT WILL PEOPLE SAY’: INCORPORATING SOCIAL IDENTITY WITHIN LAW AND NORMS DISCOURSE

Abstract

identity has an immediate and profound impact on how the two motivations for adhering to social influences operate in real world. First, individuals not only are likely to believe but ‘need to’ believe members from within their identity group are ‘right’ (and those outside to their group ‘wrong’) for self-esteem maintenance. Expressive powers of law, therefore, will vary considerably depending on how it portrays behaviors of those within my group. Second, whose positive opinion we crave for is deeply rooted in our social identity. This has direct consequence on how individual respond to a law when offenders are likely to be part of one’s identity (such as men responding to the #metoo movement or white Americans responding to All Lives Matter). The discussion also helps identify the limits of reputational tools like shaming for enforcing laws. Finally, the article highlights an important epistemological lacuna in the law and norms discourse by incorporating social identity within it. Individuals, when influenced by those they identify with, have both informational and normative reasons to adhere to these influences. The article argues that while either of the two motivations can ex-post rationalize the phenomenon, neither capture the true motivations underlying adherence through identification. The motivational dichotomy is not as evident as the discourse presumes and there is a need to revisit the framework we use to understand social influences.