Sociology

Personal trouble is projected based on individual cognition and emotion which define ones personal identity. This becomes a social issue when more people come to share the same personal concerns (Sociological Imagination C. Wright Mills). Although true meaning of the individual trouble is alienated when fused with a more collective structure, it becomes an integral part of it in such a way that it is mutually affected by the larger issue.

The theme of the essay shall examine the mutual social influence of a groups collective identity on individual perception and vice versa. In order to further elaborate on the topic, two texts have been selected to carefully investigate related concepts based on the approaches used by two different authors. Both illustrate how collective perceptionaction affects identity of its actors, in a way that it defines collective identity in a mutual sense. 

Francesca Polletas Collective Identity and Social Movements talks about the collective identity of social movements and its impact to peoples social identities with respect to the choices they make and why they chose to participate in the first place. On the other hand, John C. Turners Social Identity, Personality and the Self Concept A Self Categorization Perspective provides a substantial definition of the self-concept, how it is derived and influenced by collective expectation.

The Essays Objective
This synthesis essay aims to discuss the influence of collective behavior to the social identity of its participants and vice versa. In addition, it tries to answer the question as to how collective actions and choices of individuals are influenced by an established collective identity. It also attempts to identify the similarities and differences of the approach used by the above mentioned authors.

Social Movements and Individual Identity
The notion of collective identity has been taken in a broad sense that it failed to address the issue on how it affects individuals motivation to act and how these individual actions mutually influence collective behavior. Polleta defined collective identity as an ideological fusion of an individuals personal cognitive and emotion with a larger institution or set of community practices. More often than not, however, the idea is focused on the structural shifts which provide actors the reason to act collectively, rather than emphasize on both  rationalistic images of individual action (Polleta) and how it is mutually affected by a groups behavior and perspectives . In short, Sociologists often disregard the idea that the formation of a collective identity is both influenced by the actors and the general groups identity.

Polleta identified key points to assert the importance of individual identities as determiners of a larger collective image. For instance, the American civil rights movement was formed out of insurgent grievances which secured means on how these grievances can be addressed in a collective manner. Moreover, she talked about the issue on abortion and pointed out the fact that mobilization response rate from the United States was more intense than Europe. The very idea of why a group is formed means that there is an issue at hand which concerns participating individuals, and this varies from one society to another.

Although she recognizes the impact of individual interests on the collective behavior, Polleta also considers the influence of the collective identity of a group on its participants. There are those who join a group without ample grounds and justification on why they joined in the first place. In this case, the so-called free-riders (Olsen, 1965 cited in Polleta) acquire their identity from the larger collective image which persuades its members to go out and mobilize. In the absence of material incentives, the identity of these individuals thus relies on the collective identity of the group.  Collective identity, then, captures a reason which persuades an individual to be a part of it with pleasure.

Moreover, individuals are aware of their personal aims and goals. The group, so to speak the protest form which captures their personal interests,  already has its respective organizational forms and strategies prepared. It is up to the individual to choose as to what group he or she wanted to become a part of with respect to his or her ideals in line with the collective values of the group. The collective identity has the power to transform existing social norms, how a group see itself, and how others see it as an entity.

The Making of the Social Self
On the other hand, Turner introduced the idea of the self-conceptone which he considers a property of an individual. The notion of the self according to him is derived from one, personal experiences, orientation, and past behavioral interpretation and two, a by product of social influence and interaction. How individual identity is defined is based on these two ideological frameworks. The former emphasizes on the individuals attitude and cognitive processes which become determiners of how an individual sees himself or herself independently. The latter brings up the idea of the social self from which Turner identified two factors which molded  it ones individual cognition and social influence in a symbolic interactionist sense (Gecas, 1982 McCall 1987 Oyserman  Packer 1996 as cited in Turner).  The self concept is therefore derived from both personal orientation and symbolic interaction the social self becomes a by product of the said fusion.

The Looking-Glass Self
Turner utilized the metaphor looking-glass self wherein an individual acquires his or her idea of his or her identity from the reflected appraisals of other people. These social reflections provide the individual a sense of social awareness which may influence his or her social identity when exposed to symbolic meanings shared by others in a collective manner. Turner both recognized the mutual influence of the individual perception and the larger structure of shared ideas and values. Although it points out that the social self is still a property of the individual, the fact that it interacts with the perception of others makes it a part of a larger organized structure.  In short, the looking-glass self provides basis as to how individual identity is projected considering ones own perception as seen by others.

Analysis
The two authors utilized similar approach towards the topic in general. They both recognized the mutual relationship of the individual and collective perspectives as mere determinants of a groups collective identity. Polleta discussed how recognized interests can be transformed into a more collective perception in the same way that the latter also influences the former when it lacks the resources to be recognized as an individual entity (the free-rider dilemma). Turner pointed out the idea of the looking-glass self which describes how the individual obtains an identity from the perception of others and encourages the self to be a part of the collective identity.  Both authors adhere to the idea that  the making of the individual identity is greatly influenced by collective behavior and expectation and that collective identity is also shaped by common shared individual identities. 

The two authors basically differed with respect to how they represented the framework using various concepts. For instance, Polleta used the free-rider concept to emphasize the impact of the social movements collective identity on the individuals undecided perception to ride on with the existing values of the group. Turner, on the other hand, utilized notions like social self or looking-glass self to show how independent identity of an individual is compromised by shared symbolic meanings of a larger collective structure. Nevertheless, these two authors aimed to show how collective identity shapes individual image in the social system, in as much as the latter is correlated with the larger structure and becomes a significant part of it.

Thesis Statement
The individual identity is shaped by the combination and mutual interaction of a groups collective perception  and ones own personal cognitive. The independent self, once exposed to symbolic meanings shared in a group, becomes a part of a collective structure. In return, the values, interests and perceptions shared is recognized by the group  as its sole collective identity. How an individual identity is shaped by a collective identity, thus, becomes a mutual process.