Easy individual mobility weakens subordinate-group solidarity and collective action

Evidence

First, to the extent that the objective and the subjective prohibitions to “passing” are weak (see our earlier discussion of the “social mobility” system of beliefs), low status may tend, in conditions of unsatisfactory social identity, to promote the widespread adoption of individual mobility strategies, or at least initial attempts to make use of these strategies. Insofar as individual mobility implies disidentification, it will tend to loosen the cohesiveness of the subordinate group. This weakening of subjective attachment to the in-group among its members will tend: (a) to blur the perception of distinct group interests corresponding to the distinct group identity; and (b) to create obstacles to mobilizing group members for collective action over their common interests. Thus, the low morale that follows from negative social identity can set in motion disintegrative processes that, in the long run, may hinder a change in the group status. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2747

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the social-mobility/change belief systems distinction from earlier in Tajfel’s own framework, and to the diamond bourse’s reputation-systems work where opting out vs. staying in a group is a strategic choice. — connects to: Institutionalized space appropriation produces territorially bounded social solidarity — David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An…, 1395; Group solidarity persists only as long as grievance-driven mobilization continues — Manuel Borutta and Jan C. Jansen, Vertriebene and Pieds-Noirs in Postwar…, 833; Beliefs about social permeability, not objective structure, shape whether people pursue mobility or change — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 2680 (+4 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2747