Group visibility depends on physical markers or formal institutions

Evidence

All groups, including those that become important politically, vary in their visibility. Groups delimited by physical characteristics “in the skin” (racial groups) are highly visible, if specimens are present for inspection or if the individual has been informed in some rather vivid way of their existence. Similarly, groups that have buildings, meetings, and officers (church, congregation, and clergy for example) are more visible than groups, like social classes, that do not, although the salience of any “official” group qua group may vary widely according to the individual’s contact with its formal manifestations. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1926 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Pop culture is awash with their images. Hookah cafés entice East Village socialites, fashionistas appropriate the checkered kaffiyah scarf, and Prince sings an ode to a young Arab-American girl. They are floating everywhere in the virtual landscape of the national imagination, as either villains of Islam or victims of Arab culture. Yet as in the postmodern world in which we live, sometimes when you are everywhere, you are really nowhere. — Moustafa Bayoumi, How Does It Feel to Be a Problem? Being…, 45 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Brewer et al.’s (2004) second intuitive theory of entitativity is referred to as an agency conception, capturing the perception of group entitativity as a group’s ability to get things done and to have the means to accomplish its goals. It is here that Brewer et al.’s ideas truly become a view of “dynamic entitativity,” as this conception highlights the importance of group organization, planning and coordination, and meaningful activity. In this view, groups are seen as groups because they are coherent, cohesive action centers: they are alive, they are doing, and they have purpose. In comparison, other conceptions and analyses of entitativity seem quite static. In our view, Brewer et al.’s recognizing that the perception of group entitativity can be based on these qualities is a valuable extension of past thinking and offers the opportunity to explore the interface between the perception of entitativity and actual group functioning. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 243 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Visible markers made Armenians an easily targeted distinct group — Gregory H. Stanton, Ten Stages of Genocide, 18; Invisible institutional arrangements coordinate activity as much as visible technology does. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1008; People signal status by using symbols associated with top groups — W. David Marx, Status and Culture: How Our Desire for…, 210 (+7 more)

Broader Connections

• Group political visibility depends on physical or institutional markers rather than abstract status #corroborates (0.97) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1926
• Hyper-visibility in pop culture can function as a form of invisibility for a group. #complicates (0.76) — Moustafa Bayoumi, How Does It Feel to Be a Problem? Being…, 45
• Groups can be perceived as groups through agency and purpose #complicates (0.75) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 243
• Shared arbitrary practices constitute a group’s collective identity #complicates (0.72) — W. David Marx, Status and Culture, 137