It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves

The adage man is a ‘social animal’ is there for a reason. Of all the creatures, humans have a distinctive advantage of communicating complex ideas. Though penchant to live and function in herds is common in almost all the living beings, it is more profound in humans. Therefore, the statement that people define themselves primarily through their identification with social groups is indeed true albeit with some exceptions.

Verily, humans crave for a sense of belonging and tend to form social groups whenever possible. They gain comfort in the company of people with similar background, values, beliefs, habits, choices, etc. at all stages of life. At kindergarten, a child seeks the kinship of other children with similar behaviour or choice of toys or play. Upon progression to school, this need to associate with ‘like-minded’ peers and isolate from ‘others’ takes the form of friend circles. High school and college students form structured groups and societies with specific rules, codes and symbols - often expressed in specifically coloured costumes, body tattoos, paraphernalia, body tattoos, etc Adults form social groups around similar choices of sports, athletes, TV shows, etc. Community and social groups based on similar background, religion, and alma mater fascinates young and old people alike. The present advent of numerous social media groups aptly illustrates this tendency. Therefore, our association with social groups reveals about our values, background, choices and so on.

The tendency to associate with certain groups also stems from the need of achieving common goals. Right from the primitive homo-sapiens who used to live and hunt in groups to the present business and labour associations, this practise is deeply ingrained in our behaviour. In academics researchers and scientists collaborate to advance human knowledge, whereas people join NGOs and political parties to persevere for some social and political causes. Hence, affiliations with social groups are also an indication on one’s occupations, life goals and missions.

Moreover, people find a sense of security and strength in numbers against the ‘outsiders’. It is, perhaps, for this reason that tribal groups prefer to live in clusters in forests, whereas ethnic and religious minorities like to live in ghettos in countries marred by communal violence. Hence, it is the notion of ethnic, racial and, even, national identity that gives rise to tacit or explicit social alliances to cater for the need of self-preservation and protection against the external adversaries.

However, identities of certain types of people do not mirror in their social associations. There are examples of extraordinary individuals who went on to establish their identities using their personal traits and achievements. Tesla, for example, was proclaimed anti-social who always preferred solitary work. Greats such as DaVinci, Copernicus, Newton, etc. are known for their personal accomplishments rather than their association with any social group. Furthermore, one can often come across individuals attempting to give a false impression about their background and orientation using social affiliations. Consider, for example, a person from a poor family earning a fortune through a lottery price. Thereafter, he joins the elite social clubs to impress upon the society that he originally belonged to the aristocratic background, though the only difference between now and then is his increased wealth. Finally, there are always iconoclasts who renounce the religious and social beliefs of the society they belong to by birth. Yet, the numbers of such exceptions cannot suffice to refute the author’s claim that commoners, in general, identify themselves with their social affiliations.

In conclusion, due to the need of belonging, achieving common objectives and security, humans, from childhood to mature age or from primitive to modern times, have always followed the habit of forming social groups. It is, then, one’s affiliations with certain groups that define his identity in terms of background, values, beliefs, occupation, goals, etc. Although, there are exceptions of achievers, imposters and iconoclasts whose identities do not reflect in their social associations, their numbers are too small to challenge the author’s claim.