Page 428 -

17 Social Constraint 431

(Kohlberg 1996). Finally, the ego is the controlling instance: it coordinates the
demands of id, superego and outer world. According to Freud, the superego is
the mirror of the society. Freud’s theory of ego, superego and id, then, parallels
Durkheim’s assumption that the internalisation of norms involves social coercion
(Geulen 1991). From the perspective of both, society is in radical conflict with
human nature. Norms are given as an external fact. Both Durkheim and Freud regard
the individual as passive and internalisation as a unidirectional process.
Building on G.H. Mead (1934), and the theories of cognitive and moral develop-
ment of Piaget (1932, 1947) and Kohlberg (1996), in recent times identity theories
have become influential in socialisation research. In contrast to an orientation based
solely either on the individual subject or the society, identity theories emphasise the
interaction of culture and individuals in the development of a morally responsible
person (Bosma and Kunner 2001; Fuhrer and Trautner 2005; Keupp 1999).
Mead developed a concept of identity that in contrast to Durkheim did not reduce
the individual to a private subject guided purely by drives. Instead, he developed
a theory of the social constitution of individual identity. A crucial mechanism in
the development of personality is the capability of role taking: to regard oneself
from the perspective of the other. This ability enables individuals to anticipate the
perspectives and expectations of others and thereby to come to accept social norms.
In the process of role taking, the individual develops a consciousness whereby the
individual is itself a stimulus for the reaction of the other in situations of social
interaction. This is the distinction between the spontaneous ‘I’ and self-reflected
‘me’. Together, they form what Mead denoted as identity: in other words, the ‘self’.
An abstraction of this process leads to the notion of the ‘generalised other’. This is
not a specific interaction partner but a placeholder for anybody. The notion of the
‘generalised other’ is the representation of society.
Identity theories follow Mead in seeing individual identity as the key link
between person and culture. In contrast to the perspective to regard the social as
constraining the individual, identity theories argue that socially embedded identity
enables action selection. Action determination can be intrinsically or extrinsically
motivated. The identity of individuals contributes to the development of their
intrinsic motivation. There exist clear empirical evidence that sanctions and even
incentives undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan 2000). Norms, however,
constitute a socially determined pattern of behaviour. Thus, norm obedience is
always extrinsically motivated. However, at this point, internalisation comes into
play. Extrinsic motivation can be internalised to different degrees, ranging from
purely extrinsic behavioural regulation (e.g. sanctions) to motivations that are
integrated into the self. Integration is attained when external guidelines have
become part of personal identity. This is the highest degree of a transformation
of external regulation into self-determination and is denoted as self-determined
extrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan 2000). In this case, a person is in line with itself
if he or she orients behaviour around social norms. Integrated behaviour regulation
is highly salient. Since norms are in full accordance with the personal values,
action is regarded as autonomously motivated. Hence, the scale of internalisation
from external regulation to integration is regarded as the scale from external