The Relational Dimension of Identity—Theoretical and Empirical Exploration

Abstract

Identity has been recently introduced as a “legitimate” subject matter in economics. Whereas the social nature of identity is consensually acknowledged, its relational and moral dimensions are overlooked. We begin by clarifying the role of interpersonal relations in identity formation. Following Honneth (1995) we argue that the development of a positive identity, defined as a person's relation-to-self, depends on the processes of mutual recognition in which a person takes part throughout her/his life. We then frame Honneth's recognition processes in terms of the access to relational and moral goods. An empirical study is presented that illustrates the association between relational and moral goods and “relation-to-self.” Based on European Social Survey (ESS) data, we show that high levels of relational goods (e.g. experiencing intense and positive social relations) and moral goods (e.g. perceiving to be treated with justice and respect) are associated with a positive relation-to-self.

Keywords:

• identity
• relational goods
• moral goods
• recognition

Notes

The claim that identity comes into existence in the course of personal interaction is obviously not new in philosophy. Honneth's argument builds on Hegel's Iena works as well as on George Mead (1934) and on established empirical results in psychology and sociology.

We use the term relational “goods” as a generic designation. We are obviously aware of the fact that the intangible entities we term relational goods may in fact be “bads” depending on the way the interpersonal interactions evolve and on the conditions in which they take place.

Here again, moral goods can actually be moral “bads.” Ricoeur (1990) relates self-respect to the deontological dimension of morality—moral norms, a sense of duty or obligation—while self-esteem is related to the teleological dimension of ethics—the desire to live a good life.

Bénabou and Tirole use the two terms—self-confidence and self-esteem—interchangeably, with the same meaning.

The difference between moral and social norms—as well as its relevance—is a contested issue, not discussed here. We simply assume that, although related, moral and social norms drive behavior in very different ways and along very different internal mechanisms.

We use here Habermas's illuminating distinction between strategic and communicative action.

Cronbach's alpha is a measure of reliability associated with the variation accounted for by the true score of the underlying factor. A threshold of 0.7 is commonly referred to as an adequate lower bound.

In effect, unlike most of the other questions used here, the questions related to the family relationships (namely E33 and E34 in the Wellbeing Module) showed evidence of poor data quality.

It must be noted that some of these studies have controlled for endogeneity and reverse causality. The use of panel data and of appropriate econometrical techniques allowed the direction of causality to be identified as going from relational goods or relationality to happiness/satisfaction with life.

Volunteer work and participation in social activities are recognized by economists as being so intensive in relational goods that they are actually used as indicators of relational goods in many economic models (see, among others, Bruni and Stanca 2008, and Becchetti et al. 2008).