Collective Empowerment

Collective empowerment is a concept in social psychology involving a psychological state of assurance in a group’s ability to challenge unequal relationships of power to enact social change (Drury & Reicher, 2005; Drury & Reicher, 2009). Collective empowerment originated from the work of Paulo Freire in education but later developed in the field of crowd psychology. Inspired by the Social Identity approach, John Drury, Steven Reicher, and Clifford Stott created the Elaborated Social Identity Model to explain how collective empowerment emerged and its effect on collective action (Drury & Reicher, 1999; Stott & Reicher, 1998). Researchers have since theorised core principles such as group efficacy, shared identity and sense of community as important predictors of this concept. Collective empowerment has practical applications for social change and activism (Drury & Reicher, 2009), community welfare, and organisational teamwork. However, researchers have found it difficult to operationalise and measure objectively, and its implications for collective action can have some negative outcomes.

Origins

Paulo Freire

The theory of empowerment originates from philosopher and educator Paulo Freire; he theorised ‘problem-posing education’ as a tool for submissive groups to overcome domination from the powerful (Hur, 2013). The theory described education as fuel for the oppressed’s drive for autonomy and freedom to change their social reality (Freire, 1978, p.75). Freire stated that the empowerment to enact change came from shared vulnerability and union based on solidarity, which he termed “unity in diversity” (Altamirano, 2020, p.316). Freire believed education went hand-in-hand with politics, with his work being critically acclaimed as insightful to the process of social change (Jackson, 2007).

The Social Identity approach

Group dynamics research started in the 1850’s focusing on collective spirit (Gençer, 2019). The most widely cited theory for intergroup behaviour is Social Identity Theory (SIT) (Tajfel, 1978), which described the transformation of an individual’s self-concept from personal beliefs to the shared normative values of the group, and how this influenced behaviour. The other half of the Social Identity approach, developed by John Turner in 1999, extended SIT with Self-categorisation Theory (SCT). Turner theorised that individuals make an identity (either personal or group) salient depending on the situational context (Turner, 2012). The goal that derives from a collective identity is positive distinctiveness, where people seek to establish their group’s identity in a good light, distinguishing themselves as socially ‘superior’ from the ‘inferior’ subordinates (Brown, 2020). In the context of collective empowerment, the Social Identity approach emphasises the need for the oppressed to recognise their collective subordination in society due to this system of hierarchy, and to agree on the legitimate means of challenging it (Brown, 2020).

Protestors at the 1990 Poll Tax Riot. These events formed the basis of Stott and Reicher’s (1998) research into developing the ESIM.

The Elaborated Social Identity Model (ESIM)

The ESIM, developed by Clifford Stott, John Drury, and Steven Reicher in the late 90’s, extended the Social Identity approach to intergroup behaviour looking specifically at crowd psychology. Their research derived from studies of real-life demonstrations, for example, town hall protests, a campaign against a link road in London, and the 1990 Poll Tax Riot (Drury & Reicher, 1999, 2005; Stott & Reicher, 1998). They theorised the emergence of collective empowerment was a function of: power dynamics between groups, ill-treatment of the ingroup by the outgroup, challenging the outgroup for its illegitimacy, feeling more powerful as a collective, and group actions reflecting a shift to a shared identity (Drury & Reicher, 1999, 2005). This process was a ‘cognitive transformation’ whereby acting according to a shared identity increased positive feelings about challenging the status quo as a group (Neville & Reicher, 2011). The ESIM also described how collective empowerment influenced the invention of new identities responsible for instigating collective action against opposing groups (Drury & Reicher, 1999, 2005). However, since 2005, research has suggested that collective empowerment may be better explained as the product of collective action and a process known as collective self-objectification (Drury et al., 2005).

Collective self-objectification (CSO)

Collective self-objectification (CSO) - a term derived from the ESIM- has its basis in SCT (Drury et al., 2005). CSO describes the process of asserting social identity by establishing the group’s means of resistance (e.g. non-violent protests) to challenge unequal intergroup power dynamics (Drury & Reicher, 2005). In a bid to create social change through this expression of identity, the group is becoming a subject of their own meaningful actions rather than an object of the outgroup’s- which is collectively empowering (Drury et al., 2005). CSO is suggested to be related to positive feelings, such as encouragement (Drury et al., 2005). As reference to CSO’s significance in this process, in interviews following collective action experiences, participants have consistently attributed CSO to feeling empowered, as well as failure of CSO (feeling like the group achieved nothing) to feeling disempowered (Drury et al., 2005). Collective empowerment not only impacts the individual’s self-concept but also future participation (Drury et al., 2005). The function of CSO collectively empowers members to continue challenging the outgroup due to implications for group efficacy and its direct association to participation in collective action (van Zomeren, 2013).

Core Principles

Shared identity/agency

At its core, collective empowerment relies on the shared self-categorisation amongst group members- they must see themselves as a collective entity rather than as individuals (Drury, Evripidou, & van Zomeren, 2014, p.11). On their own, individuals feel relatively powerless against the outgroup, but the formation of an ingroup with other like-minded people collectively empowers them to believe they have the weight to achieve change (Drury & Reicher, 1999). To feel collectively empowered to act, members must feel they are supported in their actions, that others will act in the same way, and that other members will not stop them from performing their means of challenging the outgroup (Drury, Evripidou, & van Zomeren, 2014, p.12). This common identity has practical implications for group efficacy to increase through more adequate collaboration (Drury, Evripidou, & van Zomeren, 2014, p.12).

Group efficacy

Efficacy consists of belief in the group to achieve their goals (Drury, Evripidou, & van Zomeren, 2014, p.6). Believing that the group is capable of achieving change is collectively empowering for producing the actions to do so (Drury & Reicher, 2009). The belief that social position in the world is not stagnant produces empowering positive emotions such as excitement and exhilaration (Drury, Evripidou, & van Zomeren, 2014, p.6). Not only does group efficacy directly influence the encouragement to act, but also the amount of effort and how long the action will endure for (Stajkovic, Lee, & Nyberg, 2009). However, recent research has suggested confidence and mutual efficacy in challenging the outgroup may depend on contextual factors (e.g. socioeconomic differences) as well as difficulty of what the group is trying to achieve (e.g. perceived political influence) (Gearhart, 2019).

Sense of belonging/community

Collective empowerment has frequently featured in communities (Hur, 2006). According to research, the most common themes of collective empowerment in this context are sense of belonging, community involvement, control over community organisation, and community building (Hur, 2006). It is through community ties that disadvantaged groups feel empowered to strive for social equality and change for their own well-being (García-Ramírez, Balcázar, & de Freitas, 2014). A person’s self-concept is derived from their environment, which can reinforce or go against feelings of belonging (Allen et al., 2021). Feeling like one does not belong to mainstream society is consistent in minorities and other historically excluded groups, which can empower collective action like in the Black Lives Matter movement (Allen et al., 2021). A person’s competencies may motivate them to connect with others, align with a like-minded group’s social norms, and develop a new identity within a collective context for meaning and empowerment (Allen et al., 2021).

Applications

Movements and social change

Social change is not spontaneous but rather the function of a network of people linked together by a shared cause (Nardini et al., 2020). Collective empowerment is central to social change because, through the process of constructing an internal reality, groups reinforce their identity and grow to believe that social change can be achieved (Drury & Reicher, 2009). The practical implication of this is that people feel strongly empowered to act in social movements such as protests, with the more people joining bringing potential for change (Drury & Reicher, 2009). Historically, instances of individuals coming together in solidarity of their misfortune to challenge oppression has exhibited positive change on their livelihoods (Almeida, 2019, p.1). Notably, the founder of the #MeToo movement Tarana Burke, used the phrase “empowerment through empathy” to describe how the expression of shared trauma experiences online established a network of support amongst women to initiate the movement (Suk et al., 2019).

Communities and organisations

Collective empowerment in communities is the unification of group members to improve their welfare by recognising the problems they face, the solutions they require, and how to achieve this change by building up the collective capacity to express so (Reiniger et al., 2005). Empowerment strategies in this context commonly relate to social inclusion to address systemic differences (Ahmad & Abu Talib, 2014). These strategies can result in changes to government policy, which can be economic or political, for the betterment of citizen welfare (Ahmad & Abu Talib, 2014).

Organisational research focuses on empowerment as a form of enabling or strengthening others (Pigg, 2002). Contrasting to the meaning of collective empowerment in other contexts (the struggle to overcome oppression), empowerment within workplace teams constitutes factors such as the knowledge that their work is meaningful and achieving organisational objectives (Tuuli, 2018). Researchers suggest empowered work units (teams) positively impact the workplace, though strategies to establish collective empowerment of these units requires further research (Voegtlin, Boehm, & Bruch, 2015).

Critiques and limitations

Operationalisation

The various concepts that make up ‘empowerment’ (e.g. unification, shared identity) are known as ‘soft’ variables (Ivasiuc, 2013). Soft variables are difficult to operationalise because they consist of diverse interpretations created by participants (Pluchinotta, Zhou, & Zimmermann, 2024). This is true for collective empowerment as it may not be interpreted similarly by all group members nor might it be felt to the same extent (Nguyen et al., 2020). Because of this, researchers have favoured the term ‘efficacy’ to describe subjective power in group action (Drury, Evripidou, van Zomeren, 2014, p.5). Efficacy has an advantage over empowerment as it is already well-researched and can be objectively quantified with empirically-tested scales (Drury, Evripidou, van Zomeren, 2014, p. 5).

The ESIM explains the emergence of collective empowerment in groups and crowds but the theory has its basis in thematic and phenomenological analysis, rather than empirical lab testing (Drury & Reicher, 1999, 2005, 2020). Models that use ‘soft systems’ often explain the relationship between variables with ‘fuzzy logic’, limiting objectivity and the concept’s basis for measurement (Finkelstein, 2005). However, Drury and Reicher (2009) argued in their work that due to the dynamic nature of crowd events, they could not be measured in a controlled environment. Instead, participants must learn to construct their own meaning of collective empowerment, rather than responding to a definition that is put forward by researchers (Drury & Reicher, 2009).

Negative implications

Collective empowerment has been described as a “positive” process (Drury & Reicher, 2009), though the literature has neglected the negative side. Not everyone will feel collectively empowered by participation in group action (Drury, Evripidou, & van Zomeren, 2014, p. 14). For example, in attempting to challenge the outgroup (often the police), there can be threat of injury or arrest, and there may be many setbacks or instances of burnout (Drury, Evripidou, & van Zomeren, 2014, p. 23). In extreme cases of riots there can be negative outcomes such as the normalisation of stealing and vandalism (Stott et al., 2018). This is due to the emergence of new identities from collective empowerment which shift ‘reactive rioting’ to ‘proactive rioting’ (Stott et al., 2018). In this instance, groups extend their action to attacking other symbols of their frustration (Stott et al., 2018). The wider implication of this empowered violence is that non-violent campaigns fighting for the same cause are overlooked and people are discouraged from supporting them (Abbs & Gleditsch, 2021), preventing social change.

References

Abbs, L., & Gleditsch, K. S. (2021). Ticked off but scared off? Riots and the fate of nonviolent campaigns. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 26(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.17813/1086-671x-26-1-21

Ahmad, M. S., & Abu Talib, N. Bt. (2014). Empowering local communities: decentralization, empowerment and community driven development. Quality & Quantity, 49(2), 827–838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0025-8

Allen, K.-A., Kern, M. L., Rozek, C. S., McInerney, D. M., & Slavich, G. M. (2021). Belonging: A Review of Conceptual issues, an Integrative framework, and Directions for Future Research. Australian Journal of Psychology, 73(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.1883409

Almeida, P. (2019). Social Movements: The Structure of Collective Action. In Social Movements: The Structure of Collective Mobilisation. University Of California Press. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Social_Movements/driHDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0

Altamirano, A. F.-A. (2020). The importance of Paulo Freire to communication for development and social change. In J. Servaes (Ed.), Handbook of Communication for Development and Social Change (pp. 315–317). Springer.

Brown, R. (2020). The social identity approach: Appraising the tajfellian legacy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12349

Drury, J., Cocking, C., Beale, J., Hanson, C., & Rapley, F. (2005). The phenomenology of empowerment in collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604x18523

Drury, J., Evripidou, A., & van Zomeren, M. (2014). Empowerment. The intersection of identity and power in collective action. In D. Sindic, M. Barreto, & R. Costa-Lopes (Eds.), Power and Identity. Psychology Press. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203366264-6/empowerment-john-drury-atalanti-evripidou-martijn-van-zomeren

Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (1999). The Intergroup Dynamics of Collective Empowerment: Substantiating the Social Identity Model of Crowd Behavior. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2(4), 381–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430299024005

Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (2005). Explaining enduring empowerment: a comparative study of collective action and psychological outcomes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.231

Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (2009). Collective Psychological Empowerment as a Model of Social Change: Researching Crowds and Power. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 707–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01622.x

Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (2020). Crowds and Collective Behavior. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.304

Finkelstein, L. (2005). Problems of measurement in soft systems. Measurement, 38(4), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2005.09.002

Freire, P. (1978). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In T. M. Norton & B. Ollman (Eds.), Studies in Socialist Pedagogy (pp. 60–76). Monthly Review Press.

García-Ramírez, M., Balcázar, F., & de Freitas, C. (2014). Community psychology contributions to the study of social inequalities, well-being and social justice. Psychosocial Intervention, 23(2), 79–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psi.2014.07.009

Gearhart, M. C. (2019). Testing Predictors of Mutual Efficacy. Social Science Quarterly, 100(6), 2445–2457. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12688

Gençer, H. (2019). Group dynamics and behaviour. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(1), 223–229. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070128

Hur, M. H. (2006). Empowerment in terms of theoretical perspectives: Exploring a typology of the process and components across disciplines. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(5), 523–540. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20113

Hur, M. H. (2013). Empowerment. In M. D. Gellman & J. R. Turner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine (pp. 682–683). Springer.

Ivasiuc, A. (2013). Empowerment - Easier said than measured. Revista de Asistenta Sociala, 3, 21–35. https://uoelibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/empowerment-easier-said-than-measured/docview/1440066335/se-2

Jackson, S. (2007). Freire Re-viewed. Educational Theory, 57(2), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2007.00252.x

Nardini, G., Rank‐Christman, T., Bublitz, M. G., Cross, S. N. N., & Peracchio, L. A. (2020). Together We Rise: How Social Movements Succeed. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(1), 112–145. https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcpy.1201

Neville, F., & Reicher, S. (2011). The experience of collective participation: shared identity, relatedness and emotionality. Contemporary Social Science, 6(3), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2012.627277

Nguyen, L. T. V., Conduit, J., Lu, V. N., & Rao Hill, S. (2020). Collective empowerment in online communities: conceptualization, scale refinement, and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 28(3), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2020.1758568

Pigg, K. E. (2002). Three Faces of Empowerment: Expanding the Theory of Empowerment in Community Development. Journal of the Community Development Society, 33(1), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330209490145

Pluchinotta, I., Zhou, K., & Zimmermann, N. (2024). Dealing with soft variables and data scarcity: lessons learnt from quantification in a participatory system dynamics modelling process. System Dynamics Review, 40(4), e1770. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1770

Reininger, B., Martin, D. W., Ross, M., Sinicrope, P. S., & Dinh-Zarr, T. (2005). Advancing the Theory and Measurement of Collective Empowerment: A Qualitative Study. International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 25(3), 211–238. https://doi.org/10.2190/8588-68k4-07m3-7164

Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 814–828. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015659

Stott, C., Ball, R., Drury, J., Neville, F., Reicher, S., Boardman, A., & Choudhury, S. (2018). The evolving normative dimensions of “riot”: Towards an elaborated social identity explanation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(6), 834–849. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2376

Stott, C., & Reicher, S. (1998). Crowd action as intergroup process: introducing the police perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(4), 509–529. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(199807/08)28:4%3C509::aid-ejsp877%3E3.0.co;2-c

Suk, J., Abhishek, A., Zhang, Y., Ahn, S. Y., Correa, T., Garlough, C., & Shah, D. V. (2019). #MeToo, Networked Acknowledgment, and Connective Action: How “Empowerment Through Empathy” Launched a Social Movement. Social Science Computer Review, 39(2), 089443931986488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319864882

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation Between Social Groups. Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press.

Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2012). Self-Categorization Theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 2, 399–417. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n46

Tuuli, M. M. (2018). What has project characteristics got to do with the empowerment of individuals, teams and organisations? International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(3), 708–733. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-08-2017-0097

van Zomeren, M. (2013). Four Core Social-Psychological Motivations to Undertake Collective Action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(6), 378–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12031

Voegtlin, C., Boehm, S. A., & Bruch, H. (2015). How to empower employees: using training to enhance work units’ collective empowerment. International Journal of Manpower, 36(3), 354–373. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijm-10-2012-0158