ABSTRACT
Discussions of mass, group, or collective identity tend to be characterised by an abundance of theoretical and conceptual disputes and a relative lack of empirical foundation; in particular there is a lack of comparative studies based on systematic and reliable data (Bruter 2005, pp. 101–09). The dominant paradigm for both sociological and socio-psychological studies of mass identity is the constructivist approach. This emphasises, to varying degrees, the invented and constructed character of mass identity as opposed to essentialist understandings of the concept which assume a unique core or essence of identity (Scott & Marshall 2009, pp. 330–33). It is evident that any research following the constructivist approach requires clearly specified and carefully defined indicators targeting the determinants and dynamics of the underlying processes of identity formation for collectivities in various contexts. Because such data are difficult and costly to obtain, studies of the emergence of mass identities are usually based on insecure empirical grounds. It is therefore of specific relevance for the study of mass identity that the Intune project has provided a rich supply of data on the formation of mass identities in 18 European states, applying a multitude of indicators which specifically target the process of identity formation at elite level and in the general population. 1
