BACKGROUND
Full-scale state-building processes in any country are impossible without its citizens’ mature (formed) civic identity. State-building is based not only on people’s passive recognition of their citizenship but also on filling it with value and personal meaning. The formation of civic identity is complicated in those states that have recently gained independence. The long history of being part of other states (empires) can still cause various deformations of civic identity: from its devaluation as an “insignificant formality” to a stable focus on emigration. That is why the study of civic identity and its typology is acutely relevant, especially for Ukrainian society.
Modern social and political psychologists and representatives of related sciences pay a lot of attention to the problems of civic identity. Discussions continue on the phenomenon of civic identity, its internal structure and properties (Cohen & Chaffee, 2013; Hart et al., 2011; Knefelkamp, 2008); differences between civic identity and national and ethnic identities (Hristova & Cekik, 2013; Pakulski & Tranter, 2000; Shulman, 2004; Yates & Youniss, 2006); and patterns of functioning of civic identity (Constant & Zimmer-mann, 2012; Hansen & Hesli, 2009; Meeus et al., 2010).
The problem of the study of civic identity becomes especially relevant not only in the field of basic science (no standard definition of civic identity has yet gained scholarly consensus), but also in the practical field. There is a need for tools for psychological diagnosis and influence on the civic identity of the individual to develop, update and comprehend it, and prevent its deformations.
THE CURRENT STUDY
The current study is part of the dissertation research “Psychology of civic identity formation of an individual”, the topic of which was approved at the Institute of Social and Political Psychology NAES of Ukraine (protocol no. 8/16, 23.06.2016) and agreed by the decision of the Bureau of the Interdepartmental Council for Coordination of Research in Education, Pedagogy and Psychology (protocol no. 7, 29.11.2016).
Principles of theories of social identity and social self-categorization (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), the concepts of organizational identity (Boroş, 2008; Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004) and role theories (Berne, 1964; Goffman, 1969; Hornostai, 2007) were the theoretical and methodological basis of the study.
According to the author’s psychological concept of civic identity formation (Petrovska, 2021a), civic identity is considered a kind of organizational identity, which is value-semantic experience of the individual’s identity with themself as a citizen of the state.
It is manifested in the institutional, community, and individual dimensions; it provides integrity, durability of ideas about themself as a citizen even when changing civic values/orientations and acts as a psychological regulator of civic behavior.
The civic identity of the individuals is intended to facilitate their adaptation to the state’s organizational environment, optimize their social self-realization, and join forces with fellow citizens for the development of the state.
Therefore, civic identity as a personal formation has three dimensions (Petrovska, 2020): institutional, community and individual (Figure 1).
In the institutional dimension, civic identity is relevant to the citizen-state relationship; it is based on understanding oneself as a citizen in the state as an organization. The activity of an individual in the organizational environment of the state – which has at least two dimensions: hierarchical (state power, the structure of which is hierarchical) and normative (political and legal relations) – is conditioned by its psychological needs, in particular, in social self-realization, security and meaning of life. This activity is regulated by law and involves contact with government officials. The experience of this activity determines the inclusion of the individual in the organizational environment of the state – value, emotional, cognitive and behavioral. Value inclusion means the social perception of the axiological field of the state, the terminal values of statehood in general and the state in particular; cognitive – understanding of the normative field of the state and the actual practice of organizational interaction in it; emotional – emotional experiences related to relations with the state as an organization; behavioral – the implementation of civic behavior.
In the community dimension (“citizen – community of citizens”), civic identity is embodied in identifying oneself as a community member and is based on affiliation. The common experience of solving typical problems (from domestic to political) forms a specific phenomenon – a consortium of citizens (different from civil society, which means a reasonably high level of citizenship). In a sense, the community of citizens can be compared to the community of apartment building residents. Different in age and ethnic origin, they are united by a common situation of living in the house and neighborhood: they have the same communal problems, environmental situation, management interaction. Long-term collective experience in overcoming typical problems does not lead to cohesion, mutual support or positive assessment of fellow citizens. Still, it lays the foundations of civic solidarity due to the common value and significance of this experience.
The individual dimension (“citizen – I (role)”) involves self-identification with the role of the citizen, which embodies rights and responsibilities as the main role actions that an individual must perform and avoid. If citizenship means a certain formal status, rights and responsibilities, then in this respect, a person gets a specific role – the role of a citizen that must be played throughout life. An individual may, to varying degrees, identify with their role of a citizen, be good or bad at “knowing this role”, but in each case, the role of the citizen becomes part of their role repertoire. According to role theories (Berne, 1964; Goffman, 1969; Hornostai, 2007), the presence of a role and its acceptance means that a game exists and includes personality in it. In Berne’s understanding of this terminology, role, game and script are usually destructive. However, they do essential work for the individual – compensate for fear of true intimacy and sincerity in the relationship. Therefore, surrogate relationships often dominate.
In our opinion, the situation is similar in the relations between the individual and the state and other citizens. Individuals enter into fairly typical games with the state, where they play the role of a citizen and project other roles on the state and their fellow citizens. The main feature of a psychological game that differs from sincere interaction is the presence of hidden benefits and manipulation on which this relationship is based. Often such a “benefit” is a responsibility avoidance. Jung (1958) wrote about the renunciation of responsibility as the individual’s main problem in the relationship with the state. An example is the game “Persecution” (similar to the one described by Berne as the game “Alcoholic”): the Persecuting State oppresses the Citizen (Victim): suffocates with exorbitant prices for utilities; does not provide housing but requires registration, etc. The Victim suffers, remains indigent and delinquent for life, which gives them the following psychological benefits: the right to complain about the state and receive support; moral justification of offenses (“Honesty doesn’t pay here”); and the right to redirect responsibility to the state (“I am a small person, nothing depends on me”). Nevertheless, the Victim receives attention, support and social approval from fellow citizens. Thus, the role of the citizen makes it possible to enter the real interaction with the state in the form of activity in its organizational environment and realizing their subjectness in it. If the paradigm of object relations is implemented, the role of the citizen enables game and scenario interaction of the individual with the state.
Each of the mentioned dimensions of civic identity (institutional, community, individual) can be differently developed (actualized) in a particular individual, which suggests the existence of such types of civic identity: Institutional (high level of institutional dimension, low level of community and individual dimensions); Institutional-community (high level of institutional and community dimensions, low level of individual dimension); Institutional-role/game (high level of institutional and individual dimensions, low level of community dimension; if respective civic roles do not determine the game interaction with the state, it is an “institutional-role” type, if they do, it is the “institutional-game” type); Community-role/ game (low level of institutional dimension, high level of community and individual dimensions; if respective civic roles do not determine the game interaction with the state, it is a “community-role” type, if they do, it is the “community-game” type); Role/Game (low level of institutional and community dimensions, high level of individual dimension; individual civic roles either do not determine the game/scenario interaction with the state (Role type), or determine it (Game type); Community (low level of institutional and individual dimensions, high level of community dimension); Versatile (high expression of all three dimensions of civic identity; in the case when the role component corresponds to the subject-subject paradigm, this type of civic identity can be characterized as developed, revealed); Latent (low expression of all three dimensions of civic identity).
The article aims to empirically verify the typology of the civic identity of an individual, identify both the most common and least common types among Ukrainian citizens, and determine whether the representation of these types would differ in women and men, and in different age groups.
PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE
PARTICIPANTS
Nine hundred sixty-five citizens of Ukraine from different regions of Ukraine took part in the empirical study. The age range was 16 to 60 (M = 33.56, SD = 15.34). A description of the age groups, gender and education distribution of the study participants can be found in Table 1.
Table 1
Demographic data of the participants
PROCEDURE
The study was questionnaire-based and lasted from the end of February 2019 to the end of May 2021. The materials and procedure conformed to the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki with later amendments and were approved at the Institute of Social and Political Psychology NAES of Ukraine. The survey was voluntary and anonymous. Participants could complete questionnaires in paper and pencil form (during the class activity at the Institute of Postgraduate Education and Pre-university Training, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv) or as an online survey via Google Forms (the link to the questionnaire was made available to people employed in various industries and organizations). The average completion time was about 30 minutes.
MEASURES
The study of civic identity was carried out with the help of the author’s questionnaire “Diagnosis of maturity and type of civic identity” (Petrovska, 2021b). The questionnaire consists of two parts, and contains 7 scales and 6 subscales, with a total of 56 items. The first part of the questionnaire contains tasks designed to assess the level of maturity of civic identity. The second contains tasks designed to determine the degree of representation of the institutional, community and individual components (dimensions) and establish the type of civic identity.
The main scales for determining the level of maturity of civic identity are Representation, Stability, Subjectness, and Conceptuality. In order to determine the representation of civic identity among other personal identities, respondents were asked to choose the seven most important characteristics (marked as “+”) for their perception of themselves (I-image) from the proposed list of meaningful characteristics of personal identity (ethnic, professional, gender, regional, etc.). After that, they had to rank each selected characteristic’s significance (importance) from 1 to 7, i.e., to determine their priority. In this way, the presence/absence of civic identity among other important identities of an individual was determined, and its hierarchical position in the structure of different identities was established.
Stability of civic identity means its semantic constancy, unwillingness to change the state of citizenship without significant reassessment of values and change of ego-identity. It is opposed by situational variability of one’s citizenship, for example, under the influence of political conditions. To assess the stability of civic identity, so-called incidents – life situations in which there is a problem – were used as stimulus material. Respondents were asked to read the suggested situations carefully and choose the answer that best agrees with what they would advise other people in certain circumstances (e.g. “If your friend had unlimited financial resources, which state would you advise him to choose for permanent residence? a) not Ukraine; b) Ukraine; c) it is hard to say”). Subjectness establishes a person’s willingness to be a source of activity in relationship with the organization/state, responsibility for themself as a citizen and their contribution to the state’s life, experiencing themself as a subject or “small cog in a large machine”. To measure the subjectness of civic identity, statements (as sentence fragments) and different answers were developed, from which the respondent chose the answer that best matched their beliefs (e.g. “I see my mission as a citizen of the state in... a) trying to survive under any circumstances; b) supporting others in criticizing the government; c) defending the interests of the state and fellow citizens, initiating changes to improve their well-being”).
The conceptuality of civic identity reflects the development, details and meaningfulness of the individual’s relationship with the state. To measure the conceptuality of civic identity, statements and different answers were developed, from which the respondent chose the answer that best suited their beliefs (e.g. “When I think about what my citizenship gives me... a) I come to the conclusion that it does not give me anything in particular; b) I understand what I have the right to receive from the state and what I have to give to it as a citizen; c) I get bored because I have many other, more interesting topics to think about”).
Institutional orientation, Community orientation, and Individual-role/game orientation scales were used to assess the dimensions of civic identity functioning and establish the degree of expression of each of them.
To assess the institutional and community orientations of civic identity, a Likert scale was used. The respondents recorded the degree of their agreement or disagreement with each statement, from 7 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree).
The Institutional orientation scale measures the level of a citizen’s orientation to the state, its internal relation with it, involvement in the organizational environment of the state, and adaptability to it. This scale covers 4 subscales:
1. Cognitive involvement – understanding the organizational environment of the state (hierarchical, legal), in particular, awareness of the instances to be contacted in case of any problems, interest in important events taking place in the state, the desire to understand them, awareness of their civil rights and responsibilities and so on (e.g. “It is important for me to know about all the events taking place in the country. I constantly monitor the state of affairs in the political, financial, economic and social spheres”).
2. Value involvement – the value of national state-hood, the value of preserving the sovereignty and integrity of the state, the value of the state as its citizenship, etc. (e.g. “Ukraine’s sovereignty and integrity are so important to me that I am ready to defend them in any way”).
3. Emotional involvement – assessment of the state in accordance with its own civic experience in its organizational environment: security/threat, importance/insignificance, availability/lack of opportunities for self-realization, seeing opportunities for growth and recognition (e.g. “I feel insignificant, unimportant in my country”).
4. Behavioral involvement – civic participation/ activity/willingness of the individual to act in the interests of the state (e.g. “I obey the law and force others to do the same”).
Community orientation measures the level of affiliation with fellow citizens, their acceptance as groups, and experiences related to the perception of oneself as a member of the community of citizens. This scale consists 2 subscales:
1. Acceptance – experiences related to the perception of oneself as part of the community of citizens (e.g. “I am displeased when I hear insulting remarks against my fellow citizens from citizens of other countries, even if they are fair”).
2. Integration – connection with the community, awareness of similarities with fellow citizens, perception of unity, connection, common destiny (e.g. “I have a lot in common with the citizens of my country”).
Individual role/game orientation measures the level of identification with typical citizen roles – both in constructive and destructive versions. To assess the individual-role/game orientation of civic identity the situations and response options given by the situation characters are used. The respondent should choose the most likely one from the proposed alternatives (which include accepting or withdrawing from the It reveals whether a person distinguishes between constructive and destructive transactions (game ways of interaction with the state), whether they accept the game and the corresponding role or refuse to play it with the state. High values on this scale indicate game orientation and low values indicate role orientation. To compile a list of the most common roles and games and related transactions with government institutions, a preliminary pilot study was conducted (96 people aged 18-52), in which respondents described the most common game transactions. According to the results, the most typical civic roles (which correspond to the relevant games) include the roles of Victim (28%; main thesis of the game: “The state oppresses me”), Patriot (11%; thesis: “Only I love Ukraine, all others are traitors”), Exemplary Citizen (9%; thesis: “I perform civic duties best of all”), Privileged (13%; thesis: “You owe me”, the position of social parasitism on the state), Offended (23%; thesis: “If it weren’t for this state...”). Since the most typical roles are characterized by a destructive way of interacting with the state, it is important to determine whether the respondents distinguish between constructive and destructive transactions, whether they accept the game and the corresponding role or refuse to play with the state. Example:
Vlad is a taxi driver. Despite the quarantine restrictions, he tries to let into the car as many people as possible. He was once fined for violating the rules of passenger transportation. “What is happening?” exclaims Vlad to his friend Alex. “I take care of others, I understand how important it is to get to work, home or somewhere else on time… and I am getting fined for it”.
What, in your opinion, could Alex answer him? a) “Friend, admit it, you really thought about yourself because you did not want your earnings to decrease. I understand correctly that the more people in the car, the more you earn?”; b) “You’re right. In our state, good is always punished. It’s ridiculous to think that these quarantine restrictions can really save you from getting infected. All this is done to worsen the lives of ordinary people like you and me”; c) “Don’t worry about it all, these are normal work situations”.
Choosing answer b) is evidence that the respondent accepts/shares the “victim” game.
At the stage of approbation of the questionnaire 574 citizens aged 16-62 took part, comprising 42% men and 58% women. The reliability of the author’s questionnaire was checked by means of an evaluation of the internal consistency (Cronbach’s α index: .76 – Integral scale “Maturity of civic identity”; .85 – Institutional orientation, .77 – Community orientation; .70 – Individual-role orientation), the split-half reliability method (Spearman-Brown and Guttman coefficients vary from .66 to .89) and the retest reliability method (verified with 215 citizens, 135 women, 80 men, average age 29.9 years, retesting after 4 weeks – the correlation coefficients between values of the questionnaire scales – .73 to .88). Construct validity was assessed by determining the factor structure of the questionnaire using exploratory factor analysis with Varimax normalized principal component extraction and confirmatory factor analysis. The correlations of civic identity indicators with the characteristics of ego identity, personal maturity, and civic self-consciousness are evidence of the questionnaire’s convergent validity. The ranges of low, average and high levels of civic identity maturity, as well as institutional, community and individual-role/game orientation, were established (Petrovska, 2021b). Thus, a reliable and valid tool that allows civic identity to be explored was created.
Methods of mathematical and statistical analysis such as descriptive statistics, frequency analysis, and comparative analysis (t-test, ANOVA, Scheffé’s test) (using SPSS 23.0) were used to determine the types of civic identity in the general group of surveyed citizens and identify differences in maturity indicators and measurements of civic identity by gender and in different age groups.
RESULTS
Mature civic identity was found in 18% of respondents (evidenced by a combination of high scores on the scales of stability, representation, subjectness and conceptuality of civic identity). 61% of Ukrainian citizens surveyed have an average level of maturity of civic identity. At the same time, 21% have low levels of stability, representation, subjectness and conceptuality of civic identity, which indicates that it is not formed, despite their awareness of their citizenship.
37% have a high level of stability of civic identity. This means that they are not ready to change this identity suddenly, under the influence of circumstances and without reassessment of values. A low level of stability is observed in 21% of respondents. 29% of those diagnosed showed a high level of conceptual civic identity, but 34% showed a low level, which indicates a lack of awareness and reflection of this formation among citizens. Finally, a high level of subjectness of civic identity is associated with the lowest percentage of respondents, 26%, compared to 33% for a low level of subjectness of civic identity. It follows that the formation of these signs of maturity (conceptuality and subjectness) of civic identity is the most challenging and problematic.
100% representation of civic identity was established among other personal identities among those with mature civic identity. In comparison, the presence of civic identity in the hierarchical structure of identities was found in only 27% of those with low maturity of civic identity.
A comparative analysis (ANOVA and Scheffé’s test) of civic identity maturity indicators in different age groups revealed statistically significant differences in terms of representation, subjectness, conceptuality and integrated maturity indicator of civic identity (Table 2).
Table 2
Results of the comparative analysis (ANOVA) of maturity indicators of civic identity for the subjects of adolescence (n = 337), early adulthood (n = 358) and middle age (n = 270)
According to the results of the Scheffé’s test, the studied middle-aged citizens (41-60 years) have statistically significantly higher values of the representation of civic identity among other personal identities (p < .001, p = .001) and conceptuality of civic identity (p < .001, p = .002), compared to young citizens (16-20 years) and early adulthood (21-40 years). However, citizens of early adulthood (21-40 years) show significantly higher values of the subjectness of civic identity (p < .001, p = .002), compared with citizens of adolescence (16-20 years) and age middle adulthood (21-40 years). There are also statistically significantly higher values of the integral indicator of the maturity of civic identity among citizens aged 41-60 years, compared with citizens aged 16-20 years (p < .001). It should be noted that statistically significant differences in the integral indicator of the maturity of civic identity were not found among citizens aged 21-40 and 41-60, which confirms our assumption that there is no direct relationship between maturity of civic identity and age of citizens.
Comparative analysis of civic identity maturity indicators by gender revealed significantly higher values in men, compared to women, in terms of representation, subjectness, conceptuality, and the integral maturity indicator of civic identity (Table 3).
Table 3
Results of comparative analysis (t-tests) of maturity indicators of civic identity of men (n = 377) and women (n = 588)
According to the results of the second part of the questionnaire, which determined the degree (high, medium, low) of representation of the institutional, community and individual components (dimensions) of civic identity, the type of civic identity was determined for each respondent according to the key (Petrovska, 2021b).
The results allow us to talk about such types of civic identity that are common among Ukrainian citizens: Latent type (16%); Institutional-community type (17%); Community type (11%); Community-game type (15%); Game type (16%); Institutional-game type (12%); Versatile type (8%); Institutional type (5%).
Latent type is characterized by low expression (actualization) of all three dimensions of civic identity. Individuals with this type of civic identity psychologically distance themselves from the state and fellow citizens and their role as citizens as unnecessary formalities. This may indicate either a deficiency, i.e., a delay in the development of civic identity, or the dominance of cosmopolitan/civilizational or other identities that “absorb” civic identity, or a person’s willingness to replace Ukrainian civic identity with another (potential emigrants), because they do not value either the state or fellow citizens.
Institutional-community type is characterized by the average expression of institutional and community orientation of civic identity. A person with this type of civic identity, when involved in the organizational environment of the state (worrying about the future of the state, tracking important socio-political events, etc.) and affiliation with fellow citizens (their acceptance as ingroups, the experience of psychological connection, common destiny), is characterized mostly by vague ideas about themself as a citizen, insufficient for actualization of the citizen’s social role (a citizen may be aware of this role, underlying rights and responsibilities, but not compare it with themself). Usually, such citizens are passive in defending civil rights and values. They have a low level of readiness to act in the interests of the state and civil society.
Community type is characterized by a high community orientation of civic identity. For a person with this type of civic identity, first of all, it is essential to feel like a member of civil society, share common values and problems with fellow citizens, support and protect their interests, and believe in the effectiveness of joint problem-solving. Usually, such citizens are actively involved in civic communication (they participate in public discussions, “public dialogue”) and civic activity (volunteering, participation in various civic organizations and movements). They tend to oppose the state, to devalue its role in society. Among the representatives of this type, some citizens tend to engage in one or another form of civic activity to keep company, focusing on others, i.e., this activity may not be fully understood, be chaotic and situational in nature.
Community-game type is characterized by high expression of community and game orientation of civic identity. A person with this type of civic identity usually distances themself from the state, does not care about important state events, but instead identifies with the community of citizens, realizes and experiences belonging to it. However, in interaction with fellow citizens the person is not ready for close, sincere relationships, prone to various forms of manipulative communication.
Game type is characterized by low expression of institutional and community orientations of civic identity and its high game orientation. We can assume that citizens with this type of civic identity are mainly indifferent to the problems of their fellow citizens and the fate of the state. Their main goal is to have a profit (gain) for themselves and defend their individual interests. In relations with citizens and the state, various psychological manipulation games and destructive scenarios are used to meet their psychological needs (assert themselves, obtain moral justification for offenses, etc.) and redirect responsibility to the state or citizens.
Institutional-game type is characterized by high expression of institutional and game orientation of civic identity. It is typical for a person with such a civic identity to establish a surrogate relationship with the state. On the one hand, they can declare support for state values, express concern about the prospects of state development, and be interested in socio-political events. But on the other, they can resort to game and scenario interaction with the state as an organization. They can evade taxes, avoid personal responsibility for the state of affairs, etc., justifying themselves by saying, for example, “I have the moral right to fool the state as long as it tries to fool everyone itself” or “I am a small person, nothing depends on me”.
Versatile type is characterized by a high degree of civic identity’s institutional, community and role (non-game) orientation. Persons with this type of civic identity have such traits as high cognitive, value and behavioral involvement in the organizational environment of the state, experiencing close psychological ties with fellow citizens, as well as learning, internalizing the social role of citizens, which leads to open constructive relations with the state. They understand what their citizenship gives them and what not to expect from it. They know what they have the right to receive from the state and what they must provide in return. They are active in defending civil rights and values, aware of their responsibility for the state and fellow citizens, make efforts for their development and are ready to act in the interests of the state and civil society.
Institutional type is characterized by a high degree of institutional orientation and low expression of community and game orientations of civic identity. A person with this type of civic identity is characterized by low affiliation with fellow citizens, the ambivalence of experiences related to self-perception as part of the community of citizens, self-perception as an atypical representative of citizens of their state, but high inclusion (value, cognitive, affective, behavioral) in constructive (non-game) interaction with the state as an organization. Such citizens are aware of their civil rights and responsibilities, obey the law and enforce others to do so. They are ready to invest time and effort to change the state for the better and prove that they care about its development by their daily deeds. They are inclined to defend the independence and integrity of the state, which they consider one of the highest values.
The distribution of types of civic identity among men and women is interesting (Figure 2).
The results show a greater community and game orientation of women compared to men (Community type: 15% women, 4% men; Community-game type: 17% women, 12% men; Game type: 19% women, 11% men; Institutional-community type: 20% women, 12% men), while among men there is a higher institutional orientation (Institutional type: 13% men, 0% women; Institutional-game type: 19% men, 8% women). The percentage of men (12%) is also higher than that of women (6%) with a Versatile type of civic identity. Regarding the Latent type of civic identity, it is present in approximately the same number of women and men, namely 15% and 17%, respectively.
The obtained results are confirmed by the conducted comparative analysis, according to which significantly higher values of institutional orientation were found in men and significantly higher values of community and game orientation in women (Table 4).
Table 4
Results of comparative analysis (t-tests) of dimensions of civic identity of men (n = 377) and women (n = 588)
Analysis of the percentage distribution of types of civic identity among different age groups shows that among young people, compared to adults, there are more representatives of the Latent type (19%, as opposed to 15% and 13% respectively for people aged 21-40 and 41-60 years), Community-game type (17%, as opposed to 11% and 10% respectively for people aged 21-40 and 41-60 years) and Game type (22%, as opposed to 12% and 14% respectively for people aged 21-40 and 41-60 years) and significantly fewer representatives of the Versatile type (3%, as opposed to 11% and 10% respectively for people aged 21-40 and 41-60 years) and Institutional type (1%, as opposed to 6% and 7% respectively for people aged 21-40 and 41-60 years) (Figure 3).
The results suggest that young people aged 16-20 are characterized by either some delay in developing civic identity, its deficiency, or a conscious desire to distance themselves from the state, fellow citizens and their role as citizens as unnecessary formalities (Latent type – 19%). The prevalence of Game (22%) and Community-game (17%) types of civic identity among young people may indicate that they have mastered ideas about the feasibility of using games and manipulative forms of interaction with others in the process of civic socialization, focusing on their personal interests and needs and redirecting responsibility for the civic situation to the state or fellow citizens.
For young and middle-aged adults, the Institutional-community type, characterized by an average level of institutional and community orientation and a low level of actualization of their social role as citizens (“passive citizens”), is more common than in adolescents (21% and 18% respectively), as well as Institutional-game type (14% and 16% respectively), which involves the establishment of surrogate (game) relations with the state as an organization. Latent type is also quite common among adult citizens (15% among people aged 21-40 years, and 13% among people aged 41-60 years), characterized by low actualization of all three dimensions of civic identity (institutional, community, role orientations) and shows their detachment from the problems of the state and the community of citizens. In contrast, 11% of early adults and 10% of middle-aged people have a Versatile type of civic identity, which indicates their high involvement in state and public issues, and willingness to act in the interests of the state and civil society.
DISCUSSION
The proposed typology of civic identity, based on its three dimensions (institutional, community and individual), in our opinion, makes it possible to identify real kinds of citizens (with different types of civic identity), and broaden scholars’ understanding of this issue. Thus, Westheimer and Kahne (2004) single out only three kinds of citizens: the personally responsible citizen; the participatory citizen; and the justice oriented citizen. As we can see, the authors’ typology is applicable only to concepts of “good citizenship”. Almond and Verba (1980) also mention three citizen types when analyzing the civic culture phenomenon: participant citizens (clear focus on an active role in the socio-political system, regardless of their positive or negative attitude to the elements of the system); subject citizens (with sufficient awareness of socio-political life and institutions in the state; these ideas and knowledge are not transformed into civic activity, although their participation in socio-political life, the forms and directions of which are determined by government agencies, is possible); and parochial citizens (lack of interest in socio-political life, alienation, distancing). The typology of youth civic identity (“aware”, “empowered”, “complacent”, “discouraged”) developed by Rubin (2007) is interesting. However, it is unknown whether this civic identity typology is correct for adults. It should be noted that the problem of typology of civic identity is not given enough attention in the scientific discourse. Despite the urgency of this issue, it can be stated that research interest in it is insufficient.
Moreover, when characterizing the civic identity of the individual, it should be borne in mind that it is not a purely individual psychological entity by nature. An individual borrows civic identity from many of its models represented in society (Shulman, 2004; van der Laarse et al., 2015). After the internalization of a specific civic identity model, its individualization occurs. The model is saturated with personal meaning and “embedded” in an individual’s personality structures. That is why, in order to understand the phenomenon of the formation of civic identity at the personal level, it is also essential to consider how this formation takes place at the societal level (Jackson & Hogg, 2010; Tilly, 1995).
In the context of the formation of civic identity, post-Soviet countries require special attention. As a rule, after the declaration of independence, the civic identity establishing process continues for a long time. There are two reasons for this: 1) the impact of traumatic collective experience of interaction with the state is preserved in the historical memory of the national and civil society (Gornostai, 2021; Shamai, 2016); 2) the process of maturing the ideals of the citizen and the state in society is long-lasting and cannot be complete in the colonial/occupation reality (Alexander et al., 2004; van der Laarse et al., 2015).
The fact is that for a resident of the colony, self-identification with a citizen of the empire state (in fact, nationally and mentally a foreign state) causes cognitive dissonance and requires moral compromise. The state-empire – the object of institutional identity – is perceived simultaneously as an enemy (robber, occupier, etc.). This dissonance is pushed deep into the unconscious (Gornostai, 2021) because a radical solution seems impossible. Its presence causes unconscious fear because the individual feels deep down a rebel, dissenter, “otherwise-minded”. It entails another fear – losing control and the inevitable punishment for rebellion.
These internal contradictions and repressed fears of the individual do not end with the declaration of independence because distrust of all state institutions still dominates. As a result, a significant number of deficient (as well as distorted) forms of civic identity are expected in post-Soviet countries with relatively little experience of independent existence. After all, the immaturity of civic identity is a kind of protective reaction against the traumatic reality: to avoid self-determination, to delay adulthood means to close the problem temporarily. Therefore, many adults have an unformed civic identity and some specific (Game) types of civic identity.
CONCLUSIONS
Civic identity is considered a kind of organizational identity, which is the value-semantic experience of the individual’s identity with themself as a citizen of the state and is manifested in the institutional, community, and individual dimensions.
In the institutional dimension, civic identity is relevant to the citizen-state relationship. It is based on understanding oneself as a citizen in the state as an organization. In the community dimension (“citizen – community of citizens”), civic identity is embodied in identifying oneself as a member of the community of citizens and is based on affiliation. The individual dimension involves self-identification with the role of the citizen, which embodies rights and responsibilities as the main role actions that must be performed or avoided. Since the role of the citizen involves many variations, it is appropriate to talk about the role repertoire of the citizen, which the individual assimilates in the course of civic socialization.
Each of the mentioned dimensions of civic identity (institutional, community, individual) can be differently developed (actualized) in a particular individual, allowing us to discuss the typology of civic identity.
Different types of civic identity are represented to varying degrees among Ukrainian citizens; namely, eight main types of civic identity have been empirically established. These are Institutional-community (17%), Latent (16%), Game (16%), Community-game (15%), Institutional-game (12%), Community (11%), Versatile (8%), and State (5%).
The results show that most of the studied citizens of Ukraine tend to enter into a “game” interaction with the state, dominated by subject-object paradigms. The orientation of the game interaction with the state is also societal, which indicates that games and scenarios are borrowed from others and conditioned mainly by conformity rather than conscious choice. The prevalence of the Latent (indeterminate) type of civic identity coincides with a relatively low level of maturity of the civic identity of respondents.
Game subtypes of civic identity are a problematic result of the deviation of its formation, as they involve game/scenario interaction based on the subject-object or object-subject paradigms of the relationship between the individual and the state as an organization.
In our opinion, psychological counseling work on civic identity issues organized in accordance with a specific program (in particular, based on transactional analysis) can help channel clients’ civic dispositions into a constructive direction, renew civic identity, and increase the level of their subjectness, i.e., the ability to position themselves as authors of their own lives in relations with the state.
NOTE
It is worth noting that the presented results were obtained before the war between Russia and Ukraine, which began on February 24, 2022. The war situation pushed many citizens to self-determination as the threat to the state’s existence strengthens the identity and makes it more aware (Kaldor, 2013; Sasse & Lackner, 2018). It forced many to answer whether they want to remain citizens of this state, whether they are ready to defend their state and make further efforts to rebuild it, etc. Some citizens rethought the social role of the citizen. Their state and civic values, personal responsibility for the state and fellow citizens were actualized. As a result, the number of representatives of Versatile and Institutional types of civic identity will likely increase while the number of Latent type representatives will decrease. Unfortunately, representatives of game types will still remain. Even during the war, some citizens try to “sit pretty” at the expense of others and take advantage of the situation for their enrichment or self-affirmation. However, these statements need further empirical verification.
