On Methodology for the Study of National Identity: from Constructivism to a Dynamic Model

The article examines the phenomenon of identity as one of the most complex and debated concepts in contemporary humanities. The authors argue that the overlap of disciplinary traditions in sociology, political science, psychology, and anthropology has led to methodological fragmentation and conceptual ambiguity. Particular attention is given to the constructivist turn, which enables identity to be viewed not as a fixed essence but as a dynamic, causal process of social construction emerging through communication, institutional transformation, and intersubjective interaction. Constructivism, as demonstrated in the study, provides a productive methodological framework for analyzing identity in both social and political contexts, as it reveals how language, symbols, and narratives shape collective meanings and guide the behavior of social actors. The aim of the research is to develop a unified methodological framework for studying identity. The novelty of the study lies in the proposed model inspired by Imre Lakatos’s concept of “research programs,” reinterpreted within the context of identity analysis. In this model, identity is structured as a system where the central “core”, a set of fundamental collective values and representations, is surrounded by several “belts” (symbolic, institutional, territorial, socio-cognitive, and normative-behavioral). These belts serve as adaptive and protective mechanisms: during periods of social stability, they absorb external impulses and reinterpret new meanings within the existing value matrix, ensuring the integrity of the core. During social or political crises, accumulated transformations gradually penetrate the core, leading to its reconfiguration and the emergence of new identity configurations. The authors also describe how the belts may “compete,” as some tend toward the preservation of tradition and restoration of the past, while others drive modernization and renewal of norms. This model thus elucidates the dynamic process through which peripheral shifts and emerging social practices gradually reshape the core, resulting in the continual transformation of collective identity

1. Barkin, J. S. (2003). Realist constructivism. International Studies Review, 5, 325–342. DOI: 10.1046/j.1079-1760.2003.00503002.x

2. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books.

3. Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity without groups. Harvard University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511489235.004

4. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. W. W. Norton & Company. DOI: 10.2307/2572742

5. Farrell, T. (2002). Constructivist security studies: Portrait of a research program. International Studies Review, 4(1), 49–72. DOI: 10.1111/1521-9488.T01-1-00252

6. Gellner, E. (2006). Nations and nationalism. Blackwell. DOI:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2007.00290.x

7. Giddens, A. (2003). Runaway world: How globalisation is reshaping our lives. Routledge. DOI:10.2307/23170163

8. Hobsbawm, E. J. (1992). Nations and nationalism since 1780. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CCOL0521439612

9. Hudson, V. (1997). Culture and foreign policy Lynne Rienner Publishers. DOI: 10.1515/9780585121086

10. Kratochwil, F. (2003). Constructivism: What it is (and what it is not) and how it matters. In D. Della Porta & M. Keating (Eds.), Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences (pp. 80–98). Cambridge University Press. DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511801938.006

11. Kratochwil, F. V. (1989). Rules, norms and decisions: On the conditions of practical and legal reasoning in international relations and domestic affairs. Cambridge University Press. DOI:10.2307/2131756

12. Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511621123

13. Ricoeur, P. (1990). Oneself as another. University of Chicago Press. Smith, A. D. (1988). The ethnic origins of nations. Blackwell.

14. Turner, J. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell. DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1987.tb00799.x

15. Alekseeva, T. A. (2014). Myslit’ konstruktivistski: otkryvaya mnogogolosyy mir [Thinking constructivistically: Opening a polyphonic world]. Sravnitel’naya politika, 5(1), 4–21. (In Russian)

16. Alekseeva, T. A. (2022). “Tret’e pokolenie” konstruktivizma: chto novogo? [The “third generation” of constructivism: What is new?]. Sotsial’nye i gumanitarnye znaniya, 8(1), 6–21. DOI: 10.18255/2412-6519-2022-1-6-21 (In Russian)

17. Alekseeva, T. A. (2022). Agent-strukturnye otnosheniya: metodologiya konstruktivizma [Agent–structure relations: Methodology of constructivism]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya, (4), 77–93. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2022.04.07 (In Russian)

18. Alekseeva, T. A., & Verkhovskaya, Zh. A. (2023). Konstruktivizm “tret’ego pokoleniya”: freyming i kommunikatsiya [Third-generation constructivism: Framing and communication]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Politologiya, 25(4), 801–816. DOI: 10.22363/2313-1438-2023-25-4-801-816 (In Russian)

19. Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso. doi:10.2307/2056089

20. Andreeva, G. M. (2011). K voprosu o krizise identichnosti v usloviyakh sotsial’nykh transformatsiy [On the issue of identity crisis under conditions of social transformations]. Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya, (6). (In Russian)

21. Emelin, V. A. (2014). Krizis postmodernizma i transformatsiya identichnosti v informatsionnom obshchestve [The crisis of postmodernism and transformation of identity in the information society]. Credo New, (1). (In Russian)

22. Grechko, P. K. (2010). Identichnost’ – postmodernistskaya perspektiva [Identity: A postmodernist perspective]. Voprosy sotsial’noy teorii, 4, 171–190. (In Russian)

23. Lysak, I. V. (2017). Identichnost’: sushchnost’ termina i istoriya ego formirovaniya [Identity: The essence of the concept and the history of its formation]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya, (38), 130–138. DOI: 10.17223/1998863X/38/13 (In Russian)

24. Mazur, E. Yu. (2010). K analizu psikhologicheskikh podkhodov v issledovanii identichnosti [On the analysis of psychological approaches in identity research]. Nauka o cheloveke: gumanitarnye issledovaniya, (5), 146–151. (In Russian)

25. Mchedlova, M. M., & Kazarinova, D. B. (2020). Politika identichnosti: konkurentsiya novykh teoreticheskikh smyslov i politicheskikh strategiy [Identity politics: Competition of new theoretical meanings and political strategies]. Politicheskaya nauka, (4), 13–35. DOI: 10.31249/poln/2020.04.01 (In Russian)

26. Mead, G. H. (1994). Ot zhesta k simvolu [From gesture to symbol]. In Amerikanskaya sotsiologicheskaya mysl’ (pp. 215–224). Moscow: Moscow State University Press. (In Russian)

27. Melchionni, M. G. (1981). “Mutilated victory”: Problems and uncertainties of Italian foreign policy at the end of the First World War (October 1918 – January 1919). Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.

28. Mineev, A. P., Alekseeva, T. A., & Fenenko, A. V. (2016). Zachem nuzhna “kvantovaya” reforma konstruktivizma v teorii mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy? [Why is a “quantum” reform of constructivism needed in international relations theory?]. Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta, (6), 7–13. (In Russian)

29. Ostroglazova, N. A. (2021). Sotsiokul’turnaya samoidentifikatsiya: otchuzhdaemaya, priobretaemaya i otstaivaemaya identichnost’ [Sociocultural self-identification: Alienated, acquired and defended identity]. Gumanitarnyy vektor, 16(2), 16–21. DOI: 10.21209/1996-78532021-16-2-16-21 (In Russian)

30. Samylov, O. V. (2013). Genealogicheskiy metod M. Fuko i perspektivy istoricheskogo poznaniya [Michel Foucault’s genealogical method and prospects of historical knowledge]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, (2). (In Russian)

31. Semenenko, I. S. (2023). Identichnost’ v meynstrime politicheskoy nauki i v fokuse publichnoy politiki [Identity in the mainstream of political science and in the focus of public policy]. In Identichnost’: lichnost’, obshchestvo, politika. Novye kontury issledovatel’skogo polya (pp. 9–16). Moscow: Ves’ Mir. (In Russian)

32. Semenenko, I. S. (red.). (2017). Identichnost’: Lichnost’, obshchestvo, politika. Entsiklopedicheskoye izdaniye [Identity: Personality, Society, Politics. Encyclopedic Edition]. Moscow: «Ves’ Mir».

33. Shakle, S. S. (2020). Politicheskaya bor’ba irakskikh kurdov na sovremennom etape. Obshchestvo i vlast’: veka minuvshiye i den’ segodnyashniy: Materialy Chetyrnadtsatoy regional’noy nauchnoy konferentsii [The Political Struggle of Iraqi Kurds at the Current Stage. Society and Power: Past Centuries and Today: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Regional Scientific Conference]. Voronezh, 04 fevralya 2020 goda. Voronezh: Voronezhskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet, 474–479.

34. Teoriya politiki: praktikum [Theory of Politics] (2019). T.A. Alekseeva, B.I. Anan’yev, G.G. Vodolazov [et al.]. Moscow: «Aspekt Press».

35. Tomova, I. (2007). Formirovanie tsyganskoy identichnosti [Formation of Roma identity]. In Natsional’nye men’shinstva v stranakh Tsentral’no-Vostochnoy Evropy. (In Russian)

36. Tronevskaya, M. A. (2015). Transformatsiya sotsial’noy identichnosti v usloviyakh krizisa postmodernistskogo obshchestva i kul’tury [Transformation of social identity in the conditions of the crisis of postmodern society and culture]. Teoriya i praktika obshchestvennogo razvitiya, (13), 34–37. (In Russian)