Socially Constructed Self
As a result of how anthropologists approach their study group this has provoked a powerful dialogue about the self. Discourse theory sees the self as being socially constructed both interpersonally and institutionally AND is “inscribed” from a dominant society onto a person. Such examples are tax forms, census categories, and the curriculum vitae.
Social constructivists emphasize that our communications with one another not only convey messages but also make claims about who we are in relation to one another. Genres such as censuses or curriculum vitae require us to present ourselves according to a category obligatory on the form. This oftentimes constrains us to make a choice – to comply or resist.
The social constructivist can no longer be placed in the old universalist-culturalist debate but chooses to see that this dialogue has now fallen into a new category called “essential self”. “This essential self, a durable organization of the mind/body, is perennially suspect as a product of “essentialist” thinking, while the socially constructed self remains a paragon of anti-essentialism,” (p. 27).
The culturalist version of the essential self no longer holds a popular view: this saw cultures as stable and enduring that were set in place through rituals and other socializing practices which instilled core values. These are seen as being able to persist through time, regardless of change in their social and material conditions.
In contrast, the socially constructed self is subject to positioning by whatever powerful discourses they happen to encounter – changing state policies that dictate new ways of categorizing people in the census, educational diagnostics that label students, or even new forms of racist discourse taken up from right-wing talk shows. “Social constructivism conceives discourses and practices to be the tools that build the self in contexts of power, rather than as expressions of stable interpretations of world and values that have been imparted to the person through enculturation,” (p. 27).
The remainder of this chapter continues on this line theory of self as it discusses the emerging directions of the study of the self, the selves in practice, to finally following a different possibility for understanding the “suturing” of person to position. This co-development links the development of people, cultural forms, and social positions in particular historical worlds.
Laurie,
ReplyDeleteAs I read more about chapter two, I kept returning to ideas put forth by Gee in "Identity as an Analytic Lens for Research in Education." When he speaks of the four different types of identity (Nature, Institution, Discouse, Affinity), he brings to light some of the same tensions you speak of here, especially with regard to ascribed identity roles and the issues of agency and resistance in response to categorization. Regardless of which theory one aligns with, it is difficult to argue with the fact that while you may "Identify" yourself in a certain way, society (individuals, institutions, etc.) may "Identify" you, or "Categorize" you as something completely different. This reality creates conflict, especially when we consider social situatedness or positionality.
I don't yet know how the rest of the book proceeds. Based on what I've learned so far through chapter 2, I would guess that the question of the definition of identity is one that will never be resolved. This may be just as well. For those who focus on this question in advanced programs at the university there will be inexhaustible fodder for theses, dissertations and whatnot. I am almost convinced the authors (and perhaps others) are ultimately trying to define the undefinable. Nonetheless, their efforts to clarify cultural and personal identity despite all the complexities, as well as their attempts to bring in perspectives that have heretofore been largely left out of the discussion—feminist, global economic, historical—will ultimately help shape a better understanding of what identity might look like for any given person, in any given place, in any given cultural, engaged in any given activity, and so on. Their efforts will hopefully not go for naught.
ReplyDeleteLaurie,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your descriptions of what you have read and processed in this text. Lacy and David's comments here are helping me to understand that what you have read and written about and what I am strugging with--the construct of identity--is very complex and can be interpreted from many different angles.
I do think that your point of much of the research from a patriarchal stand can limit the scope of what can be discovered in the studies. Perhaps David is correct in that the question of identity will never be resolved...too many factors...