The sociology of identity: social science or social comment?

2006

Theory and Society, 2000

The worst thing one can do with words,'' wrote George Orwell a half a century ago, ``is to surrender to them.'' If language is to be ``an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought,'' he continued, one must ``let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way about.'' 1 The argument of this article is that the social sciences and humanities have surrendered to the word ``identity''; that this has both intellectual and political costs; and that we can do better. ``Identity,'' we argue, tends to mean too much (when understood in a strong sense), too little (when understood in a weak sense), or nothing at all (because of its sheer ambiguity). We take stock of the conceptual and theoretical work ``identity'' is supposed to do and suggest that this work might be done better by other terms, less ambiguous, and unencumbered by the reifying connotations of ``identity.'' We argue that the prevailing constructivist stance on identity ^the attempt to ``soften'' the term, to acquit it of the charge of ``essentialism'' by stipulating that identities are constructed, £uid, and multiple leaves us without a rationale for talking about ``identities'' at all and ill-equipped to examine the ``hard'' dynamics and essentialist claims of contemporary identity politics. ``Soft'' constructivism allows putative ``identities'' to proliferate. But as they proliferate, the term loses its analytical purchase. If identity is everywhere, it is nowhere. If it is £uid, how can we understand the ways in which self-understandings may harden, congeal, and crystallize? If it is constructed, how can we understand the sometimes coercive force of external identi¢cations? If it is multiple, how do we understand the terrible singularity that is often striven for ^and sometimes realized ^by politicians seeking to transform mere categories into unitary and exclusive groups? How can we understand the power and pathos of identity politics?

This research will deal with the theoretical definitions of collective identity and factors which influence its formation. We will rely on, now already 'classic' literature in this field, written by Western European and American authors. Under 'classics' in this field, I primarily refer to the works of B. Anderson, F. Barth, A.D. Smith and E. Gellner. According to my opinion, each of these four authors has greatly contributed to the research of collective identity with their theoretical concepts. My intention here is to come up with one integral theory which would unite the key concepts of their theoretical approaches. Maybe this selection of authors is a bit narrow for my attempt. This may present a problem in case that this 'narrowness' results in an omission of an important theoretical conclusion. I will try to avoid his 'danger' by consulting new sociological theories which studies the phenomena of nations and nationalisms. As a guide I will use a book by V. Katunarić, 'Sporna zajednica', which provides an outline of the new theories in the fields of study of nations and nationalisms. I will employ a problem-solving approach and refer to the recent historical events. Because of this, my intermissions in the theoretical analyses will be short paragraphs in the form of essays. My concern with recent historical events will lead us to the current questions of the ways in which processes of globalization can influence the formation of collective identities. The aim of this article is not to give a detailed outline of these processes, but to present a wider theoretical perspective in the study of collective identities.

2015

When studying the complex issue of identity, it is necessary to decompose it into individual parts or contexts that reveal partial identities. Since they are connected to each other, a particular change in a certain identity may induce further changes in others, or even all of them. Together they create a configuration of complex Identity that is unique, original and variable in time and space. Identity is a system that can be managed. Human being can be converted into an instrument of satisfying needs, a consumer of products. People are open to what is considered and labelled as legitimate in the social world. The social world is primary; it is a cultural text, in which the processes of defining and selfdefining are ongoing. It is therefore essential to view a person or society as a holder of multiple identities.

DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals - DOAJ, 2017

Concepts of identity, identity formation, identity politics, and collective identity, despite being vague, are among the most used notions in social theory, historical analysis, and everyday life and politics. In the last four or five decades "identity" has become a catchword that could explain almost any political or cultural development. In this paper, I discuss existential and social dimensions of identity and identity formation, decode the relational and historical conditions of their construction and argue that identities at any given point of time represent a general (albeit multiple) and fragmented expression of human's capacity. I further contend that identity is a social relation: an embodiment of power structures and power discourses. I end up with some reflections on how we can imagine communities compatible with human emancipation by replacing the particularity of identity with the universalism of humanity and focusing on humanity and discourses of human emancipation. This paper reconstructs the "identity debate" as a part of a conceptual deliberation of the narrative of historical change.

2016

Identity is derived from the Latin “idem”, which means “being the same [person]”. Researchers approach this “powerful construct” (Vignoles et al., 2011, p. 2) in different ways: identity is variously understood as a (cognitive) self-image, as something shaped by habit, as a social attribution or role, as a habitus, a performance, or a constructed narrative (cf. Berger & Luckmann, 1991, p. 194 ff.). Identity is a constant object of academic discourses, which can be interpreted partly as a reaction to the radical changes that have taken place in modern times, and the crises that have often accompanied them. For example, George Herbert Mead’s theory on identity development emerged at the beginning of the last century in Chicago, against the background of a constantly growing number of migrants, who “threatened” the self-concept of the local residents. This led to a renegotiation of affiliation and difference, and a redrawing of the boundary between people’s own identity and that which ...

2012

In response to the suggestion of treating identity as a historically bound notion (Matusov & Smith, 2012), its genealogy is further explored. First establishing that identity has been understood in a particular personal way, and that genealogy might carry beyond this conception, as it also carries beyond the notions of class and adolescence that are used to contextualize identity. Then opting for treating historically bound notions as dynamic, studying them in the continuous interaction between conceptualization and practice, as processes and verbs rather than essences and substantives. Finally suggesting to dissociate identity from selfhood by looking at why, when and to whom we need to identify ourselves and also inverting the question: why and when do we ask others to identify themselves? After all, sameness and difference are two sides of a coin called identity, and what is looked at is a matter of how it is looked at.

Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya

This paper proposes a generalized and a universal approach towards collective and individual identity formation, and one which is expected to work in practically every conceivable scenario across cultures. Our approach also has at its core, the concept of the 'Psychic unity of mankind' which implies that human thought processes, urges and impulses are essentially the same in all cultures and societies, though the nature of enculturation may vary from context to context. This approach works in globalized scenarios as well, and includes pro-active approaches for meaningful identity modulation. It also discusses the importance of identity dilution and neutralization to the extent it is realistically possible and desirable, and discusses the dangers of Identity polarization, while introducing several new concepts in this context. This approach is also linked with other frameworks such as Anthropological Pedagogy, the Sociology of Science, the latest theories in Cognitive Psychology and Human growth and development, and all the other concepts of the Symbiotic Approach to Socio-cultural change i.e., the Theory of Cultural and Societal orientations, the Theory of Mind-orientation, the Ethnography of Mindspace, the Ethnography of Enculturation and Acculturation. More importantly, our approach is consistent with our philosophy of the 'Globalization of Science', and discourages intellectual elitism and ivory-tower scholarship though Ethnographic fieldwork in diverse, representative contexts. This approach has been developed after analyzing different subjects and case studies from varied contexts, and comprises many recommendations such as ethnographic fieldwork in diverse contexts and pedagogical reform to modulate identity for better ethnic and communal harmony.