3.2.1.1 Identity and identification
In the field of sociology, identity is considered to be formed in interactions between the self and the society (Hall, 1992). The self, according to the sociologists in the early 20th century (Cooley, 1956; Mead, 1934), refers to the capacity to reflect and reason, and this capacity is formed and modified in the interactions with others, instead of being endowed with the individual at birth. This definition reflects and emphasises the
increasing complexity and flexibility of the world, and is echoed by later poststructuralist discussions of identity. One of the often cited poststructuralists, Chris Weedon (1997), offers a term similar to self, the subjectivity, in conceptualising identity. According to her, subjectivity means “the conscious and unconscious thoughts and emotions of the individual, her sense of herself and her ways of understanding her relation in the world” (Weedon, 1997:32). At the same time, Davies and Harré (1999) introduce a metaphor of position and location to understand the individual’s identity. According to them, one’s identity is his or her sense of the subject position in a conversation or any social
activities, and the subject position is constantly negotiated and adjusted during the interactions. To conclude, identity is an ongoing construction work that needs constant negotiation and adaptation. Therefore, in a modern world of fast development and constant changes, the poststructuralist discussion of identity takes into account the flexibility and mobility of the social environment (Smart, 1999), and considers identity as flexible, forming and transforming from time to time according to the life experience of the individual(Hall, 1990). Correspondingly, Hall (1992) introduces the concept of identification in order to capture the dynamics in individual identity.
3.2.1.2 Identification -- the negotiation of differences
Since identity is a constructed in interactions, Jenkins (2014) suggests that one’s identification happens with the socialisation of the individual and his/her knowledge acquisition. Based on Cooley and Mead, Jenkins (2014) also suggests that the identification process starts with the very earliest socialisation of the individual right after birth. The identities acquired during infancy and childhood such as gender, ethnicity and nationality are primary identities. As the life journey of the individual goes on, new knowledge and experience are gained, and during the process, new identities are acquired.
Every new identity consist of new knowledge about the world. Some can co-exist within an individual, for example, being a pet lover doesn’t contradict with being a shy person. While those that do contradict with each other cannot simply co-exist, for example, one cannot be rational and emotional at the same time. However, accepting new
knowledge that contradict with the old one does not necessarily mean that the
individual has to abandon the old identities in order to acquire a new one. According to Block (2007), the ongoing process of identity construction is not merely a matter of adding new identities to the old, nor it is a half-half positioning of the past and the present experience of the individual. He used the term hybridity to explain how the individual processes and internalises the differences. Similarly, Papastergiadis (2013) refers to the process as “negotiation of differences”, and suggests that it is during the
negotiation of differences that an individual’s past and present experience transform each other and contribute to the construction of one’s identity.
Acknowledging that identity is a result of the negotiation of differences, Philip Riley (2007) then points out, when we use the term identity, we use it in two separate ways. The first use emphasises the shared characteristics an individual has with other individuals, the membership, usually referred to as group identity or collective identity (Tajfel, 1978). The second use emphasises the uniqueness of an individual, which makes him or her different from others, this aspect of the term is usually referred to as individual identity. So the new identities acquired as one’s life journey goes on can be understood as new group identities which contain new knowledge about the world. And more importantly, it indicates a sense of similarity among a certain group of people from which one can gain a sense of membership. Then during the negotiation of different group identities, the individual gradually develop his/her own unique individual identity. In this study, by the term “identity”, I refer to the unique individual identity that the participants develop through their various life experiences. So rather than
suggesting an essentialised “self-identity” that is everlasting or resists changes, I hold on to the argument that identity is constructed in interactions, to be precise, in the interactions with differences.
In parallel with the discussion of group identity and individual identity, Blommaert (2005) points that, when we talk about identity, we also need to distinguish between “ascribed identity/attributed identity” and “achieved identity/inhabited identity”. The former refers to the ones given by others, and it is about how others consider an individual to be. While the later refers to the ones an individual articulate
himself/herself, and it is about how this individual considers himself/herself to be, the self-identities they achieve. Since this study aims to find out how the participants understand themselves, the term “identity” used in this study all refers to “self-identity”, and I also use the term “self-identity” explicitly in the elaboration of findings and
discussions, to emphasise and to distinguish it from the “identity” given by others.