Social and collective identities are often criticized for emphasizing groups at the expense of the individual. In this way, they are often perceived to be fixed and essentialist rather than dynamic and changing. Symbolic interactionists overcome this shortfall by defining identities as
37
fluid. They argue that social reality is constantly being created by humans as they attach symbols such as names, labels and meanings to things during interaction. Identities are thus created and modified through these ongoing interactions. Inspired by G. H. Mead, they propose that in analyzing identities, we should look at interaction at three levels: the mind (personality), the self (interaction) and society (social structure). Traditionally, interpretive researchers rely on in-depth ethnographic studies in order to understand processes of interaction. For example, Goffman is well known for his classic study on the management of personal identity in everyday social interactions through impression management. However, the Iowa School of Symbolic interaction used quantitative methodologies and realist assumptions to study identity formation. They
pioneered the Twenty Statements Tests also called the “Who am I Test”, which asks respondents to provide twenty statements in response to the question “who am I” in order to ascertain salient aspects of social and personal identities, and how these changed over time (Cote & Levine, 2002:34). Cote and Levin stipulate that this might be a useful tool to monitor late modern or postmodern trends in identity formation (2002:34). In fact, this idea of changing identities has been particularly useful for understanding the impact of globalization and postmodernity. Wood and Zurcher (1988) argue that the “mutable self” is becoming more salient in post-modern society, which is characterized by “highly flexible and autonomous capacity to modify and control self-concepts and to experience various components of self in varying social contexts” (Cote & Levine, 2002:34). Wood and Zurcher (1988) also believe that individual agency to change their identities is a highly effective strategy in periods of rapid social change and in studying migration and identities. In my research, I use quantitative questions to uncover how respondents self-identify and how their identities shift as a result of migration. This was done
38
using retrospective questions, and by comparing current self-identities with pre-migration identities.
Another important contribution of interpretive sociology is the idea that identities can be understood as socially constructed (Burger & Luckmann, 1966). Social Constructivists believe that cultural and historical circumstances are the root of human construction, which is vital to their survival and well-being. They insist that constructions are higher than the individual because they take existences of their own through “objectivation”. As a result, identities are composed of a subjective and an objective element. Identities are derived from social
constructions, which also enable us to negotiate identities. Constructivists tend to view identities as “products of human action and speech [which]… can and do change over time” (Fearon & Laitin, 2000:848). Cornell and Hartmann (2006:39), for example, stipulate that collective identities and experiences are not given, but are constructed historically, culturally, and politically, and are captured in concepts such as of ethnicity, race and nationality. As such, identities are capable of varying across space and changing across time (Cornell & Hartmann, 2006; Fearon et al, 2000). Thus, the dynamics of group identities are the product of social change and circumstances. Identities are therefore neither natural nor static, but are varied, diverse and contingent (Cornell & Hartmann, 2006:169). Constructivists also claim that identities vary by thickness/thinness (extent to which they organize social life) and can be assigned (ascribed by outsiders or circumstances) or asserted (claimed by the particular group) (Cornell & Hartmann, 2006:86). Migrant groups are thus “actively involved in the construction and reconstruction of their identities, negotiating boundaries, asserting meanings, interpreting their own pasts, resisting the impositions of the present, and claiming the future” (Cornell & Hartmann, 2006:106).
39
Cornell and Hartmann (2006) also suggest that in order to understand how identities are formed, it is imperative to look at the context/social relations within which migrant groups exist. They identify six ‘sites’ that are significant in the making of social identities: politics, labour markets, residential space, culture, daily experience and social institutions. The political site includes government regulations, laws and rules that can either favour or discriminate against a group. This site is significant in the context of the Caribbean, as the CARICOM Secretariat (2005) identified its legal framework as one of the pillars on which the CSME is built. These rules/regulations/laws play a large role in identity formation because they can divide individuals into groups such as minorities and majorities (Cornell & Hartmann, 2006). They also endow people with certain rights such as voting, immigration and education rights, which can
discriminate against particular groupings. Government classification systems have great power in deciding who and when certain groups are given access to resources. This contributes to the construction of identities, because it assigns people to either “us” or “them” categories (Cornell & Hartmann, 2006:178). Political systems can also have discriminatory impacts on people through boundary maintenance and government classifications, which affect the way individual migrants negotiate and construct their identities.
Similarly, the labour market, which is divided into groups based on status or class, impacts migrants categorizations and identities. Locals in a particular labour market often have substantially more labour opportunities than immigrants.In addition, labour markets often organize categories of workers, and each categorization includes rewards and associated status. Workers often identify with these categories and roles, which results in the construction of group identities (Cornel & Hartmann, 2006). Research has shown that intra-regional migrants in the Caribbean are often segregated in the labour market (Ferguson, 2003; Marshall, 1979; Valtonen,
40
1996) especially if they are poor, unskilled and not well education (Ferguson, 2003). These migrants are more likely to resent regionalism and less likely to adopt a regional identity.
Residential space refers to the geographical area in which a person lives. Low paying jobs might force certain immigrants to live with family members or in lower status neighbourhoods, which can lead to ethnic concentration in these areas and thus stronger identity ties with people in that area. Social institutions refer to the social activities that migrants participate in, such as schools, churches etc. These institutions allow individuals to interact with other members and feel a sense of belonging. If people are denied access to certain social institutions, they can lose a sense of self-worth, social solidarity and identity. They are also more likely to choose to retain their national identities than adopt the dominant ones of the host society. Culture allows people to practice every day beliefs, rituals and values, which are a huge part of who they are. However, people can “come to an understanding of who they are based on how others perceive them to be” (Cornell & Hartmann, 2006:191). Ferguson (2003) notes that:
In the Caribbean, negative perceptions of cultural or ethnic difference seem to occur under conditions of social stress such as real or imagined competition for jobs and services. Racism is also a factor, even in societies where the majority of people are black, but race normally interacts with poverty as grounds for
discrimination…black racial characteristics and poverty creates xenophobia (Ferguson, 2003:8).
The plantation and plural models of Caribbean society provide insights on how racism is enacted in the region (see chapter 3). Proponents of these models argue that the post-colonial Caribbean is replete with the division and distrust among different social classes and ethnic groups. These divisions are seen as arising from colonialism, which shaped each country
41
differently (see table 3.02 for a summary of the demographic make-up of CARICOM countries). This creates a climate for racist expressions (some countries more than others). Premdas
(1996:40) summarizes the situation well in asserting that racism takes a cultural form in the Caribbean wherein it is “Blacks against Brown…Africans against Indians… [via the tools of] prejudice, customs, cliqueism, clientist networks and kin connections”. Today, it is also reflected in how Haitian immigrants are treated in the Bahamas; how Indo-Guyanese immigrants are treated in relation to the (majority Black) Eastern Caribbean islands and in the perennial ethnic tensions between Blacks and Indians in Guyana and Trinidad. In Guyana and Trinidad for
example, political parties are built around racial groups, thus, cultural and ethnic tensions are also fueled by government policies and social institutions, which often propagate anti-immigrant feelings among certain ethnicities (Ferguson, 2003).
Finally, daily experiences impact the way identities are signified and reinforced through daily informal interactions with others. Woodward (2000) asserts that the pressures and
opportunities provided by social environment are very influential in constructing identities. This is because social, material and physical constraints can prevent one from presenting him/herself in their desired identity positions. In the case of migrants, identities are usually constrained by the policies and other dimensions of the local environment in the country of settlement. Cornell and Hartmann (2006) recognized this in their assertion that “ethnic and racial identities and the groups that carry them change over time as the forces that impinge on them change, and as the claims made by both group members and others change as well.” Social constructivism thus asserts that migrants’ identities are influenced by the circumstances that surround them in their host country, which may include government policies and the attitude of the host population among others. Consequently, during the process of constructing their identities, individuals often
42
have to resist negative representations imposed on them (Woodward, 2000). Social constructivists therefore assert that researchers are tasked with the role of identifying and
understanding these contexts (sites) that affect the construction of identities. In this study, I look at how intra-regional migration and regional integration provide contexts (sites) where identities can be constructed, negotiated or transformed.