CAPÍTULO II: EL PRIMER CONVENIO COLECTIVO SINDICAL (1961) Y
2. PRIMERA FASE DE DESARROLLO: 1962-64
The concept of identity in sociology can be placed within the context of the sociological debate about the relationship between individual action and social structure, or in other words, the paradigm of how ‘sociocultural factors shape the structure and content of human self-definition’ (Weigert & Teitge, 1986 , p. 2). Classical sociologists, such as Durkheim, assumed that a person’s nature and character were primarily functions of social stimuli (Coté & Levine, 2002, p.10) while the subjective element of identity remained secondary. In other words, sociologists have been generally less interested with the ‘interior life’ and have focused ‘the role of others’ and social interaction in the process of identity construction.
Even though the concept of identity was not in its essence new in sociology, it entered the sociological debate only in the 1980s. In Identity and Society (1986) Wiegert explained that this late arrival of the concept into the debate was mainly due to sociologists holding some ‘intellectual concerns’ about identity which was considered to be the domain of psychological analysis (Weigert & Teitge, 1986, p. 2). In fact, Weigert pointed out that the sociological assumption that meanings are in large part socially constructed has led to focusing on ‘social organization as the principle of self- organization’ (Weigert & Teitge, 1986, p X) and therefore to address the question of the self from the perspective of the social structure.
Sociologists explain the growing interest on identity as a reflection of historical and social changes. For instance, Weigert traced back the need for theorising identity in the post World War II context, when the question of national identities (what it means to be American, British, French etc.) came at the forefront and defined social consciousness. With the following spread of social conflict during the rise of civil rights movements, the language of identity developed further within the theoretical debate
35 and it was used positively by groups to legitimize their own claims to social and legal recognition (Weigert & Teitge, 1986, p.29). Richard Jenkins (2006), instead, sees the growing concerns about identity strongly related to the social changes led by modernity such as ‘the reorientation of work and family; class status mobility, migration, medical and technological innovation the redrawing of political borders’ (Jenkins, 2006, p.11).
Different definitions of identity in sociology share the same attention for how social interaction and structural conditions affect subjective action. Weigert, by combining different features of identity coming from the sociological tradition (such as the abstract features of typical, apriority, organization, sociality) developed the following definition -or analytical description- of identity:
‘Identity is a typified self at a stage in the life course situated in a context of organized social relationships’ (Weigert & Teitge, 1986, p.53).
In Social Identity Jenkins (2006) emphasised the relational nature of identity understood as a continuous process of distinguishing individuals and collectivities from other individuals and collectivities and defined it as:
‘Identity is our understanding of who we are and who other people are, and, reciprocally, other people’s understanding of themselves and of others (which include us). The outcomes of agreement and disagreement, at least in principle always negotiable, identity is not fixed’ (Jenkins, 2006 ,p.5).
Lawler (2008) also agreed that a social and collective approach to identity means ‘to start with the social conditions which determine ‘self-perception’ (Lawler, 2008, p.7). Similarly to Jenkins, Lawler pointed out that identity should be understood as produced within social relations by a process which is concerned with ‘sameness and difference’. This is to say that, identity is understood as being simultaneously determined by either sharing certain commonalities with others such as ‘we are women, British, Black etc.’ or by the search for uniqueness and difference. For instance Lawler examines how middle- class identity is formed by sharing certain characteristics and values while emphasising the difference with working-class lifestyles and identity (Lawler, 2008).
36
Micro and macro levels of identity
While compiling their review of sociological approaches of identity, Weigert & Teitge (1986) identified two main theoretical trends: one concerned with the micro level and the other with the macro level. On a micro level identity is seen as ‘multiple characterizations of the individual by both self and other’ (Wiegert in Coté & Levine, 2002, p. 44) while on a macro level identity is ‘a positional definition of actors within institutions and societies’ (Ibid).
Weigert et al. argued that psychological theories, such as the one by Erik Erikson (1902- 1994), had an impact on the sociological traditions concerned with the micro level, particularly Symbolic Interactionism. Symbolic Interactionists (Mead, Strauss, Goffman in Coté & Levine, 2002) look at social reality as continually created by the individual action of communicating meanings and names (symbols) during their interactions. Therefore identities are constructed and modified through these on-going processes. Mead and Goffman are particularly relevant in this context because of the focus on the relationship between the interactional levels and the self. Since G. H. Mead (1934), who theorised the distinction ‘mind, self and society’, sociologists have started to recognise the utility of a three level approach in the analysis of identity. Mead argued that individual consciousness is the product of social interaction through reflexivity by which the whole social process ‘is brought into the experience of the individuals involved with it’ (Jenkins, 2006, p.36). The mind represents the cognitive dimension of the individual, the self concerned with the emotional sphere, and both of them are processes that cannot exist without the social relationships embodied by society (Jenkins, 2006). Relevant in this context is also Goffman who focused on the interactional level of self-identification and particularly on how ‘individuals negotiate their identities within the interaction order’ (Jenkins, 2006, p. 71). In other words, Goffman argued that, individuals, in order to be accepted by others, feel compelled to present an image of themselves that conforms to routines. Therefore, self- identification becomes a normative and standardised aspect of every-day life, a process through which individuals develop strategies to manage the impressions that other people gain of them from the outside. This interplay between self-image and public image becomes the basis for individual identification (Jenkins, 2006, p. 20 & p 71).
37 Sociological traditions more focused on the macro level include Structural Functionalism (Parsons, 1902-1979) and Critical Theory (Habermas, 1929). Even though these two theoretical frameworks do not address identity directly, they contribute to its study from a sociological perspective by elucidating about relations between the structural and individual spheres. Structural Functionalism, for instance, helps to understand how differentiation within society can create identity problems (Coté & Levine, 2002), while Critical Theory shows how identity is embedded in ‘social experience, symbolic communication and reflection of institutional processes’ (Coté & Levine, 2002, p.39).
The interest in either the micro or the macro aspects also involves using different epistemologies and methodologies. For instance, Coté and Levine argued that qualitative approaches are most appropriate at a personal/interactional level, while quantitative realist approaches are more effective in investigating the institutional/societal level where roles and statuses are more fixed and stable (Coté & Levine, 2002, p.45). An attempt to bridge together the macro and micro level of identity comes from the critical realist perspective. As it will be detailed later in Chapter 5, Critical Realism is an ontological and epistemological framework which stands between realism and relativism. Critical realists theorise that reality is complex and multilayered and therefore its explanation requires multidimensional approaches. From this perspective Derek Layder (1993) developed a model which ‘conveys the textured or interwoven nature of different levels and dimensions of social reality’ (Layder, 1993, p.7) by bringing together macro and micro dimensions. Layder suggested that macro structural aspects can complement the analysis of micro phenomena and defines the process by which the level of the self, the situated activity, the setting, the context and history produce the macro-micro interaction (Ibid). This results in a map where the self is ‘the individual’s relation to the social environment characterized by the intersection between the individual social and biographical experience; the situated activity refers to the social interactions; the settings represents social organizations such as schools, factories, etc; the context denotes the wider macro-social system’ (Layder, 1993, p. 74-128). The different levels interact and combine to influence behaviour and social activity. Therefore, Layder argued:
38
‘The micro processes of everyday life as reflected in the situations and identities of the persons involved can only be understood properly when seen in conjunction with more macro features’ (Layder, 1993,p.10) .
On the other hand social activity is the result of different elements such as the self, the situation, the setting and history as summarised by the research map below.
Figure 2.2: Layder’s ‘Research Map’: how to bring together micro & macro levels of analysis in Sociology
Source: Layder, 1993, p.72.
To conclude, sociologists theorise that identity is not the exclusive property of the individual but ‘something that is realized strategically and circumstantially’ through reciprocal interaction (Weigert in Coté & Levine, 2002, p.49). Sociologists’ interest on identity is centred on the dialectic between personal and social identity in the context of the social structure. Therefore identity is either internal or external to individuals: it is internal because it is subjectively constructed and external because it is constructed on the basis of social circumstances (Coté & Levine, 2002, p.49) including social roles, cultural institutions and social structures:
39
‘Identity is the product of the person negotiating passages through life and reflecting on these actions (…) there is not identity without society, and society steers identity formation while individuals attempt to navigate often hazardous and blocked passages’ (Coté & Levine, 2002, p.39).
Identity has been used by sociologists as a tool to bridge the gap between subjectivism and objectivism, individual and society, freedom and necessity. In this sense, identity provides a unique tool to reflect how social structure is internalised by individuals to produce subjective action.