Productos a utilizar para limpieza y desinfección

The concept of identity construction and formation is highly contentious and is claimed by Fina et al (2006) to be one of the most fundamental issues within contemporary social sciences. The varied positions taken by authors in relation to these arguments dispute the degree to which identity is influenced by organisational and societal structure or individual agency.

Holism maintains that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection such, that they cannot exist independently, or be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts (Benton & Craib 2001). This school of thought consequently presumes that roles are defined from the top down, whereby actors respond to the demands placed upon them by the organisation and structure of society. This view maintains that patterns of preference and individual agency are overridden by social structures and implies that action is replicated by all who adopt a defined role. Therefore, identity consists of roles that are constructed from collections of expectations of what is rational and normal. These expectations are maintained by society, through the prediction of the actions of the individual based upon the expectations of that role. This represents a purely deterministic view of identity formation and implies the motives and agency of individual actors are insignificant (Hollis 1994). Bourdieu (1977) terms this phenomenon, ‘habitus’. Butler explains this as ‘those embodied rituals of everydayness by

46

which a given culture produces and sustains belief in its own obviousness’ (Butler 1999 p.. 114). Through habitus social norms are incorporated into the body of the individual subject. This implies that the individual is not conscious of this process. Therefore, identity is defined by a collection of responses to the question ‘who are you’, which refers to a sum of roles and relations for example, mother, sister, lecturer and co-ordinator. (Bourdieu 1977).

Critics of this view suggest that it neglects the individual’s interpretation of organisational and normative expectations, because it does not adequately address the experience and management of role conflict generated when the normative expectations of multiple roles clash. The individual agent will adopt multiple roles, each with their own normative expectations. They are able to operate within a complex repertoire of role expectations depending on the context and also to compartmentalise elements of each role to maintain a balance between competing expectations. In this view, identity cannot simply be reduced to merely the sum of our roles. It requires the consideration of the individual agent in the interpretation and expression of these roles, taking account of the environment, context and interaction with others (Stets & Burke 2000).

There is a need therefore, to consider debates concerning the nature of personal identity, that refer to the question Who am I?. This raises different factors to consider due to the recognition that people with the same roles remain different. Therefore, the assumption that roles involve duties which give rise to normative behaviour, does not necessarily mean that all behaviour stems from normative expectations. This implies the organisation is shaped by the actor’s reflections, interpretations and re-evaluations of the normative expectations, suggesting there is some room for manoeuvre.

Mead (1934) was critical of the presupposition of a social world that exists in advance, from which self and minds are drawn. He suggests that there is an on-going process of social interaction amongst biological organisms and it is through the internalisation of a conversation of gestures (vocal language) that mind and selves arise. He also proposes the concept of ‘Selfhood’ that refers to the capacity of the minded organism to be an object to itself. People become an object to themselves by taking the role of the audience and creating versions of themselves that are conscious of the perceived expectations of the audience. This is known as the ‘generalised other’. The attitudes and responses of others

47

are then organised and taken over into the self to constitute the ‘me’. However, if this was the only process in play, it would result in the self-mirroring of social structure and offer nothing beyond this. Therefore to account for continued social change, the complete self is the ‘I’ and the ‘me’, wherein the ‘I’ refers to action and impulse. It is this that offers the potential for change of social structure. This is achieved through reflective thought, which Mead (1934) referred to as the ability to direct action in terms of the foreseen consequences of an alternative action. Mead (1934) also considered value systems and morality to be integral to this process. He assumed that each agent is living for what is good combined with that which satisfies an interest or impulse. However, he recognised that interests and impulses can clash, which leads to the need for evaluation. Therefore the ‘I’ is regulated through an awareness of the influence that gestures have on others within the common activity.

Blumer (1969) builds on Mead’s (1934) ideas as he views the individual’s concept of self as a developmental process occurring though social interaction with others. Therefore, patterns of experiences encountered with others are generalised and interpreted as individuals create different images of themselves in varying contexts, for example as a professional and a parent. Blumer’s (1969) framework is based on the following assumptions:

Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meaning that those things have for them, such as physical objects, humans, institutions, and guiding ideals.

The meaning of things is derived or arises from the social interaction one has with one’s fellows.

Meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person dealing with the things he is encountering.

Blumer (1969) agrees with Mead’s (1934) view of social interaction and suggests that gestures arise from human conduct by actors taking into account what the other is doing or is about to do and modifying their own behaviour in response. When a gesture has the same meaning for both parties they are able to understand each other. Therefore, where a gesture signifies intention it also signifies an expected response and the joint action that is to arise from it. If there is confusion within this process communication is ineffective. This process is termed mutual role taking and requires the actor to take on other roles and see

48

themselves from the other’s position. It is through this process that the individual is required to take into account the actions of the other as they form their own action, leading to fitting with the o_{ther and forming one’s own individual conduct.}

Blumer (1969) develops Mead’s (1934) theory of selfhood as he recognises that instead of seeing the person as responding to the factors placed upon him, he is interpreting what he notes by engaging in a process of self-indication. During this he gives the object meaning and uses that meaning to direct actions. Therefore, action is moulded by taking into account meaning and predicting the other’s response to actions, as opposed to unconsciously responding to an external structure. Even when an action is well established it still undergoes a process of formation where the individual actor makes indications and consequently, joint interpretations are formed. Bourdieu (1977) states that common understanding is pre-established and is therefore assumed to occur without interpretation. However, Blumer (1969) maintains that this is not the case because there are always problems with accepted and habitual actions for which existing rules or norms are not adequate. Also, even in cases of sustained action these are being reaffirmed or challenged. Therefore the process is not only essential for change, but also for retention of helpful social norms.

The data captured in this thesis will offer insight into this debate. This will be achieved through in-_{depth exploration of GEN students’ experience, interpretation and response to} the structures imposed on them within nurse education. Furthermore the influence of significant interpersonal encounters and relationships will give insight into the manner in which the concept of selfhood is developed and played out over time. The debates presented here offer a range of critical lenses through which the participants’ accounts can be considered. The following section will develop this debate to provide a distinct theoretical framework within which the thesis will be situated.