I am a Black Kenyan twenty one year old female
studying at the University of Michigan. To a man, I am a woman, to a white
person, I am black; to a child, I am an adult; and to the elderly, I am a young
adult starting what society deems as ‘her exciting twenties’. But deeper in these identities exist a myriad
of other labels. There are numerous identities that could be added to the list:
political affiliation, (non) religious identity, physical/mental ability or sexual identity.
In his book Social Identity, Richard Jenkins
defines identity as “a characteristic or property of humans as social beings”
(3). He indicates that identity establishes similarities and differences (4).
To give further meaning to identity, he expresses that we need to identify
ourselves “with something or someone else” (4). He goes on to define ‘social
identity’ in order to emphasize how society influences our individual identities.
He defines social identity as “the ways [in] which individuals and collectives
are distinguished in their social relations with other individuals and
collectivities” (4).
It is interesting how the perceptions of one group differ
depending on who perceives them, even though these identities may not truly
represent them. To put this in another way, Jenkins argues that “identity is
often in the eye of the beholder” (2). Therefore,
perceptions are based off societal assessments, and consequently vary from one
society to the next. Jenkins confirms this by stating that the social
construction of identity results from interactions and institutions (4). This
reveals that some aspects of our identities are fluid depending on who is
defining them.
Yet even in this fluidity there are similarities in
our identities causing Jenkins to raise the question: “How does our sense of ourselves
as unique individuals square with the realization that, always and everywhere,
we share aspects of our identity with many others? (3). By sharing our
identities we are able to build social circles and even communities. As a
result, we gain a sense of belonging. From this we are able to form friendships
and families. Furthermore, in times when an identity is being targeted we are
then able to address prejudices and initiate a discussion on ‘public issues and
private troubles’…encouraging us to use one to make sense of the other” (3).
An example of a targeted identity would be
homosexuality. Jenkins raises the widespread discussion of “whether people are
born gay or become gay as a result of the way in which they were brought up”
(5). By having a shared identity, homosexual individuals are able to unite and assemble
a movement that aims to cement their controversial identity into one that is
just as accepted as others. By coming together they are able to voice their
desires on a larger platform where they are more likely to make an impact in
comparison to an individual who desires to do the same.
By discussing the “cause” of sexuality (nature vs.
nurture), we discover that identities are innate, gained over time or have
troubled placement as is the case with homosexuality. This issue is further raised
by Shaila Dewan in Has ‘Caucasian’ Lost Its Meaning? , where she
analyzes how ‘White’ and ‘Caucasian’ are no longer interchangeable and whether
certain ethnicities still fit into the Caucasian definition . By raising this
question we are able to see that identities change over time, not just as who
they include but also the way they are termed. For instance, due to the evolution of the
social construction of race, “all
whitenesses are [no longer] equal” as they once were. This implies that when
more people start to fit into a privileged identity, the criterion needs to be
made more specific; more exclusionary.
But what about when the
identity is made too general that it starts to lose its meaning? Manza
describes Inge, a young Jewish girl in Nazi Germany whose “grandparents
were Jewish [and consequently] she was considered Jewish as well” (84). Even
though she did not personally identify as Jewish, she would be persecuted on
such a basis. This reveals that some identities may have no real meaning to
some, and yet we still continue to label them.
Below are links to images by renowned photographer
David Turnley revealing something different about identity.
Jenkins exerts a lot of effort to make sure he clearly explains the necessary dichotomy between the identified and the identifier because '“identity is often in the eye of the beholder."' To have an identity, especially in terms of a social stratification system, there must by definition be exclusion. To be part of a group there must be those outside of that group.
ReplyDeleteWe are all humans. But there are animals that are not human. We are all animals, but there are objects that are not animals. We are all objects, but there are things that are not objects. We are all things, but not all things are made of matter (thoughts). Eventually following this deductive process we reach "everything" - which exists outside the set of identities because it refers to all.
This I feel is the most important ontological draw from the Jenkins paper.
I really liked that Bokie started this post by labeling her own individual labels. For some of us in this class, we share labels. For others, the labels are completely different. There are many different labels that one can encounter and they are not always looked at individually. Deeper than this, there is the identity that comes from religious affiliations and social class. Not every label comes directly from outside appearance, and I find this interesting. How can someone know the other person's identity simply by looking at their appearance?
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I found interesting was the fact that the Jewish girl was identified as Jewish even though she didn't associate in such way. This summer I am living with a girl from Brazil, and she too, is in a similar situation. She is going to Israel this month to represent her country in an event called The Maccabiah Games. Even though she doesn't associate with Judaism, she is able to travel across the world and participate in a sporting event made only for Jews. It is hard for me to understand how this works because she doesn't consider herself Jewish. How is she able to represent her country in this way? This is one of the grey areas that comes with idenity. There have been situations like this in the past, and I am sure there will be more in the future.
I think that social identity is important for stability and structure in your life. I believe that one's social identity is not only attributed to where and to whom you were born, but also how you identity yourself as you grow up. For example, I too am considered to be born into a minority race. Both of my parents were born in India and I am Indian as well. Consequently, I am viewed to be part of a minority group and sometimes considered a "foreigner." I do identify myself as part of a minority race however, I do not believe social identity to be innate and to be limited to whom you were born. As I grew up I made many friends and most of them are Caucasian American. To be honest I identify myself more with their American identity than the one I was born into although both affect me.
ReplyDeleteSome people might say that I'm "loosing my roots" or forgetting where I came from but that is not the case. I very well know my background and how I was brought up but social identity is more than that. Like Jenkins said, identity is in the eyes of the beholder." I also agree with your last point when discussing how identity can sometimes become too general. I think that is when stereotypes form and discrimination occurs.
I think this blog does a great job of illustrating just how many facets of social identity exist for each individual. As both Jenkins and Bokie mention, a person’s identity envelops a large number of intertwined categorizations—gender, race, social class, age, sexual orientation, political affiliation, place of origin, etc. As such, each individual belongs to many different groups, and Jenkins argues that the differences among various categories may lead to the observation of similarity in a specific group. For instance, a white lesbian and a black homosexual male are different in several aspects—first and foremost, they have distinctive social experiences based on their gender and racial identities. However, the fact that they share the same sexual orientation offers a commonality in perspective that the two might not have otherwise known. For them, the differences in their identities are what make the aspects they have in common more easy to observe.
ReplyDelete