Literature Review #1

Title: Social Identity
Author: Richard Jenkins
Year: 2008
Publisher: Routledge
Pages: 246

In this mostly survey review of how and why people identify themselves socially, the author makes the statement that identity is not just one static aspect of a person's life, but rather, a process this person is always going through, making sense of his world as he lives in it. To Jenkins, we make sense of our world by creating classifications (ethnic, religious, national, etc.) of ourselves, but more importantly, of others. Identification can be seen as a natural cognitive process of making sense of what we know and what we are trying to find out. "Identity is the human (and not animal) capacity to know 'who's who, and hence, what's what.'" Identity is not science-imposed nor God-imposed; we learn it to survive and to succeed. In this case, it is a rational process, designed to provide some sense to the world... if we did not identify ourselves and others, we would not be human. That is simply put. But as identity is simply a man and not animal process, and as it is a survival mechanism, identity is not real. Americans and Brits, or Punjabs and Bengali... identity is "a self unstably patched together through shards of discourse and contingently activated in differing contexts." Your claim that you are Irish, and thus you "should" go out on St. Patrick's Day and drink several shots in a row as a claim to your ethnicity holds no water when this claim is pushed further. Though you may have had descendants in Ireland for "as long as anyone can remember," your claim of complete Irishness begins to crumble as you trace your family tree back further. As science has (I think) clearly demonstrated, our ancestors were bacteria, then small single-celled organisms, and then more and more and more advanced creatures (through evolution)... in fact, the only true identity is the one we share: our former animal selves. Who knows, maybe someday we'll have a "Ape Appreciation Month" and a "Ardipithecus" parade through downtown Manhatten, or fireworks commemorating our 6 billionth year on the planet... But these all seemed so far-fetched.

So what stops us from embracing this identity, the only "true" classification, and denouncing all others as man-made? For one, our ignorance. To accept these claims, you'd have to be willing to denounce your own ethnicity, nationality, whatever; not denounce, rather, but stop using these claims as motives for activity. The Irish individual I talked about before would be compelled to find another reason to go out and drink heavily, a more genuine reason that does not rely on manmade constructs of identity and instead relies on rationality. Though the distinguished Irish scientist believes one hundred percent in evolution, he may still enjoy the company of his friends at the Irish Pub down the street or eat cabbage and black-eyed beans at New Years with his family. We see here identity as a survival mechanism, once again. Being surrounded by loved ones, embracing the company of others, eating and drinking and laughing with people, these are all moments of joy in life, and of richness. Although science says his identity and his family's identity is absolutely meaningless, he consciously or more often than not subconsciously decides to embrace his Irishness. At some point, it doesn't matter whether the modes and motions of his identity are constructed... people have to live, and as I stated above, living as humans is necessarily correlated with identity construction.

Reader questions: 

Hello, Chris.  I’m one of the new academic advisors here in the Honors College, and Dean Williams was kind enough to send along a link to your blog. As you seem dedicated to doing the best Honors Thesis you possibly can, I wonder if I might ask a couple of questions—perhaps mostly theory based.

First, having no advance knowledge of your background/major/focus, I’m wondering from what sort of academic background are you approaching this topic? And, more directly, I’m wondering about the following quote from your blog (which, if I’m reading correctly) is your response to Social Identity by Jenkins.  There are some interesting implications which might come out of this type of an examination. “…if we did not identify ourselves and others, we would not be human. That is simply put. But as identity is simply a man and not animal process, and as it is a survival mechanism, identity is not real.” A couple of questions come to mind: 

1. Is the claim that the only ‘true’ identity is that we all share a history of animal evolution?  What I’m hunting for here is a closer definition of “identity”—what Philosophers might term essential properties.  So, being Irish is a constructed identity that some use as an impetus for action (agreed and good point)—but, are there no other “true” classifications?  Being male, perhaps, or having green eyes?  Both of which, it might be argued have been helpful to survival of certain groups….

2. If a given human lacks the capacity to understand/identify himself and others does it make the being in question non-human?  Are we scientifically sure that animals don’t have a similar mechanism in place?  Might a tiger born in captivity, and dropped into the wild have some system by which to judge/be judged; identify as same/different?

My response: 

Wayne, thanks for the comments! I was in fact not prepared for people to read the blog quite yet... especially that last blog, I am still mulling over some of the things I said, including some of the things you questioned me on. But your comments are timely, in that it gives me an impetus to actually cement my views in writing to you (and forgive me if I post your message and my response on the blog). And yes, I definitely want to make this the best thesis I can... So, I'll start with your first question? 

1. I am a French and International relations major. My interests are all over the place, but European identity issues have really been one of my principle ones for a while. I took a course on French Contemporary Culture last semester, and spent the spring 2009 semester in Geneva, Switzerland doing an internship with a global health group and also taking classes. I got to learn about Europe a lot over there. In addition, many of my classes in the French department have informed my body of knowledge of French history and culture, so I consider myself a reasonable authority on that subject. My dad is the chair of the Political Science Department at KSU, and he led me to approach this topic initially using theory. Getting a base of knowledge with social identity and constructivist theories, and then growing more and more specific with my research to form a well-researched conclusion and thesis. I am approaching this topic that way. 

2. We have to differentiate between phenotype and identity... green eyes can be a physical descriptor, but not necessary an identity. We use these physical differences as means to separate each other into groups, to form identities. So if you don't have blue eyes or blonde or brown hair, please go into this line to be sent to Auschwitz. More clearly, I mean that scientifically, an individual with blue eyes is more or less (with small genetic exceptions) the same as the person with green. Male is same as female. Sure, these classifications might have helped as indicators of virility or fertility when life was so survival-oriented. But we've advanced... and the use of these classifications today, though extremely important for those who classify themselves, seem to make no sense. . The only remnant from that survival-oriented premodern culture is our need to find companionship and friendship... but as multicultural societies across the world are showing, we have much more in common than we thought... and we're getting to a place where we're not as often using our identities against each other so much. But it's difficult, because identities are so crucial to people. I suspect it's because I have no real background that I can say these things. The definition of identity is tricky... I would go with how we figure out "who's who, and what's what." This definition implies that we use our identity and the identity of others to make judgments on the world. 

I think I need to differentiate between a science-based ID, and a culture-imposed one. Identity isn't even a scientific concept... perhaps what I mean is classification. There are obviously classifications that allow us to form our identities... groups of green-eyed people perhaps. But no ID is ever forced upon on us just by our being born. ID is what we learn as we get older... it's easier and more efficient and natural for us to embrace an identity out of our childhood. The process of puberty can be seen as a struggle for identity... we reject that of our parents because finally we can, we embrace that of our pop idols, we begin to wear clothing that conflicts with the norms (which are imposed rules of identity)... you could argue this process never stops, and that identification (as a process, not a thing) in itself becomes the norm. 
I hope that answers your question... I have lots more thinking on this to do. 

3. I don't think there exists a human who lacks this capacity... perhaps some of us are better wired than others to make these classifications, but I think it is a unique element of our humanness that we do this. And in response to your second statement, yes, I think animals do this too, to a certain extent... it seems to be a function of a creature's intelligence to be able to figure out "who's who, and what's what." I think humans have a much greater capacity than all other animals, so much that we have created extremely advanced civilizations and societies and cultures... animals and humans classify in order to survive, but the latter does it on a much more primeval level. As I said previously, we've taken our capacity to self-identify and identify others to a place that is past survival. 

Thanks for your questions. And I would love to hear your response. 

His response: 

Thanks for the quick response!  My BA is in International Studies with a concentration on the Middle East, and having done a study abroad program in Israel, I can certainly relate to the value added from on-the-ground fact gathering and interacting in a culture/arena that are different than where one was born and raised. 

I agree—making a clear distinction between phenotype and identity is certainly an important factor.  Your point is well taken; most green-eyed people don’t consider their green eyes to be an essential part of their identity.

And we’re in agreement that the genetic difference between those with green and those with blue eyes is very slight—scientifically almost non-relevant.  So, I’m with you on the idea that our construction of identity is far more often based on our cultural surroundings (society, family, friends, and schools) and our interactions within these groups than neat genetic classifications.  I think an examination of our reasoning and an exploration of how and why we shape and reshape the many layers of our identity is quite worthy of study, and I’m interested to see where this research takes you. 

I would venture to say that in addition to seeking companionship and friendship (as a remnant from our survival instinct) is our drive to identify (potential) enemies (real or imagined).  These two innate drives, I think, are sides of the same coin…I imagine that our genetic predisposition for survival is double edged—we seek some people out for companionship, and avoid/have conflict with others.

Maybe, just a hypothesis, we’re hard wired this way:  we need (seek, desire, thrive best with) companionship and friendship—and to forge these bonds we create an Other to rally against.  In some sense, Achilles needs Hector to cement his friendship with Patroclus, nes pas? 

I’m not clear on your statement that we’re not “using our identities against each other as much”.  How might this be measured?  Number of armed conflicts?  Percentage of the world’s population impacted by ethnic strife?  The rights granted (or denied) to certain sub-groups in any given Post-Modern society?   (Say, for example, the right of a woman to wear a niqab on a Parisian bus, perhaps?)

As to the idea that no ID is thrust upon us at birth, perhaps we’re just speaking past each other.  One might not be able to verbalize, act against, or rebel against one’s cultural (social, religious, familial) identity until one has acquired a sufficient vocabulary and set of actions, but might you agree that there are some identities bestowed/presumed/forged at birth?  Say, for example, one is born as the first male child of the Prince and Princess of Wales.  I can imagine that there are a whole boat load of identity preconceptions that are visited upon this person—that he’s genetically male (and that he will identify as part of the male gender, that he’s straight), that he’ll grow up to be a good Anglican Christian, that he’ll marry a woman of similar caste, that he’ll be an active member of society, that he’ll take his turn on the throne etc...  His struggle to form his identity will emerge (or struggle to emerge) most likely during his maturation from child to adult.  This being said, most of these identities can be overcome/challenged/changed (he could, should he choose, have a sex change, convert to a different religion, marry a working-class woman, sit around and drink all day, renounce his birthright…) but what about his identities that are non-alterable—ones that might be considered essential to the unique individual’s identity?  What if he were born profoundly deaf?  Seems like eye color is a definite phenotype (and one that most people wouldn’t claim as an essential part of their identity) but it strikes me that being born deaf (or not-straight) are more than phenotypes.  People do, I think, consider their deafness and/or sexuality as key parts of their identity solidified at birth and non-alterable.

At any rate, I think you’ve got a wonderful thesis idea, and you certainly are tackling challenging and multi-faceted aspects of modern civilization to task. I hope you don’t think I’m trying to split hairs or nitpick—the truth is that I’m fascinated by issues and examinations of gender, class, ethnicity, and geography (just to name a few)… So, when I read your blog post it piqued my curiosity—and I figured you might appreciate an outsider’s perspective.  I’ve found that engaging in thoughtful discussions has taken me to some interesting places….and led me to read some texts that I otherwise would have put away long ago.  (Judith Butler most prominently springs to mind….)

My response: 

Yeah, I would agree that part of identification is deciding who is and isn't the enemy. It's a little difficult to decide how to apply this to our "post-modern" existences. We've certainly moved beyond simple friend-enemy distinctions... perhaps class distinctions have replaced this due to our immersion in a materialist-capitalist society? Or perhaps each of us makes many of these distinctions, some more important than others... For example, I have a hard time not identifying people as conservative or liberal and then making this one of the more important distinctions I go by to determine compatibility. I can't help it... I also tend to mistrust people who are strongly religious, who pay close attention to reality tv shows, who flaunt their wealth... I make these distinctions. I think we all do though, and it's a rather personal choice. Perhaps I've revealed too much by saying all of this, but I think it's important as an author to acknowledge my own biases on this research in order to be as objective as possible. Do you agree? Do you think that friend-enemy distinctions are important to people today? 

What I mean by "using our identities against each other" is kind of the Huntingtonian "clash of civilizations" idea... that the "battles" of the 21st century will no longer be realpolitik battles between nations, but will feature conflicts between identity groups... shiite v. sunni, or maoist v. democratics (india), or perhaps the most obvious example, a battle of fundamentalism (and its friends... extremist religion, conservatism, authoritarianism, the "east") v. liberalism (democracy, the "west," reason, etc.). The French example can be perceived in this light, although I won't pretend to be able to navigate my way around Huntington's work (perhaps this should be my next venture?). I think that Sarkozy, his political party, and French upper society have made their case against Muslim immigrants in France much in this way. From correlating wearing the burqa with "dangerous religious practices," to speaking about all immigrants as "Arabs (in fact, many Algerians, Moroccans, and Iranians are not Arabs ethnically, nor do they identify as such), to saying that many tenets of Islam contradict French republicanism, to banning overt religious symbols in public schools... I think it's not such a stretch of the imagination to say that the current debate is being framed by French nationalists in terms of this clash of identity... the "correct" French identity v. a "dangerous" and "anti-republican" Islamic/immigrant one. 

But you can also see it differently... I think that like any country in the midst of social and economic crisis (see the US, to a certain extent), France is in the process (remember identification is a process) of remaking itself. The "social state" is being questioned as a viable economic model, women and immigrants are taking up more and more posts in colleges and in professional posts, modernization and globalization are increasing people's access to things outside the French world, and thus arguably decreasing the overall feeling of "Frenchness" in the population (actually, I think nationalism in general is in decline, and for the good!), the European Union has more and more supranational decision-making power, crime and violence are on the rise, unemployment is high (the French HATE unemployment), unions, a huge influence traditionally on policy-making, are in decline... I think that nationalists, like the elites of the country and the majority of politicians in the Parliament and the executive branch, feel like the French state is in crisis and need a healthy dose of "Frenchness" to right the ship. What they will say (especially the far-right Front National) is that past governments have gotten away from "true French republicanism" and what is required is a return to the ideals of the past. My trip to Paris was essentially an exploration of THIS idea... what it means to be French, what the population in general feels, how islam plays into French society, etc. 

Measuring it... I dunno how to measure it but to investigate into what is fueling conflicts in France... analyzing rhetoric, researching historical and current notions of French national identity, looking at how the media frames immigrant-state and immigrant-society relations, looking at how and what public schools teach students about France and its history and its current society, finding polls... there are a variety of ways to measure it, mostly qualitatively. I think a variable like identity clashes is very difficult to measure qualitatively, although I will certainly do my best to find both qual and quant sources. 

To your comment about ID being thrust upon at birth, sure, I think there are some elements to our identities that cannot be changed. A deaf individual, for example, who has no chance to gain back his hearing, is forced to make his deafness a part of him. Rather, his deafness must have some affect on his identity... whether he incorporates into his life (starting a pro-deaf rights group, for example), OR as any handicapped person must do makes concessions about what he is able to do (cannot be a fighter pilot, for example). But we define the process of identification as deciding "who is who, and what is what," so let's look at it this way... a person deaf from birth may find the kids at school are rough on him (making fun, etc.). Thus he develops the idea that the outside world is cruel and that he must defend himself (emotionally or physically or other) from this world that hates and rejects him. However, another deaf child may go to an all-deaf elementary school, and ride on a deaf parade float in the Memorial Day parade, and may attend a concert or speaker with a sign language interpreter on the side helping him to understand... this child may grow up thinking his world accepts the deaf. His identity is forged through the recognition of his being... Charles Taylor has a great essay called "The Politics of Recognition" which deals with exactly this idea.  Implied in this idea is that society has a key role to play in how people form their identities. Their acceptance or non-acceptance can determine just about everything. 

We can apply this to multicultural society... if the French would allow the burqa to be worn, if they would support the construction of mosques, if they would acknowledge in speeches and government documents the importance of Islam and Muslims in French contemporary society, if they would support the struggling immigrant populations with more resources to end the cycle of poverty... perhaps you wouldn't have such this pervasive idea of a "clash of civilizations" in the population. One of the reasons crime and violence are so prevalent in France among the Muslim youth is that this group feels victimized, unrecognized... and on top of that, they grow up in squalid conditions with bad parents and little hope for the future. Taylor would argue that better recognition of this group (through economic and social measures) would create a more peaceful society... in short, allowing people to forge their own identity (giving MORE room for this growth and formation) is vital. The French government seems to be grappling with this very idea. In some ways, it is tightening the vise it has on Muslim women's ability to create and maintain her identity (with the ban on veils in schools)... but it is also ramping up efforts to implement affirmative action programs in universities, and not discouraging the construction of mosques and other Islam-themed structures, even in prominent parts of Paris (like the Institute of the Arab World). So, there is this grappling... I suspect, as I've written, that the French government's role as a "bad guy" is largely exaggerated... and politicians' rhetoric on these kinds of topics is also exacerbated by the economic and social crises of the day. Without these, the pressure on these representatives would not be nearly as high to take care of the "immigrant problem."

Please, keep the comments and questions coming, if you'll allow me to send them your way as well :) You seem much more educated on these topics than I am, so it's interesting to hear your input and perspective. I don't see it as nitpicking... as long as you're not correcting my grammar and punctuation! Like I said, I want this thesis to be awesome... it is a good topic... I know I've chosen a good one because there are so many elements that go into it... it could possibly be thousands of pages long, so I've got a semester (and possibly two) to dissect all the information I gather into a measly hundred and twenty.