On Identity

July 18, 2022 The first of several newsletters about identity--one of today's hottest and most complex issues.

Hello It’s Complex Readers,

I hope all is well and that you are thinking systemically about some complex aspects of the world. There are some GREAT comments for the last newsletter. Thank you Michael and Anne. Check them out and read about corporations, capitalism, reforming capitalism, Chomsky, history, and socialism. Add your twenty cents (sigh…inflation).

This week’s newsletter is an introduction to some general identity issues. Identity is a hot topic these days and quite the complex issue. There will be several identity newsletters in our future and we still won’t be done with identity. Actually, we probably won’t ever be fully done with any topic that we grapple with. But it’s useful, worthwhile, interesting, and fun to grapple.

Please keep telling anyone and everyone about It’s Complex. Thank you!

A Reminder for Familar Readers and an Orientation for New Readers

Here at It’s Complex we think about and deal with the world’s many complexities—from global issues to individual experiences. The world sure is a complex place, and it is easy to get overwhelmed. We end up glossing over complexity and postpone thinking about it. But much is at stake for humanity and for individuals. Let’s stop postponing; let’s embrace complexity and deal with it. At It’s Complex, we think about and deal with complexity from a holistic systems perspective. A system is a wider whole made up multiple, connected, and dynamic parts. So, we think about and deal with any complex issue in terms of multidimensionality (M), connectedness (C), and dynamics (D). I like to abbreviate them as MCD. Think MCD, be MCD!

• Multidimensionality refers to how complex phenomena are made up of multiple parts.

• Connectedness refers to the varied ways in which complex phenomena are connected or linked. Systems theory emphasizes interrelatedness, which refers to mutual and reciprocal connections between and among parts and wholes.

• Dynamics refers to how system processes are ongoing and can be played out in stable ways, as well as in varied, changing, and sometimes unpredictable ways.

For further details (or as a refresher), check out some of the first newsletter posts.

Newsletter: On Identity

For better or worse, human beings can think about themselves. We can think about who we are, were, and might be. Take a moment (or a few) now and think about yourself. Ask yourself, “Who am I?” Or, imagine someone asking you, “Who are you?” For both questions, what are you thinking about? What would you say? These questions are about identity. Answering the Who am I and Who are you questions are ways of identifying who one is. I see constructing identity as fundamental to human functioning, and identity issues figured centrally in my work as an academic psychologist. Identity is complex and there is much to grapple with.

Identity can be defined generally as how a person constructs who they are. Constructing who one is includes how people define, describe, understand, present, express, and feel about themselves. A person is constructing identity when they answer—or try to answer—the Who am I and Who are you questions.

Identity is Everywhere

Identity rules these days. Discussing identity seems ubiquitous. Political discourse is full of identity politics, as pollsters and pundits analyze voting trends and political goals for people of different identity categories (e.g., gender, race, socioeconomic status, geographic location). Political affiliation has itself become a major aspect of identity for some people. Products are marketed to particular identity categories, such as gender or age. From sports team logos to political slogans, people literally wear their identities on their chests, backs, or heads. Memoirs proliferated during the 1990s and are still a popular genre. Then came blogs, and now identity snippets abound on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram and will likely continue on whatever social media are in vogue in the future. Even Substack is a forum for identity expression and exploration.

Identity diversity is also a hot topic. Employers advertise for employees of diverse identities. Varied identities comprise a diverse study body. Organizations post diversity statements on their websites to show that they value and seek to support diverse identities. People of different identities seek to be recognized. There is increasing focus on marginalized identities, which refer to people who have been overlooked, oppressed, and/or not represented in the media or politically.

From a systems perspective, we can think about some of the complexities of identity in terms of multidimensionality, connectedness, and dynamics. We can think about identity as a system that is made up of multiple, connected (especially interrelated), and dynamic parts.

Identity is Multidimensional

Beginning with multidimensionality, identity construction occurs in multiple ways, including reflecting on one’s life and experience, describing oneself to others (e.g., in everyday conversation, on a job application), and telling stories or narratives about oneself. Sometimes filling out forms requires people to identify themselves according to demographic identity categories (e.g., gender, race, education, income). During the pandemic, wearing or not wearing a mask and getting or not getting vaccinated became ways for some people to express their political identities.

Identity construction is also multidimensional because people construct or identify themselves in terms of multiple characteristics, dimensions, or issues. When you took a few moments earlier to answer the Who am I/Who are you questions, maybe you thought about multiple or varied characteristics, such as your physical characteristics (e.g., height, weight, eye color) or personality characteristics (e.g., maybe some readers are shy, some are outgoing, some are rigid, some are flexible, some are funny, some are morose, some are all of the above). Maybe you are thinking about your varied interests and your varied experiences. Maybe some of you are thinking about beliefs and values. Maybe some of you are thinking about future plans and goals—both short-term and long-term. How about gender? How about your cultural background and current cultural circumstances? Maybe you are thinking about your varied relationships with others and your varied social roles, or the varied groups you participate in. Maybe since the pandemic, you are thinking about yourself as part of the wider world that we inhabit together. Maybe your job is a big part of how you define yourself. Or, if you are a college student, you are thinking about your major, the courses you are taking, and the career you are working toward. Maybe you are thinking about yourself in terms of a story that starts years ago and extends into the future. Or, maybe you are thinking about…

Uh oh, this list could go on endlessly, but still not be exhaustive. (I typically end up with a long non-exhaustive list when I start thinking about some complex issue.) In addition, any of these (and other) identity dimensions can themselves be understood multidimensionally, with each one potentially consisting of its own non-exhaustive list of sub-categories. Maybe some of you are thinking that you cannot answer the Who am I/Who are you questions so easily. Maybe you do not even know where to start. After all, you are a multidimensional person! When I interviewed people for my research on identity, I asked participants: “Who are you? Tell me about yourself. How would you describe yourself?” Many participants initially responded by saying something along the lines of, “I don’t know. What do you want me to say?” I would tell them to say whatever they wanted. After some initial hesitation, some would get on a roll and talk extensively about themselves, while others remained rather reluctant to talk about themselves.

Although there is no exhaustive list of characteristics, dimensions, or issues that people may invoke when constructing who they are, it is still possible to organize identity multidimensionality in a way that encompasses endless-list issues without having to make endless lists.

In psychology, treating identity multidimensionally goes back to psychology’s early days in the late nineteenth century. I am always inspired by William James (1842-1910) who  had a lot to say about identity issues in a chapter on “the consciousness of self” in his book, Principles of Psychology, which was first published in 1890. He argued that people think about themselves in terms of varied characteristics, including physical, social, and psychological characteristics. With regard to social characteristics, he wrote: “our immediate family is a part of ourselves. Our father and mother, our [spouse] and babes, are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. When they die, a part of our very selves is gone. If they do anything wrong, it is our shame. If they are insulted, our anger flashes forth as readily as if we stood in their place” (p. 280). Physical characteristics encompass physical appearance, as well as material possessions. Psychological characteristics include beliefs and values, personality characteristics, as well as ways of understanding oneself and the world, both cognitively and emotionally. Fast-forwarding about a century, developmental psychologists, William Damon and Daniel Hart (1988), elaborated on James’ work and added active characteristics as a major identity dimension. And now, I am thinking that it also makes sense to include culture as an identity dimension that people use to construct who they are. If you ask someone who they are, they might talk about ethnic ancestry or nationality. Although culture and nation are not equivalent, nationality can be one way of identifying oneself culturally. Insofar as culture encompasses political and economic issues, constructing oneself in terms of political commitments and economic circumstances are also ways in which identity is cultural.

Multiple and Interrelated Identity Dimensions

From a systems perspective, identity not only involves multiple dimensions, but interrelated identity dimensions. In the quoted example from James of constructing oneself socially in relation to family, he points out that others can be a source of how one feels about oneself, which is a psychological dimension. At the same time, psychological dimensions of identity, can affect how one identifies oneself in relation to others. A person may identify socially with others who espouse particular beliefs and values, and identifying oneself in terms of particular beliefs and values influences the social groups they seek out and identify with.

Identity Dynamics

Constructing identity is also a dynamic process that involves both stability and variability.

With regard to variability, people may construct themselves differently in different situations and at different times in their lives. For example, people may think of themselves differently as their bodies change throughout their lives. Perhaps you would describe yourself differently at a job interview than when talking to someone at a party. As people go about their lives, different identity dimensions may be differentially important to them at different times. Maybe you know someone who is transitioning from female to male or male to female.

Maybe you are nodding your head as you acknowledge that how you think about yourself has changed over the course of your life, maybe even relatively recently. And maybe how you think about yourself is currently undergoing some change. You are a work in progress. Even people who identify fervently with entrenched positions can change. Even people who identify with extremist groups or ideologies can change. There are FORMER KKK members who no longer identify with the Klan. There are former terrorists who no longer identify with the terrorist organizations that they previously participated in and identified with. Some radicals DEradicalize. Just last week, one live witness at the January 6th Committee hearings was a former spokesperson for the Oath Keepers and another was a former Trump supporter. While I was growing up, my mother was politically and socially conservative (except for being adamantly anti-racist). She identified as anti-feminist and anti-abortion. In contrast, she voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and she still had an Obama sticker on her apartment door when she died in 2020. I am pretty sure she would be dismayed by the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe. Identity is definitely not set in stone.

Identity dynamics also include identity development. Classic research with children who can describe themselves verbally shows that even young children (4 years old) describe themselves multidimensionally in terms of social, physical, psychological, and active characteristics (Damon & Hart, 1988). Initially, children describe themselves in relatively fragmented terms by listing a string of characteristics about themselves. During the course of childhood and adolescence, identity characteristics are increasingly integrated, as some characteristics are understood in relation to each other and as several concrete characteristics are integrated into a wider abstract identity category (Harter, 2012). For example, an adolescent might say that they are smart because they read a lot, do well in school, and invent new gadgets. Adolescents also increasingly define themselves in relation to different people and social contexts. For example, an adolescent might describe themselves as outgoing with their friends and as shy in history class. In many cultures today, emerging adulthood is a life-phase that is characterized by intensely and seriously exploring identity options for work, relationships, and worldview (Arnett, 2000 http://www.jeffreyarnett.com/ARNETT_Emerging_Adulthood_theory.pdf). And during adulthood, identity construction develops further as adults encounter new situations, engage with different people, and take on new social roles.

In keeping with the systems premise that dynamic system processes can be played out in both variable and stable ways, identity has long been viewed in terms of both continuity (a kind of stability) and change (a kind of variability) in psychology. For years, when I taught developmental psychology, I asked college students if they think that they are the same person today as they were yesterday, as they were last week, and last month. They would nod. I added last year, and even five years ago. Some kept nodding, but some stopped nodding, and some even started to shake their heads. I then would say, “Sure, you have probably gone through some major changes in the last few years, and maybe something amazing happened to someone just in the last week. But it’s still you, right?” And there was much nodding again. The point is that we experience ourselves in terms of both continuity and change. We are the same, yet we are different. We stay the same, yet we change. We identify in the same ways, yet we identify in some different and new ways. With regard to identity stories or narratives, we probably all know people who repeatedly tell the same stories about themselves. Yet, at the same time, we also reconstruct old stories about ourselves, as well as construct wholly new ones about ourselves during development. One point from Damon’s and Hart’s research is that even if people describe themselves in terms of some of the same characteristics year in and year out, their understanding of those characteristics develops. In other words, what the apparently same characteristic means to someone can change and develop.

Beyond Unidimensional and Static Identity Talk

This approach to identity complexity stands in contrast to common ways of talking about identity today. I find that much talk about identity is unidimensional and static, rather than multidimensional and dynamic.

Unidimensional identity talk involves characterizing people primarily in one way or in terms of one identity dimension, such as gender, race, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation. In political analyses we hear about how women vote, or about what rural voters think, or about “the” African-American vote, or “the” Hispanic vote. In addition to disregarding the multidimensionality of identity, another problem with a unidimensional approach to identity is that it is too general and does not account for the vast variation that exists among people within an identity group. Not all women are the same. People who live in the country are not all the same, just as not all urbanites are the same. Not all African-Americans are the same. Not all Hispanics are the same. There can even be disagreement among people who identify similarly.

I am also bothered by static identity talk because it characterizes identity as an unchanging or permanent feature of a person. These days it even seems almost expected that one’s political identity will not and should not change. Even in the face of counter evidence, changing one’s political views means identifying with the other side, which is also viewed unidimensionally and statically. If identity change is not possible, we are stuck. Even worse, we may be doomed.

Fortunately, identity construction is neither unidimensional nor static. And fortunately, not all talk about identity is unidimensional and static. When political analysts “dig deeper,” they may talk about voters in terms of more than one demographic category. Today, efforts to get at identity multidimensionality and connectedness can be seen in discussions of intersectionality, which refers to how people live at the intersection of varied identity dimensions. It is interesting that ideas about identity intersectionality are attributed to a 1989 article by lawyer and legal scholar, Kimberlé Crenshaw. (https://philpapers.org/archive/CREDTI.pdf) Her conceptualization of intersectionality in 1989 specifically focused on how Black women experience overlapping or intersecting forms of discrimination, i.e., racism and sexism, which are based on multiple and interrelated identity dimensions. In addition, some ways of talking about identity reflect the idea that identity can change. People can start over, people reinvent themselves. There are second acts, and maybe third acts and fourth acts and.... Referring to gender as “fluid,” as in “gender fluidity,” reflects the assumption that gender is not a static identity dimension for all individuals.

How can we bolster efforts to overcome unidimensional and static thinking about identity? As always, systems theory provides a framework by starting with multidimensionality, connectedness, and dynamics, rather than with unidimensionality and stasis. And that is precisely how this Newsletter started and proceeded, and is now ending.

Some Questions to Think and Comment About

            What do you think? What interested you, what surprised you, what struck you?

            Who are you? How would you describe yourself?

            How have you changed, how have you stayed the same?

            What questions do you have about any of this?

Further Reading

Damon, W., & Hart, D. (1988). Self-understanding in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Harter, S. (2012). The construction of the self: Developmental and sociocultural foundations. New York: Guilford Press.