Some More Identity Complexity
August 1, 2022 Why do people identify the way they do? This newsletter is about how identity involves individual, social, cultural, bodily, and environmental processes.
Hello It’s Complex Readers,
How did it get to be August!? I hope all is well and that you are not too overwhelmed by complexity. This week’s newsletter builds on the previous identity newsletter with yet more identity complexity. We will grapple with how identity involves individual, social, cultural, bodily, and environmental processes. If you missed the previous identity newsletter or want to read it again, here it is:
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: Some More Identity Complexity
In the first identity newsletter, we considered identity in general from a systems perspective in terms of multidimensionality, interrelatedness, and dynamics. Thinking about identity more specifically takes us back to the issue of why people do what they do, as discussed in the newsletter:
Why do people identify the way they do? Where does identity come from? What constitutes or contributes to human identity construction? Insofar as constructing identity is a complex activity that people do, it is constituted by the same multiple, interrelated, and dynamic processes that constitute anything people do—individual, social, cultural, bodily, and environmental processes. We can get into these processes one by one and focus on one process at a time, but it will be impossible to avoid pointing out connections among them because they are interrelated aspects of a wider systemic whole—in this case constructing identity.
Multiple and Interrelated Individual, Social, Cultural, Bodily, and Environmental Processes
Individual processes constitute identity construction in multiple ways. Individual processes constitute identity construction because it is individuals who subjectively experience their own lives and construct who they are. Individual processes are involved when a person explicitly thinks about and actively chooses ways of constructing who they are. It is individuals who experience and make sense of how they are continuous and changing over time. It is individuals who tell stories or narratives about themselves to themselves and to others. Individual processes further include how a person reflects upon and judges themselves. In many cultures, adolescence and emerging adulthood are characterized as life-phases for constructing who one is by experimenting with and evaluating varied identity options, and it is individuals who experiment and evaluate.
Social processes constitute identity construction in multiple ways. People construct who they are in relation to others, and thus others contribute to anyone’s identity construction, both directly and indirectly. Going back to the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century philosophy of American Pragmatism, we find a tradition of understanding identity socially. According to George Herbert Mead (1934/1962), a person constructs who they are and also experiences self-consciousness by taking the attitudes of others and turning those attitudes on themselves. In doing so, a person is constructing who they are in terms of what they think others think, thus pointing to connections between individual and social processes. Do you ever think about yourself by thinking about what others think of you? Or, what you thnk others think of you? Can you recall times when you felt particularly “self-conscious?” Were others there? Were others contributing to how you viewed yourself? These ways of constructing oneself socially can occur during direct interaction with others, as well as when we are alone and thinking about ourselves in relation to others who are not immediately present. According to Mead, constructing oneself also involves viewing oneself in terms of generalized or wider cultural attitudes, thus pointing to connections among individual and cultural processes.
Also, if people identify who they are in terms of social roles and relationships, then social processes partly constitute identity construction. If people construct their identities by expressing who they are to others, then social processes also partly constitute identity construction. As people tell stories about themselves to others, others end up contributing (sometimes inadvertently) to how identity stories are told. Audience matters! Although individual adolescents and emerging adults go through identity experimentation and evaluation in their own ways, they may do so with others and they can benefit from support from others. As such, we have more examples of how social and individual processes inseparably constitute identity construction.
Identity construction also involves social processes as others define someone in terms of particular identity dimensions. In other words, not only do people construct identity by identifying themselves in relation to others, but they are also identified BY others. Being identified by others can occur indirectly, such as when political pundits declare that people of one or another identity category vote one way or another way. Being identified by others can also occur directly when, for example, someone makes explicit claims about a person to their face, as in, “You’re an X.” As infants, people are defined by others before they define themselves. Do you know some parents who identify their babies as happy, or as shy, or as smart before they can even say those words? Parents identify their children when they name them. Some parents identify a child in relation to someone else or as part of a family tradition by giving them an ancestor’s name. My parents told people that they named me Catherine and my sister Anne because they are “international” names and can be found in many languages. In doing so, they were identifying us as people of the world beyond the US. But as Anne and I grew up, we pointed out that although there are versions of our names in some European languages, they are not widely international. Our parents shrugged and did not find that problematic because they identified with European cultural traditions.
People can resist being identified by others because being identified by others does not fall on deaf ears. And so we come back to interrelated social and individual processes. A person can accept, resist, and/or reject how others identify them, thereby constructing who they are. Think of times you have agreed with how someone identifies you; think of times you have disagreed. Examples abound, from rejecting identifying fat people negatively as lazy or self-indulgent, to claiming that a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle. Sometimes, a group rejects or resists how others identify them, pointing to how multiple social processes can shape identity construction at the same time. In this case, we see three social processes: 1. being identified by others, 2. engaging with others to resist being identified by others, and 3. identifying with a group.
Cultural processes constitute identity construction in multiple ways, as people construct who they are in relation to cultural beliefs and values. In different cultures, what counts as acceptable or appropriate ways to construct oneself may be different, and different identities may be differentially valued and promoted in different cultures. For example, job/career is a major aspect of identity for some people in some cultures and different jobs or careers may be differentially valued or promoted in different cultures. Cultural processes also include cultural opportunities for identity exploration. In some cultures, the very idea of reflecting upon who one is and experimenting with different identity alternatives may not be much of an option if people are expected to construct themselves in terms of traditional values and practices. It is also not much of an option for people who do not see, have access to, or even know about different identity alternatives.
Cultural processes further include the structuring of wider societal processes. We can think about how identity is culturally constituted as people are identified within institutional practices, through public policies and laws, and in terms of the structuring of power relations. For example, structural or institutional racism refers to how people of color are negatively identified through institutional practices and policies, such as racial profiling by the police, not being given bank loans, or not having consistent access to healthcare. However, such identity practices do not fall on deaf ears, taking us to individual and social processes. For example, claiming that “Black lives matter” is a way for people to individually and socially resist being identified by others negatively through long-standing racist institutional practices and public policies. In August 2016, American football player, Colin Kaepernick, refused to stand for the national anthem, as is the custom at American sporting events. Instead, he knelt on bended knee. In an interview with NFL Media, he explained: “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/sports/football/colin-kaepernick-national-anthem-49ers-stand.html)
By taking a knee, Kaepernick was resisting being identified by American public policies and practices that reflect centuries-old racist meanings. He resisted a cultural history of being identified by others and expressed his identity as he saw fit. At the same time, taking a knee also reflects American cultural beliefs and values about equality and inclusion. This example points to an interplay between resisting some cultural values and endorsing others, as well as an interplay between individual, social, bodily, and cultural processes.
At this juncture, I am reminded of a New York Times op-ed, entitled “McDonald’s Workers in Denmark Pity Us.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/opinion/sunday/us-denmark-economy.html McDonald’s employees in Denmark are paid well (starting at $22/hour), receive benefits, and are culturally valued as workers and people. As such, they seem to be socially and culturally identified very differently than McDonald’s employees in the US. How ironic, sad, and frustrating that McDonald’s is such an iconic symbol of American culture, yet McDonald’s employees are identified more respectfully and appreciatively outside the United States.
Bodily processes constitute identity construction in multiple ways as people describe who they are in terms of physical characteristics. In addition, people express identity bodily, from body-piercing and tattoos, to putting or not putting on makeup, to ashes on the forehead, to clothing. Dancers express their identities as dancers through their bodies. People can express group identity in varied bodily ways, such as by shaking hands in particular ways, taking a knee, or by wearing group garb. Injuring a particular body part can potentially alter how someone constructs who they are. People may construct who they are and experience themselves in different ways throughout the lifespan as their bodies change.
Environmental processes constitute identity construction in multiple ways. For example, some people identify with particular pieces of land. It could be land that they themselves own or it could be land that belongs to an identified group. Throughout history, people have fought and died to maintain and reclaim the land with which they identify. Physical environmental processes can also contribute to identity construction by providing opportunities for some identities rather than others. For example, if there is no place to swim, it is unlikely that someone will identify as a swimmer. Of course, the person may see swimming on television or the internet and become intrigued. They may travel to an ocean or river and jump in. Or, they may find a swimming pool and jump in. The point is that different physical environments afford different opportunities for constructing identity.
Dynamic Individual, Social, Cultural, Bodily, and Environmental Processes
As explained in the first newsletter about identity, constructing identity is dynamic, meaning that it is an ongoing process that involves both stability and variability. Identity construction is dynamic partly because the processes that constitute it are themselves dynamic processes that can be played out in varied ways. Thus, as individual, social, cultural, bodily, and environmental processes are played out in varied and sometimes changing ways, identity construction can be varied and changing. Take social processes, for example. A person may change how they identify who they are in relation to engaging with new people in new situations. How about cultural change? Changing cultural meanings regarding gender provide opportunities for people to identify themselves as non-binary, bigender, or transgender. At the same time, from a systems perspective, we must be mindful of bidirectional influences. Cultural changes can shape identity construction, but as individuals construct and express identity in new ways, they can contribute to changing cultural conceptions of identity. With regard to gender, cultural ideas about gender changed partly because individuals identified as non-binary, bigender, or transgender.
So, when thinking about identity or if you are trying to understand why a person identifies as they do, think about multiple, interrelated, and dynamic individual, social, cultural, bodily, and environmental processes. Think about how these processes have been and are structured or played out for particular people. You could also discern how these processes have been played out over stretches of a person’s lifetime, including how they have changed. You could think about how the person could identify differently in the future if the structuring of these processes changes for them in some ways. I again readily recognize that it may be difficult and time consuming to think about individual, social, cultural, bodily, and environmental processes. But doing so befits the complexities of human identity construction. It is so worth it!
Some Questions to Think and Comment About
What do you think? What interested you, what surprised you, what struck you?
How have individual, social, cultural, bodily, and environmental processes contributed to your identity?
Think about people you know and how their identity involves individual, social, cultural, bodily, and environmental processes.
How do you think your identity or someone else’s identity has changed in relation to the dynamics of individual, social, cultural, bodily, and/or environmental processes
What questions do you have about any of this?
Non-Electronic References
Mead, G. H. (1934/1962). Mind, self, & society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.