WHAT IS IDENTITY (AS WE NOW USE THE WORD)? James

by JD Fearon · 1999 · Cited by 909 — capture the word’s current meanings in everyday and social science contexts. same thing as my feelings about my self, character, goals, and origins, but rather

19 KB – 45 Pages

PAGE – 2 ============
ABSTRACTThepaperundertakesanordinarylanguageanalysisofthecurrentmeaningsof\iden-tity,”acomplicatedandunclearconceptthatnonethelessplaysacentralroleinongoingdebatesineveryofpoliticalscience(forexample,debatesaboutnational,ethnic,gender,andstateidentities).\Identity”aswenowknowitderivesmainlytheworkofpsy-chologistErikEriksoninthe1950s;dictionaryhavenotcaughtup,failingtocapturetheword’scurrentmeaningsineverydayandsocialsciencecontexts.Theanalysisyieldsthefollowingsummarystatement.Asweuseitnow,an\identity”refertoeither(a)asocialcategory,bymembershiprulesand(alleged)characteristicattributesorexpectedbehaviors,or(b)sociallydistinguishingfeaturesthatapersontakesaspecialprideinorviewsasunchangeablebutsociallyconsequential(or(a)and(b)atonce).Inthelattersense,\identity”ismodernformulationofdignity,pride,orhonorthatimplicitlylinksthesetosocialcategories.Thisstatementfromandismoreconcretethanstandardglossesbypoliticalscientists;Iargueinadditionthatitallowsustobetterunderstandhow\identity”canhelpexplainpoliticalactions,andthemeaningofclaimssuchas\identitiesaresociallyconstructed.”Finally,Iarguethatordinarylanguageanalysisisavaluableandperhapsessentialtoolintheofsocialscienceconceptsthathavestrongrootsineverdayspeech,averycommonoccurrence.

PAGE – 3 ============
1IntroductionInrecentyears,scholarsworkinginaremarkablearrayofsocialscienceandhumanitiesdisciplineshavetakenanintenseinterestinquestionsconcerningidentity.Withinpoliticalscience,forexample,wetheconceptof\identity”atthecenteroflivelydebatesineverymajorStudentsofAmericanpoliticshavedevotedmuchnewresearchtothe\identitypolitics”ofrace,genderandsexuality.Incomparativepolitics,\identity”playsacentralroleinworkonnationalismandethnic(Horowitz1985;Smith1991;Deng1995;Laitin1999).Ininternationalrelations,theideaof\stateidentity”isattheheartofconstructivistcritiquesofrealismandanalysesofstatesovereignty(Wendt1992;Wendt1999;Katzenstein1996;LapidandKratochwil1996;BierstekerandWeber1996).Andinpoliticaltheory,questionsof\identity”marknumerousargumentsongender,sexuality,nationality,ethnicity,andcultureinrelationtoliberalismanditsalternatives(Young1990;Connolly1991;Kymlicka1995;Miller1995;Taylor1989)Comparedtorecentscholarshipinhistoryandthehumanities,however,politicalsci-entistsremainlaggardswhenitcomestoworkonidentities.DuetorangingfromMichelFoucaulttothedebateonmulticulturalism,thehistoricalandculturalconstructionofidentitiesofallsortshaslatelybeenapreoccupationforbothsocialhistoriansandstudentsofliteratureandculture.1Despitethisvastlyincreasedandbroad-ranginginterestin\identity,”theconceptitselfremainssomethingofanenigma.WhatPhillipGleason(1983)observed15yearsagoremainstruetoday:Themeaningof\identity”aswecurrentlyuseitisnotwellcapturedby1SeeBrubakerandCooper(1999)forsomecitationstothisvoluminousliterature.Forameasureofthespreadof\identity”inacademicdiscourse,Ichartedtheprogressofthewordindissertationabstracts,whichcannowbesearchedon-linegoingbackto1981.Thenumberofdissertationabstractscontainingtheword\identity”almosttripledbetween1981and1995,risingfrom709to1,911.Thisincreasehasoccurredentirelyinthelasttenyears.Theaverageincreasewasabout12%peryearfor1986to1995,whileitwasroughlyat-2.3%for1981to1985.Someofthisincreasecouldbeduetoanincreaseinthetotalnumberofdissertationsabstracted.IhavebeenunabletogetthesebutIdidtrysearchingyear-by-yearforaneutral\controlword”{Iused\study”{togetaroughestimate.Bythismeasure,thetotalnumberofdissertationsabstractedincreasedbyanaverageof.64%peryearfor1981-1985,and4.4%peryearfor1986-1995.Thusthenumberofdissertationsabstractsusingtheword\identity”hasbeengrowingalmostthreetimesfasterthantherateforallabstracteddissertations.1

PAGE – 4 ============
dictionarywhicholdersensesoftheword.Ourpresentideaof\identity”isafairlyrecentsocialconstruct,andarathercomplicatedoneatthat.Eventhougheveryoneknowshowtousethewordproperlyineverydaydiscourse,itprovesquitetogiveashortandadequatesummarystatementthatcapturestherangeofitspresentmeanings.Giventhecentralityoftheconcepttosomuchrecentresearch{andespeciallyinsocialsciencewherescholarstakeidentitiesbothasthingstobeexplainedandthingsthathaveexplanatoryforce{thisamountsalmosttoascandal.Ataminimum,itwouldbeusefultohaveaconcisestatementofthemeaningofthewordinsimplelanguagethatdoesjusticetoitspresentintension.Thisisthemainpurposeofthispaper,todistillastatementofthemeaningof\iden-tity”fromananalysisofcurrentusageinordinarylanguageandsocialsciencediscourse.Themainresultsareeasilystated,althoughafairamountofworkonalternativepossibili-tieswillberequiredtoreachthem.Iarguethat\identity”ispresentlyusedintwolinkedsenses,whichmaybetermed\social”and\personal.”Intheformersense,an\identity”referssimplytoasocialcategory,asetofpersonsmarkedbyalabelanddistinguishedbyrulesdecidingmembershipand(alleged)characteristicfeaturesorattributes.Inthesecondsenseofpersonalidentity,anidentityissomedistinguishingcharacteristic(orcharacteris-tics)thatapersontakesaspecialprideinorviewsassociallyconsequentialbutmore-or-lessunchangeable.Thus,\identity”initspresentincarnationhasadoublesense.Itrefersatthesametimetosocialcategoriesandtothesourcesofanindividual’sself-respectordignity.Thereisnonecessarylinkagebetweenthesethings.Inordinarylanguage,atleast,onecanuse\identity”torefertopersonalcharacteristicsorattributesthatcannotnaturallybeexpressedintermsofasocialcategory,andinsomecontextscertaincategoriescanbedescribedas\identities”eventhoughnooneseesthemascentraltotheirpersonalidentity.Nonetheless,\identity”initspresentincarnationandevokestheideathatsocialcategoriesareboundupwiththebasesofanindividual’sself-respect.Arguablymuchoftheforceand2

PAGE – 5 ============
interestofthetermderivesitsimplicitlinkageofthesetwothings.2Insection2belowIjustifytheenterpriseatgreaterlength,arguingthatforcontested,complicated,orunclearsocialscienceconceptswithstrongrootsinordinarylanguage(i.e.,mostofthem),acarefulanalysisofordinarylanguagemeaningsshouldprecedetolegislateaforparticularresearchpurposes.Section3considerstheinadequacyofdictionaryof\identity”andverytracesthehistoricalevolutionofitsnewsetofmeanings.3Section4beginstoaskaboutthecurrentmeaningof\identity”bytestingpossibleagainstexamplesfromusage.Thetrailleadstotheformulationofaidentityasasocialcategory,and,insection6,toidentityasdistinguishingfeaturesofapersonthatformthebasisofhisorherself-respectordignity(andmore).Inbetween,section5developsapotentiallyvaluabledistinctionbetweenroleand\type”identities.Sections7and8drawoutsomeimplicationsoftheanalysisfortwoissuesofconcerntosocialscienceusersofconcept.Insection7Iusetheresultsoftheordinarylanguageanalysistoconsiderhowidentitiesbearontheexplanationofactions(politicalandotherwise).Insection8Iextendtheanalysisof\identity”appliedtoindividualstocorporateactorssuchasstatesandAcentralargumentinrecentinternationalrelationstheoryholdsthatstateinterestsaredeterminedby\stateidentities.”Themeaningofthisclaimobviouslydependsonthemeaning\stateidentities,”whichIarguemightrefertoanyofseveraltthings.Section9concludes.2Whybother?Giventheintenseinterestinidentityandidentitiesacrossabroadspectrumofdisciplines,onemightinitiallyexpectiteasytosimpleandclearstatementsofwhatpeoplemean2Theaddedvalueofthisstatementofthecurrentmeaningof\identity”isnotthedistinctionbetween\social”and\personal”sidesperse.Thereisalongtraditionofscholarsdrawingadistinctionofthissort,contrastingvariousformulationsofindividualorpersonalidentity,ontheonehand,andsocialorgrouporcollectiveidentityontheother.Whatisnovelintheformulationderivedhereisthespcontentofthetwosidesofthedistinction(whichcanbeandhasbeeninmanyways).3Foranexcellentandmoredetailedsemantichistoriesof\identity,”seeGleason(1983)andMackenzie(1978).3

PAGE – 6 ============
whentheyusetheseconcepts.WhileIhavenotdoneanexhaustivesearch,Ihavenotfoundthistobethecase.Overwhelmingly,academicusersoftheword\identity”feelnoneedtoexplainitsmeaningtoreaders.Thereaders’understandingissimplytakenforgranted,evenwhen\identity”istheauthor’sprimarydependentorindependentvariable.4Thisisperhapsnotsosurprising.Intheplace,whiletheoriginsofourpresentunderstandingof\identity”lieintheacademy,theconceptisnowquitecommoninpopulardiscourse.Sinceweallknowhowtoemploythewordandweunderstanditinotherpeoples’sentences,whybotherwithorexplanations?Second,inpopulardiscourseidentityisoftentreatedassomethingandevensacred,whileintheacademyidentityisoftentreatedassomethingcomplexandeven5Onehesitatestotrytothesacred,theorthecomplex.Ofcourse,onecanbriefandinmanyplaces.Theserunthegamut,fromsuggestiveglossestosomefairlycomplicatedandopaqueformulations.Herearesomeexamples,culledmainlybutnotexclusivelyfromtheareasIreadmostin(politicalscience,internationalrelations):1.Identityis\people’sconceptsofwhotheyare,ofwhatsortofpeopletheyare,andhowtheyrelatetoothers”(HoggandAbrams1988,2).2.\Identityisusedinthisbooktodescribethewayindividualsandgroupsthem-selvesandarebyothersonthebasisofrace,ethnicity,religion,language,andculture”(Deng1995,1).3.Identity\referstothewaysinwhichindividualsandcollectivitiesaredistinguishedintheirsocialrelationswithotherindividualsandcollectivities”(Jenkins1996,4).4.\Nationalidentitydescribesthatconditioninwhichamassofpeoplehavemadethesameidenwithnationalsymbols{haveinternalisedthesymbolsofthenation”(Bloom1990,52).5.Identitiesare\relativelystable,role-spunderstandingsandexpectationsaboutself”(Wendt1992,397).4See,forinstance,Calhoun(1991)orFox(1985),thoughanynumberofsimilarexamplescanbegiven.5Forastrikingexampleofthelatter,seeJames(1988)essay\IdentityinMashpee.”Likewise,CharlesTaylor,afterspendingseveralpagesofSourcesoftheSelf:TheMakingoftheModernIdentityexplainingwhathemeansby\identity,”writes:\Butinfactouridentityisdeeperandmoremany-sidedthananyofourpossiblearticulationsofit”(Taylor1989,29).4

PAGE – 8 ============
academy.tresearchtraditions{variouslybysymbolicinteractionism,roletheory,Eriksonianpsychology,socialidentitytheory,andpostmodernism,tonameafew{haveevolvedsomewhattconventionsregardingtheterm.Further,perhapssomeoftheseauthorsintendmerelytostipulateaof\identity”appropriateorusefulfortheirsppurposes,sosomevariationmightbeexpectedwithvaryingpur-poses.Nonetheless,itisalsostrikingthattheseemtorefertoacommonunderlyingconcept.Almosteveryoneevokesasenseofrecognition,sothatnoneseemsobviouslywrong,despitethediversity.Thisisalsotobeexpected,because\identity”hasforsometimenowbeenastapleofordinarylanguage.Regardlessofparticularresearchtraditionsorpurposes,itwouldbeverystrangetoaof\identity”thatborenorelationtowhatwealreadyintuitivelyunderstandbytheconcept.Thereisanimportantandmoregeneralpointtobemadehereabouttheofsocialscienceconcepts.Incontrasttomanyareasinthenaturalsciences,insocialsciencemostofourkeyconceptseitherderivefromorenterintoordinarylanguage.7Power,rationality,democracy,ethnicity,race,thestate,andevenpoliticsareexamples.Whenoneisnaminganentityinphysicsorbiochemistry,orforthetimeatechnicaltermorneologismlike\subgameperfection,”\bureaucraticauthoritarianism,”or\postmodernism,”itmakesperfectsensetostipulatethemeaningafterthemannerofHumptyDumpty.8Indeed,thereisnoalternativeinthiscase.Butwhenatermhasstrongrootsinordinarylanguage,itispotentiallyveryconfusingtostipulateawithoutpayinganyexplicitattentiontotheprior,ordinarylanguagemeaningofterm.SupposeIstipulatethat,henceforth,by\table”Imean\chair,”andvice-versa.Inadditiontobeingunnecessary,thiswouldrightlybeconsideredaninvitationtoconfusion.Thereisastrongercaseforstipulatingaforsocialscienceconceptssuchaspoweroridentity,whereitislessinitiallyclearwhattheordinarylanguageversionmeans.But7Typically,theymovebackandforth;seethediscussionof\identity”‘shistorybelow.8\WhenIuseaword,itmeansjustwhatIchooseittomean{neithermorenorless”(Carroll1992,124).6

PAGE – 9 ============
doingsostillrisksseriousconfusiontotheextentthatthestipulateddivergesfromthereaders’unarticulatedpriorunderstanding.Andthereisnowaytoguagethiswithoutexplicatingthemeaningincurrentusage.Intheend,socialscientistsmayoftenitnecessarytoandordinarylanguagemeanings.Butwithoutaclearstatementofthepriormeaning,eventhestipulatorwillnotknowwhatsheisdoingwiththeconcept.9Anotherargumentforexplicatingcurrentusageisthatthemethodcanyieldadeeperunderstandingofcontestedandunclearconceptslike\identity.”Theintuitionsbehindordi-narylanguagemeaningsoftenhavemuchinterestingstructure,whichislikelytobemissedifwejumptostipulatingIntheiranalysesoftheconceptof\identity,”bothGlea-son(1983)andBrubakerandCooper(1999)concludethatthewholesale,chaoticspreadof\identitytalk”inpopularandacademiclanguagehasdepriveditofanymeaningatall.10QuotingA.O.Lovejoyontheword\romantic”,Gleasonsaysthat\identity”has\cometomeansomanythingsthat,byitself,itmeansnothing.Ithasceasedtoperformthefunctionofaverbalsign”(p.914).BrubakerandCooperbelievethatthetermhasacquiredsomanycontradictorymeaningsandusesinsociologythatitshouldbepurgedinfavorofmorespterms.IwillargueBrubakerandCooperandGleasonaregivinguptoosoononbothpopularand\popularacademic”usage.3Theconstructionof\identity”Ifinneedofaonelookstodictionaries.Hereisthemostrelevantentryfor\identity”intheOED(2ndedition,1989):\Thesamenessofapersonorthingatalltimesorinallcircumstances;theconditionorfactthatapersonorthingisitselfandnotsomethingelse;individuality,personality.”Notethatthisdoesnoteasilycapturewhatweseemtomean9Oneexampleoftheconfusionthatcanresultfrominattentiontoordinarylanguagemeaningscomesfromtheuseof\rational”inrational-cpoliticalscienceapplications,whereithasbeenpopulartoarguethatcontrarytoconventionalwisdom,phenomenonX(war,genocide,ethnicviolence,etc.)canbeexplainedastheproductofrationalactorsmakingchoices.Butthemeaningof\rational”inrationalchoicetheoryconcernsprimarilytheofmeansforattainingdesiredends,whereasinordinarylanguage\rational”alsoreferstowhetheraperson’sendsarecomprehensibleorevenmorallydefensible.10SeealsoMackenzie(1978),whoseinitialdismayattheproliferationofidentitytalkinthe1970sBritainleadshimtospeakofthe\murder”oftheconcept.7

PAGE – 10 ============
whenwereferto\nationalidentity”or\ethnicidentity,”forexample.Isnationalidentitythesamenessofanationinalltimesandplaces,ortheconditionofbeingthisnationandnotanother?Certainlytheideaofnationalidentityentailsanideaoftemporalandspatialcontinuityofanation,butthisisn’twhatanessayonthenationalidentityoftheRussians(forexample)wouldbefocusedon.Norisnationalidentitythefactorconditionofbeingtfromothernations,butrathersomethingaboutthecontentoftheThedictionaryalsofailstocapturewhatweintendbydeclarationsoftheform\myidentityis[suchandsuch]”,although\individuality”maycomeclosehere(\personality”isclearlyway).MosttellingisthecomparisonbetweentheOEDandthesocialscientist’slistedabove.Whilethereisconsiderableoverlapamongsocialscientist’sthereisalmostnonewiththedictionarymeaning.Animportantpointfollows:Ourpresentconceptof\identity”isrecent,oratleastrecentenoughthatdictionarieshavenotcaughtupwithcurrentusage.TheOEDisreportinganoldermeaningofthewordthatisstillusedquitefrequentlyineverydayspeechbutisnonethelessnarrowerthanourpresentconceptofidentity.Inthisoldersense,\identity”referstothe(oftenlegal)associationofaparticularnametoaparticularperson{thequalityofbeingaparticularperson,orthesamepersonasbefore,asin\sherevealedtheidentityofthemurderer”or\acaseofmistakenidentity.”Thisusageisstillverymuchwithus.11Forexample,thereisaminorgenreofnewspaperarticlesaboutthetheftofcreditandotheridencardsthatrefersto\stolenidentities.”12Butnotethatthisisaquitetsensefromwhatwemeanwhenwesay\Ican’tdothatbecauseitisinconsistentwithmyidentity”orclaimthat\Ethnicareparticularlypronetoviolencebecausetheyinvolvemattersofidentity.”11Mackenzie(1978,25)callsthisthe\bureaucraticusage.”12Laitin(1998)identhisgenreinananalysisofusagebasedonaNexis-Lexissearch.Hereportsthefollowinginstance,fromUSAToday:\AuthoritieshavechargedJanetzke,40,ofStreamwoodwithwhatamountstothetheftofanotherperson’sidentity.Policesayheusedthenameandcredithistoryofa35-year-oldtruckerfromWoodDaleandeventookoutatelephonenumberinhisname.`Hejusttookawaymyhusband’sidentity,’thetruckdriver’swifesaid.`It’sjustabigmess.'”Inmyownrandomsampleof40usesof\identity”inmajorEnglishnewspapersidenbyNexis-Lexis,Ifoundthatabout40%thedictionary,\mistakenidentity”sense.8

PAGE – 11 ============
Thereisasecondoldermeaningof\identity”thatneednotapplytopersonsandthatisalsostillinuse{forexample,\anidentityofinterests.”ThissenseisintheOEDasfollows:\Thequalityorconditionofbeingthesameinsubstance,composition,nature,properties,orinparticularqualitiesunderconsideration.”TheOEDgivesaninterestingexamplehere.InSouthAfricafairlyrecently,thewordwasusedasalabelforapolicythatrefusedtoacknowledgeanybetweenAfricansandEuropeans{the\policyofidentity.”Aslateas1960,itwassaidthat\theearlierBritishpolicyofidentitybrokedown.”Notehowcontrarythisistothecurrentsense,whichwouldmuchmorelikelyequatea\policyofidentity”withonethatfosteredorstrengthenedculturalenceandawarenessofit,perhapsinapositiveway.AsGleason(1983)shows,ourpresentsenseof\identity”hasevolvedinthelastfortyyears,derivingmostofallfrompsychoanalystErikErikson’sconceptofan\identitycrisis.”Thefollowingexcerptfromtheprefacetoa1965bookbythepsychoanalystDaviddeLevitagivessomeindicationofthenoveltyofErikson’susage.InHiddesen,acharminglittleGermantown,ameetingwasheldin1951todiscuss`HealthandHumanRelations,’sponsoredjointlyby.AtthatconferenceErikH.Eriksonspokeon`TheSenseofInnerIdentity.’IwasdeeplyimpressedbyEriksonandtheexpositionofhisbrilliantideas.Weallfeltthatthis`conceptofidentity’wasextremelyimportant,butitwasnotclearwhattheexactmeaningwas,soloadedwithancewasthenewterm.13Erikson’sterm\identitycrisis”hasmadeitintodictionaries,andisinoneasfollows:\theconditionofbeinguncertainofone’sfeelingsaboutoneself,especiallywithregardtocharacter,goals,andorigins,occuringespeciallyinadolesenceasaresultofgrowing13deLevita1965,emphasisadded.TheprefacewaswrittenbyH.C.Rumke,M.D.ForErikson’sowndiscussionofthehistoryofthenewsenseoftheterm{whichherecognizedasaconceptualinnovationappropriatedbypopularculture{seeErikson(1968,15-25).TheclosestEriksoncomesheretohisunderstandingoftheconceptof\identity”isthiscomplexformulation:\identityformationemploysaprocessofsimultaneousandobservation,takingplaceonalllevelsofmentalfunctioning,bywhichtheindividualjudgeshimselfinlightofwhatheperceivestobethewayinwhichothersjudgehimincomparisontothemselvesandtoatypologyttothem;whilehejudgestheirwayofjudginghiminlightofhowheperceiveshimselfincomparisontothemandtotypesthathavebecomerelevanttohim.”9

19 KB – 45 Pages