Who am I? - The question of choosing one's identity

Today I stumbled over an essay I wrote in May 2000 in preparation for my dissertation (which was on "Identity and international business negotiation" - IBN are a bit boring on their own so the identity concept was supposed to make it a bit more interesting).

I can remember I was dreadfully interested in the "concept" of identity and got completely sucked into it. It continued for a while after that, but then going off and joining the rat-race(s) and kinda forgetting about these kind of issues and questions.

With looking at what is happening now, with following the thoughts of all fellow Evolvers, with looking at the establishment of social movements and thereof...and now stumbling over these thoughts from back then again. I think it is time to take up the "issue" again. And pose the question again: "Who am I?"

Find below the (rather long) essay.

Abstract

This essay looks at influences on the achievement and maintenance of a person’s social identity. First, a number of identities will be introduced: social identity – connected to self-categorisation theory; place identity; ethnic/national identity. The main ideas revolving around these concepts, and their influences upon individuals’ quest for identity, will be shown. This then offers the possibility to provide a more comprehensive view of cultural identity, as a specific form of social identity. By looking at cultural identity, interconnections between the various identities will be established, which is hoped to provide the reader with a more comprehensive view of the concept of identity.

Introduction

In today’s world, with the increase in communication, wealth, power, and interactions, a concept that seems to obtain increasing interest is identity. This can either take the form of individual or collective identity, and the search for either one seems to become central to social meaning. The changes of today result often in the disconnection of the self from society (Castells, 1996), resulting in an individual’s uncertainty within oneself. This uncertainty can be overcome by acquiring positive social identity – as a sense of belonging. Furthermore, it seems that in a time where there are more options given for identity, where diversity in identity is being tolerated and more changes in identity take place, the question of ‘who am I?’, related to ‘who are we?’ and ‘who are they?’, becomes important – to individuals as well as to collectives (Tajfel and Turner 1986, Hogg and Terry 2000, Pratt & Foreman 2000, Gioia et al 2000, Schwartz 2000).

The question of identity has lately been given particular attention within the organisational context. Albert et al (2000) state that multiple (social) identities exist within organisations, due to multiple groups or collectives within an organisation. This leaves the individuals within an organisation with a large choice of identities, and the management with the task to manage these multiple identities effectively keeping the overall organisational identity in mind.

Nevertheless, it needs to be stated that the choice of a social identity is influenced by a number of other identities, as will be shown throughout this essay. Therefore, in order to come to an answer to the question of ‘who am I?’(referring to social identity) the questions of ‘where am I?’ (referring to place-identity, Dixon and Durrheim 2000) and ‘what am I?’ (referring to ethnic/national identity, Smith 1995) as well as ‘what to do’ (Bazerman et al, 1998) need to be looked in more detail as they play an important role in achieving and maintaining one’s social identity.

Membership vs. Reference Group

Turner (1991) distinguishes between membership and reference groups, as well as between acceptance of and compliance to social norms. These distinct notions are important in explaining social influence and following this, how people deal with the choice for their social identity.

“A membership group is one that a person is in by some objective criterion” (ibid. p. 5) However, the group is not important to the individual on the basis of attitudes and behaviour. A reference group is one, which an individual sees as important in regards to attitudes and behaviour. In other words, it has a more psychological significance for the individual. A distinction has to be made between positive and negative reference group. An individual will want to belong to a positive reference group, as identification and involvement with the group’s characteristics and attributes is important to the individual. A negative reference group, on the other hand, will be dismissed; i.e. it will be sought not to identify oneself with this group, but rather to distinguish oneself from it. It could be said that the positive reference group is the ‘in-group’ an individual wants to belong to and identify with, whereas the negative reference group is the ‘out-group’, the one the individual wants to difference from.

The social norms within a positive reference group will be accepted by the individual, as they are being identified with and are aspired to follow. The social identification with one’s membership group, and the self-categorisation into this group, will be stronger if it also is the positive reference group. When the individual does not accept the social norms of the membership group (this is especially the case if it is also a negative reference group), they will only be compliance to norms.

Depending on the nature of the membership group and the criteria by which one is a member, the individual might find it difficult to move into another membership group – either at all, or at least for a certain period of time. For example, membership based on sex, or skin colour is impossible to change, whereas membership due to martial status could be changed.

Keeping the differences between these notions in mind, a better understanding can be obtained of what a psychological important in-group would be for an individual, and what actions might be taken by the individual. Linking this to the theory of social identity and self-categorisation, it can be said that the focus is given to positive reference groups. Individuals will only find positive social identity and will be able to self-categorise themselves positively into the in-group, if it is a positive reference group for them.

Social Identity

Tajfel (1972) defined social identity as “the individual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him of this group membership” (cf. Hogg and Terry 2000, p.122). This provides a basis in order to see how the self is conceptualised, meaning that through this knowledge individuals can conceptualise their own place in society. In other words, establishing and recognising the social identity can help individuals to realise ‘who they are’. However, the knowledge about the belonging is not enough in order to establish social identity. There are a variety of social groups existing within the social environment and the individual is confronted with a big choice. As stated above, some groups can be chosen, others not, some are being aspired to belong to and others will be discarded. Therefore, the question ‘who am I?’ is connected to the question of ‘which group do I (want to) belong to?’ In order to come to answers a process of categorising the environment into distinct social groups is required, and these groups then provide a “system of orientation for self-reference” (Tajfel and Turner, 1986).

The theory of self-categorisation considers all these elements. Furthermore, it introduces the notion of a ‘prototype’. The prototype is a production by the group that characterises the group; i.e. it possesses all the attributes that are important for the group in order to be distinguished from other groups in a positive way. Therefore, the intra-group similarities, as well as the inter-group differences, are being enhanced. The role of the prototype within self-categorisation theory is that it helps to categorise individuals into the in-group or out-group depending on how similar they are perceived, and perceive themselves, to be to the prototype. Through the use of prototypes, self-categorisation is not personalised, but rather influenced by the group and its prototype – self-perception and behaviour are brought in line with what is seen as relevant for the group membership (Hogg and Terry, 2000) and not with what is only relevant for the individual’s personal identity. In other words, individuals will tend to conceptualise themselves and their place in society according to the prototype of the group they (want to) belong to. The emphasis here is given to the social identity, produced via group and prototype, and this will be stronger when the personal identity of the individual becomes less important (as it might have already been achieved through social identity).

It is also important to look at some motivational aspects that influence the acquisition of social identity. First of all, individuals want to achieve and maintain positive self-identities that enhance their self-esteem and make them feel good. Furthermore, there is the need for uncertainty reduction. This means that when individuals are uncertain about themselves and their self-concept, or find themselves in uncertain situations, the self-categorisation into in-groups and assimilating themselves to the prototype can reduce uncertainty (Hogg and Terry, 2000). Whereas the first point implies that individuals will only categorise themselves into groups they feel can enhance their self-esteem, the second point is not this clear about creating and achieving a positive self-identity by group belonging. One could even suggest that individuals that are uncertain about themselves seek to belong to a group, regardless of whether a positive self-identity could be achieved; the wish to ‘belong’ is stressed.

Not only how the individual categorises into groups is important, but also how social groups differentiate themselves from each other within the social environment. It needs to be established that “in-groups do not compare themselves with every cognitively available out-group” (Tajfel and Turner 1986, p. 16). It is important that the out-group, with which the comparison is being made and the differences are being enhanced by positive social identification of the in-group, has relevance to the in-group. Furthermore, “the social situation must be such as to allow for intergroup comparisons” (ibid.), meaning that there must be characteristics on which the various groups can position themselves from each other, and these characteristics must be relevant for distinction in the specific social environment. For example, characteristics like skin colour, religion or language have different relevance for in-group/out-group distinction in different settings.

This essay will look at cultural identity in more detail, as a specific form of social identity. Beforehand, additional influences upon the decision process within the individual for self-categorisation need to be established: place-identity and ethnic/national identity.

Place Identity

The influence of places upon identity has been brought to life by Dixon and Durrheim (2000) in a dynamic view where places are seen as being “both, socially constituted and constitutive of the social” (p. 27). In place-identity literature the point is being made that questions of ‘who we are’ are related to the questions of ‘where we are’. Therefore, the territory, the actual place can influence the way of how individuals see themselves – their personal, but in particular, social identity. It can be seen that many social categories, like ethnicity and nation, are related to the notion of place. For many, place-identity is something that is being established in the mind – is cognitively constructed within a person, due to the memories, feelings, and beliefs that an individual has with a certain place. This implies that each individual holds their own place-identities, and that sharing of those with others is somehow complicated.

Nevertheless, “places may become significant and contested arenas of collective being and belonging” (op cit., p. 30). When keeping the dynamic view in mind, this then would happen through a shared social identity. Here, a further view on how place-identities are being shaped comes into play. Dixon and Durrheim (2000) focused their attention on the dislocation of place identity – from the “inside” (the mind) to the “outside” (conversation). When this happens, place-identity is being created together by people, through the means of conversation, and language becomes an important element in the process. Nations can be seen as such territories, places that influence the construction of place-identity as well as social identity. However, it has to be acknowledged that place-identity can be established at different levels, and therefore to say that a nation (defined by its borders) as a whole has one identity has to be handled with care.

Ethnic/National Identity

As the terms of nation and ethnic community, or even ethnic category, are often used interchangeably, I try to show that, as Smith (1995) points out, there are significant differences between these concepts. This is important in order to realise the interconnectedness between social (specifically cultural) identity, place identity and ethnic/national identity.

An ethnic community is “characterized by a sense of origin, a sense of distinctness and a sense of place” (ibid., p. 132). An ethnic category, on the other hand, is “a historic group on the basis of one or more shared cultural characteristics” (ibid.) as seen by others. In other words, several ethnic categories can exist within an ethnic community (e.g. ethno-linguistic, ethno-religious, and ethno-political). When looking at the concept of nation, it can be said that nations and ethnic communities share some features, like historical memories, myths, and cultural characteristics. However, nations differ in the following respects: “there is more than only an association with a historic territory or homeland; there is a common economy, a shared mass education-based culture and common legal rights and duties for all members” (ibid., p. 135). Here it is to say that several ethnic communities can exist within a nation.

The question arises whether individuals have to choose between these categories in order to find their sense of identity based on ethnicity or nationality. An answer to this will also give an insight into how cultural identity (the social extension of place and ethnic/national identity) can be defined and understood. I believe that when a national identity is based on a collectively shared ethnic identity no choice needs to be made and cultural identity can be used synonymously for both. However, not every nations (defined as above) only consists of one ethnic community. Therefore, individuals will see themselves confronted with the choice for categorisation on the basis of ethnic or national identity. Furthermore, this means that then no common cultural identity may exists – it could take two, or more, forms established on different levels. The decision people make is influenced by what is seen as reference group and what is seen as membership group, as well as by the possibility of moving to other groups. Furthermore, as with any other decision on identity, an individual’s personal characteristics, beliefs, attitudes and behaviour – the personal identity – influence what choice will be made.

Cultural Identity

Cultural identity is a specific kind of social identity. It is the identity an individual perceives when sharing a culture’s characteristics and being similar to a culture’s prototype. However, cultural identity is more than only group/social identity – it also involves place-identity as well as ethnic/national identity.

As with most forms of identity, cultural identity has also been brought to the individual level. It has to be pointed out, though, that culture is a social construct – composed, shared and manifested by the collective; it is a collective identity. Therefore, “one cannot read off the probable actions or dispositions of individual members” from culture, “only the kinds of context and constraints within which they operate” (Smith 1995, p. 130). However when social identity and self-conceptualisation theory is linked into this, the dynamics and interplay between collective and individual might be able to be established. It needs to be kept in mind, that when we speak of an individual’s cultural identity, this is being formulated in a collective, social environment. The personal characteristics and attributes may influence how the individual perceives his/her cultural identity, due to his/her perceived similarity to the culture’s prototype, along with the group form the culture takes (either membership or reference group). This leads to say that cultural identity seems to be of particular importance for an individual to find his/her place in society. However, the many influences upon cultural identity, and relatedness to other identities, results into a very complex negotiation process within an individual in order to realise who one is; i.e. what one’s place in society is.

As it is fairly impossible to know for sure how people acquire their cultural identity, how the process of self-categorisation is being realised, and whether a clear and satisfying answer to the question 'who am I?’ can be established, this essay will not provide a description of the process, but rather show the influences and possibilities that need to be considered. Furthermore, it has to be noted that the question of identity also influences the answer to the query of how to behave. It is hoped that the reader can get a better understanding of their own negotiation processes in acquiring their cultural identity, as well as an insight into how others may negotiate within them, and what influences this might have upon people’s behaviour.

Cultural identity as a form of social identity
As culture is a social construct, the rules that apply to the establishment of social identity also effect cultural identity. There is a cultural prototype and the self-categorisation of individuals happens along the lines of that. The behaviour, and attitudes, etc. of individuals are being assimilated to the prototypical. This may sound easy to achieve; nevertheless the form that a ‘cultural group’ takes can have significant effects of how the individual perceives the belonging to that group. Culture is a membership group, meaning that due to one or more criteria (e.g. shared territory, shared history) people belong to a culture. Therefore, there will be compliance to the social – i.e. cultural – norms amongst members. The question that is of importance, however, is whether the cultural group is perceived as positive or negative reference group. As stated above, membership of a positive reference group leads to acceptance of social norms. It follows, that if an individual aspires to belong to a culture, and also privately shares the beliefs, values and attitudes (personal and social identity are linked), then the cultural prototype is being accepted, and behaviour will be aligned. An individual will then be able to achieve a positive social identity, being able to positively categorise him/herself into the culture, and difference him/herself from other cultures. When culture forms a negative reference group, on the other hand, individuals will not accept but rather comply with the cultural norms. Through this, individuals may not feel true belonging to the culture, and uncertainty about one’s social identity could be the result. Furthermore, the behaviour of individuals might not be completely brought in line with the cultural standards.

When looking at the possibilities for behaviour, the notions of acceptance and compliance could be brought into connection with the “want self” and the “should self” as established by Bazerman et al (2000). These authors argue that there are “internal inconsistencies that exist when what people want to do is in disagreement with what they think they should do” (p. 225). Although Bazerman et al (2000) link this to general decision making with a set of multiple choices, it can also be connected to choices in identities and resulting behaviour. As the want self refers to “emotional or affective preference of the decision maker”, this could be brought in line with acceptance of cultural norms. Here the personal identity of an individual is positively connected to the cultural identity and it could be argued that what should be done (according to the norms) an individual also wants to do. Compliance on the other hand would correspond with the should self, meaning that a “cognitive and reasoned preference of the decision maker” influences how cultural norms are being dealt with. In other words, when individuals accept cultural norms they will want to behave according to them, whereas when individuals only comply to cultural norms, even though they don’t want to, they know that they should behave according to them.

Place-identity effects upon cultural identity
Segall, Lanner and Berry (1998) point out, that “we know about many ways in which people in different parts of the world, and people in the same part but who have come from other parts, differ from each other in their approach to life”. This statement could be related to place-identity. The places where people are influences their sense of identity. Additionally, the concept defensive differentiation as explained by Dixon and Durrheim (2000) – i.e. that by maintaining positive in-place distinctiveness one can show a positive in-group identity – can also be turned around. This then can provide us with an understanding on how place-identity might influence people’s behaviour, and the way they are perceived. For example, two individuals from different places meet. One of them, or sometimes both, have to give up their place. This could result in further confirming one’s in-group identity, as the feeling of being foreign at some foreign place might strengthen one’s in-group identity, or at least the need to show it. To make this clearer an international negotiation situation could be looked at. Through this, the interplay between place-identity and cultural identity can also be illustrated.

Let us assume that an individual from country A meets an individual from country B in country C. Both have to give up their place. Furthermore, it is assumed that culture A is different from culture B, and both individuals see their own culture as their in-group, i.e. they possess a positive cultural identity. The external environment – country C – differs to each individual’s country and creates an uncertainty within them of how to behave. As stated above, an uncertain situation can influence the self-categorisation into, and stronger identification with, a social group. I believe that when people are disconnected from the place that gives them a feeling of identity, i.e. belonging, they will enhance their in-group identity. In the example of international negotiations this would mean that although both individuals know of their different cultures, and might want to accommodate each other and consider their possible cultural differences in behaviour in order to achieve a positive outcome of the negotiation, because of the non-identification with the foreign place (i.e. country C) the concern of each individual with his/her cultural identity might become more important than the negotiation outcome. This could be demonstrated, for example, by insisting on some cultural characteristics that might not even be that predominant or even prototypical, however with which one can differentiate oneself from the opposite.

On which level does cultural identity exist?
One could say that national identity is a legitimisation of cultural identity. These two terms are often used synonymously. This is not surprising when looking at the process of how cultural identity is often established via national identity and vice versa. Let me elaborate on this point. Being born within a nation’s borders, one receives one’s nationality – this means being a member of this particular nation by the criteria of birthplace, achieving national identity in the widest sense. When cultural and national identity are used interchangeably in this respect, no consideration to possible differences in ethnic identities is given. The cultural majority within a nation is being reflected in national identity. Therefore, when being confronted with an individual from a certain nation, this individual is generally seen as a representative of that nation and of the majority’s cultural identity. However, by looking at an example, and possible questions that can arise, I want to show that nothing might be as straight forward as it seems to be. A person born and raised in the U.S. would be considered by many to be American (in the simplest definition), nationally and culturally. However, assume this individual to be of Hispanic origin, being a member of the Hispanic community (his/her ethnic community). What assumptions could be made about this individual’s identity, i.e. positive social (cultural) identity and self-categorisation? Does the American nation only provide a membership group or more? Which is the positive reference group of this person? What does the individual want to do? What norms does the person accept and what norms are being complied to?

This short list of questions shows that all above-mentioned points have some influence upon an individual’s identity-negotiation process. I believe these questions are not easy to answer, and might never be able to be answered completely. Perhaps not even by the individual him/herself. However, to realise that questions about cultural identity raise these issues can provide each of us with a more comprehensive view, and induce us to follow a more cautious approach when interacting with other people.

Conclusion

As can be seen from this discussion about cultural identity – how it can be achieved and what other factors effect this form of identity – it can be seen that multiple question arise. All of these are important in order to establish an answer to what each of us asks ourselves at one or the other point in life: who am I? The quest for identity seems to become more and more complex, influenced by the increasing global interaction between humans. This provides each of us with the possibility to realise that a huge variety of social groups exist on this planet, and that the choice becomes even more diversified with every day.

Even cultural identity, what is often seen as rather static and something we acquire by birth and can not easily change, could be more dynamic than we thought. Depending on how ethnic/national identity is being thought of regarding membership and positive reference group, cultural identity can exist on various different levels. With the increased global mobility of humans, as well as of cultural ideas, values and practises, each of us is confronted with a wider choice. And the decision of which cultural identity we achieve seems no longer to be determined only by the place where we were born, or the ethnic community we belong to. As people want to achieve a positive social identity, and therefore a positive cultural identity, they will seek to acquire membership in a positive reference group. To what extend this is possible could be argued. However, it needs to be realised that many of us have the possibility to choose if we want to – but it should not be forgotten that freedom of choice could develop into tyranny (Schwartz, 2000).

None of the above mentioned identities should be seen as static, i.e. not able to be changed. We can make the choice whether to find ethnic or national identity more appropriate (and by this we also choose our cultural identity). Place-identity does not mean that we can’t create and acquire a new place-identity if we want to, and Dixon and Durrheim (2000) even provide us with the possibility when they state that place-identity should be located to the outside; we can create place-identity via conversation. No form of identity is fixed; the search for identity is an on-going process, and the question of ‘who we are’ will have to be asked and answered many times throughout our lifetime.