MA Week 43 - Benwell & Stokoe on Identity and Discourse

Identity was historically considered to emanate from the self and there was a belief that at least some level of a stable, non-changeable identity existed in each person. This paradigm has been gradually overtaken by the idea of identity as changeable – “performative”  - depending on the situation in which the individual finds themself. Many different external influences inform the construction of identity and the facets of identity change depending on the circumstance. 

Identity theory moved from a belief in the individual identity to that of a collective identity, a label, in the second half of the c20th. (Self/other becomes ingroup/outgroup). However this could often provide a justification for a negative view of that labelled group. There was a gradual recognition that an individual is not just a member of one group and that these collective identities intersect. This is taken further by the idea of hybridity, which is particularly seen individuals who belong to more than one clearly definable group and who give the lie to the idea of binaries in identity theory. A problem with the discursive, performative definitions of identity comes with the fact that it ignores the physical body and concentrates only on the psyche.

The recurrence of the idea of post-modernity as causing fragmentation and the need to identify with very clear groups is interesting. That said, this text is 10 years old. However this does find a resonance with the idea of nostalgia due to the risk caused by speed of change, which more and more appears to be one of the paradigms underpinning my research by practice.

My own opinion is that there is some level of self-identity otherwise the very small group who belong to all the same collectives would all be the same. Denying self-identity seems to me to be a power construct that is designed to try to homogenise the individual. At the same time, there is no denying the large number of influences on the individual’s identity and it would be difficult to argue that we as human beings do not feel a need to “belong” to some group or groups. I also think that there is some element of intrinsic individual identity in the choices we make of groups to belong to.

Touched upon peripherally is the idea that identity is always being forced upon us from all over the place, but that we are seen mainly by researchers as passive consumers of these influences. In one or two places the idea of the individual as the possessor of some sophistication and judgement is aired, but for the most there seems to be an overwhelming sense that people are a bit stupid and flock together with those like them without any apparent thought. Not only in this book (which I’ve found fairly accessible), but also in other social science-based texts, I read the subtext that the researcher is in their own (superior) “ingroup” and the rest of the world is their “outgroup” and their subject (in all senses of the word).

The authors identify a useful list of identity settings:

• Everyday conversation and interaction – how we act with friends, and perform e.g. our gender with them
• Institution e.g. how we act within the university, the doctor/patient setting
• Narrative – telling stories about self and others
• Commodified: identities of consumers, how ads engage with us, representations of identities in commodified contexts
• Spatial identity : links between place, space and identity construction-
• Virtual identity

Two of particular interest to me are commodified identities and spatial identity.

Commodified identities: concerned with consumption. The consumer is often seen as passive and manipulated; advertisers and market forces have the power. An alternative view is that the consumer has authority and is able to make a sophisticated choice between products on offer. There is no doubt that advertisers construct the identity of their target audience in a particular way, and the text points to the link between what is desirable but unattainable, and  the advertisers’ conflation of this with their product – in other words, their product will enhance your life, and presumably therefore your identity. Semiotics does important work here, with choice of language as well as choice of images (e.g. use of the word “you” to make the message more intimate). These reinforced representations fall into common usage. This links to Marshall’s idea of the appropriation of negative qualities as positive ones in the Yorkshire identity; the consumer (the Yorkshire folk) has chosen to subvert the message to their own end.

Spatial identities: This paradigm explores the connection between place, space and identity construction. Physical space is “socially constructed by human agents” – humans construct different types of boundaries and “police” them. This can be as simple as staking your space out on a beach (territorialising it) – an interesting idea of your identity displayed by bodily movement in physical space. People make spaces and vice versa – space constrains you but offers a site for identity construction.

“Who we are is inextricably linked to where we are, have been or are going” (p210) – this implies a kind of fluidity of identity based on place- but not just where you are now, also past and future. This then offers a link to heritage.

The authors quote Hetherington – social centrality of places as persons try to express their identity by meeting with others who identify in the same group (e.g. emos). People make sense of their “self” by attributing meaning to place (p212). Space produces ingroups and outgroups eg Chinatowns, male only golf clubs (p214). Again these are constructions of space and of identity; the space functions as a way of producing others. This also links to heritage as people start to identify with a particular group in a particular space – what Harrison would call “unofficial heritage”.

The concept of place as integral to the life story is introduced; place assists in construction of personal identity. “links between places and persons get connected in narrative accounts and is an example of how place/space is produced in, and as a topic of discourse” (p220). So the fact that everything takes place in some kind of space, and that we associate that event with that space, forms an inextricable link between identity and place. Further, using language about a place gives your opinion about it and therefore something about your identity and by implication the identity of the “others” (p216-219). This implies that people are given to talking about people in places and this links them. So we link people to places and vice versa. Then of course we have relationships with those people and possibly also with these places. These become intermeshed within our identity.

Nationalism and national identity are also at work in here. Semiotics of e.g. the use of the word “us” remind us (sic!) of nationhood. The nation as historically and rhetorically constructed. Therefore the link between place and identity is not just at an individual level (p227).

I hadn’t really thought of psychogeography being so linked to heritage an identity. I had thought of it more as a way of exploring these paradigms but here I am beginning to see it as heritage and identity being woven into the – theories? practices? of psychogeography.

One really interesting thing about this book is the cover, which is a painting by Anita Klein called “Watching the Sound of Music”. I’ve seen some of Klein’s work before; the people are packed into the canvas and there is a very strong sexual element, with large suggestive eyes and sensuous faces. This painting shows two women and a man, all displaying a sensual body language. Except that it is reproduced in full on the back cover and actually contains three women and a man (and a TV), with a complicated jumble of legs, such that it’s not quite clear which pairs (groups?) of people are attracted to each other and who is actually trying to watch the TV. I find it quite ridiculous that a book on identity should deliberately exclude one of the actors from the picture.