You're unique, just like everyone else!
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 by shaf_sz
We're all made to feel special and different as children, yet, we are all socialized into society so that we don't stand out too much and try to lead a normal life. When we're older, we have the capacity to think for ourselves though, and this creates endless possibilities. The idea that identities are fluid and fragmented is discussed in our course Reader by Kennedy (drawing on Hall's work in 1996), and just like a freight train, it hits me - this has been happening since... forever.
Think about it. When you're at a family function, surrounded by your mother, father, etc, how do you act? Do you act like you would when you're around your mates, on the booze, during a night out? I didn't think so. We learn as we get older that acting the same way about everyone all the time doesn't always work out, due to expectations. I argue that the individual doesn't have as much choice as they'd like to think they do, by drawing on the work of Judith Butler (from our lecture).
Don't get me wrong. I agree and understand fully that we are all individuals and have the capacity to create our own identities, but I believe that we do so in the space and the confines of the public realm, rather than our own private thoughts. Now, it may be because I do Sociology as well which is causing my view on the fluidity/fragmentation of identity as more of a societal process, but there is no denying that, for example, when you decide what you want to wear, you take into consideration what others will think. I think this applies to not only our offline selves, but also our online selves. Because the societal shackles on the formulation of our online identities may be temporarily broken, due to the relative anonymity we are provided in a digital world, we are given the tools and more options to create ourselves in more ways. Therefore, I have to argue that identities being fragmented has always been a common phenomenon, but has always just been more subtle and more acceptable, whereas the internet will let us tweak our identities in the most extreme ways, making it much more noticeable and more problematic (due to people being able to lie and deceive others much more easily).
What does everyone else think?
Think about it. When you're at a family function, surrounded by your mother, father, etc, how do you act? Do you act like you would when you're around your mates, on the booze, during a night out? I didn't think so. We learn as we get older that acting the same way about everyone all the time doesn't always work out, due to expectations. I argue that the individual doesn't have as much choice as they'd like to think they do, by drawing on the work of Judith Butler (from our lecture).
Don't get me wrong. I agree and understand fully that we are all individuals and have the capacity to create our own identities, but I believe that we do so in the space and the confines of the public realm, rather than our own private thoughts. Now, it may be because I do Sociology as well which is causing my view on the fluidity/fragmentation of identity as more of a societal process, but there is no denying that, for example, when you decide what you want to wear, you take into consideration what others will think. I think this applies to not only our offline selves, but also our online selves. Because the societal shackles on the formulation of our online identities may be temporarily broken, due to the relative anonymity we are provided in a digital world, we are given the tools and more options to create ourselves in more ways. Therefore, I have to argue that identities being fragmented has always been a common phenomenon, but has always just been more subtle and more acceptable, whereas the internet will let us tweak our identities in the most extreme ways, making it much more noticeable and more problematic (due to people being able to lie and deceive others much more easily).
What does everyone else think?
Great post. I personally think there's no neat fit with any one sociological (or philosophical) model of identity, precisely because the amount of choice, freedom and 'agency' we can exercise is so variable and dependent on us, our context etc. But perhaps what draws me a little nearer to the G side of the spectrum (Goffman, Giddens) and a little further away from the B side (Bauman, Butler) is the very fact that we can all reflect on and think critically about the social pressures and upbringings that shape our identities. Agency is always 'structured', to use Giddens terms... or, as Karl Marx might have it, we make ourselves but not in conditions of our own choosing. But our ability to recognise and interrogate the things that 'structure' our identity, is surely what helps us develop the agency to challenge and, to some extent, overcome some of those constraints. You probably weren't looking for that kind of abstract response but, hey, your post got me thinking a bit philosophically!
That's the sort of response I was after!
I agree with this part:
"is the very fact that we can all reflect on and think critically about the social pressures and upbringings that shape our identities". However, for people that don't study what we do study, it would be harder for them to really critically think about this as much as us. I think a lot more of their choices which shape their identity would be socially shaped yet subconsciously.
I think you're right though and think people have more agency than the B's (as you say) tend to give them credit for!