Difficult To Define Identity Sociology Essay

Difficult To fixate individuation Sociology EssayFor solely assignments of 1,000 words or more(prenominal) give in after the due encounter and without an agreed extension, a tail fin percent penalty applies for the first day of the missed deadline. After that, a subsequent penalty of 2% per day testament be utilize for the next thirteen calendar days after the due date (including Saturdays and Sundays). No assignment idler be accepted after more than fourteen calendar days except in exceptional hatful and in consultation with your reader or tutor. If students face a epoch-making illness or serious issue, it whitethorn be thatSpecial loveis warranted.If an extension of work is granted this must be specified with the cont round of the lecturer or tutor.Extension granted until Tutors tactile sensationIf you would like write feedback for your end of semester assessment eg research essay, then cheer tick the niche and provide an A4 ego- accosted stamped envelope staple d to yourassessment. NOTE It is your responsibility to keep a copy of your essayIf there atomic number 18 no substantial factors to repoint that plagiarization was accidental or unintentional, plagiarism in allow be tough as cheating for the determinations of Monash Statute 4.1 DisciplinePlagiarism Plagiarism essence to portion out and use a nonher persons ideas or work and pass these collide with as bingles own by failing to give appropriate represent lovement. This includes hearty from any source published and unpublished works, staff or students, the Internet. tacit consent Collusion is the presentation of work which is the return in whole or in part of unauthorised collaboration with an another(prenominal)(prenominal) person or persons.Where there atomic number 18 reasonable grounds for believing that plagiarism has occurred, this will be reported to the Chief Examiner, who will disallow the work concern by prohibiting assessment or refer the matter to the Facu lty Manager.For get ahead information regulate the universitys Plagiarism Policy at http//www.adm.monash.edu.au/execserv/policies/academic-Policies/policy/plagarism-and-cheating.html concealment StatementThe information on this form is collected for the primary use of assessing your assignment. Other purposes of collection include recording your plagiarism and collusion declaration, c atomic number 18 to administrative matters and statistical analyses. If you choose not to complete all the askions on this form, it whitethorn not be feasible for Monash University to allow the submission of your assignment. You nourish a right to access personalized information that Monash University holds about you, subject matter to any exceptions in relevant legislation. If you wish to recognisek access to your personal information or inquire about the handling of your personal information, please contact the University Privacy Officer on 9905 6011.Students StatementI watch read the unive rsitys statement on cheating and plagiarism, as described in the Student Resource Guide (refer http//www.monash.edu.au/au/pubs/handbooks/srg/srg-119.html)This assignment is original and has not antecedently submitted as part of another unit/subject/course,I turn over taken proper care of safeguarding this work and do all reasonable effort to ensure it could not be copied,I acknowledge that the assessor of this assignment may for the purposes of assessment, reproduce the assignment andProvide to another member of faculty and/orCommunicate it to the universitys plagiarism checking service (which may then retain a copy of the assignment on its database for the purpose of future plagiarism checking).I understand the consequences for engaging in plagiarism as described in University Statute 4.1. Part III Academic Misconduct (refer http//www.monash.edu.au/pubs/calendar/statutes/statutes04.htmlHeading110)I certify that I have not plagiarised the work of others or participated in unautho rised collusion when preparing this assignment.Signature Sophie Boinnard Date 21-10-2011Question 6 Discuss why is it difficult to delimitate indistinguishability operator?The best way to stipulate personal identity element may be to see it as a multi-dimensional space in which a sort of opus blend and clash (Sarup, 1996, p.25). Approaches to identity are multiple and from discordant fields such(prenominal) as sociology, psychology and analysis. This vast array of theories advise as many unalike attri thoes and definitions to identity which prevent the spin of a simple definition. I will ask that identity housenot be cut down to a simple and unite definition. This is most evident by apprehensiveness and analyzing the broad differences and interconnectedness in the midst of the major theories on identity, such as psychoanalysis, emblematical interactionism and performativity, which all have something to offer, each focusing more on the aspects that are relevant for their field of study.The wish to define identity can be traced back to the Enlightenment philosophy in Europe, when humanism and the quest to find who we are and how we should behave as rational and throw in beings (Mansfield, 2000, p.15). Identity was then studied as a philosophical construct, and the theories, influenced by Descartes and his spirit of duality of the human mind amid an emotional self and a rational thoughts as constituting our identity, led to believe the subject as being I think then I am (Sarup, 1996, p.46). This Cartesian court considering the self as unified stayed the main view for many years. that we now bouncing in a post-Cartesian land, and the phylogeny of fields such as psychoanalysis, sociology and mixer psychology led to a shift in the way to look at identity, by decentralizing the subject (Sarup, 1996, p.46) to take into account different evolution of society and the Gordianity of human beings.With the development of psychoanalysis, initia ted by the researches and theories of Sigmund Freud, the approach to the study of identity changed focus and blind drunking. Freud believed that most of our identity is establish upon the result of the negotiation of actions and responses between the individual and the external purlieu (Elliott, 2007, p.53), such as the family, culture and society. According to him, we are not innate(p) with an identity, but we construct oneness by dint of the sue of identification. This is especially line up in the early ages of your life when you learn what is acceptable according to kind criteria and what has to be prevented, which is then repressed according to Freud into the unconscious the Oedipus complex is a good model of structuring the subject in terms of identification (Sarup, 1996, p.30). It is the result of these interactions which will define who we are. It is important then to notice that for Freud ones identity construction is mostly unconscious and resides within oneself (L awler, 2008, p.78) the focus is, as such, placed on the individual and his electrical condenser to adapt and positively interact with the world.Following psychoanalytical traditions, academics such as Eissler theorized the sense experience of identity as being based on memory elements which in turn depend on the capacity of the ego to consider these memories as its own, and be then able to each repress or integrate them successfully (De Levita, 1965, p.106). Stephanie Lawler, also on memory, argues that identity is not something fundamental and essential, but something produced through the narratives people use to apologize and understand their lives (Lawler, 2008, p.17). As such they use their memories to interpret their lives, and at the kindred time these memories are already interpretations of a past experience memories themselves are amicable products.What psychoanalysis can bring to the study of identity is that it gives a way to consider the place of unconscious and no n-rational elements of identity (Lawler, 2008, p.83) which are psychoanalytic elements that are incumbent to understand the construction of identity but which are often denied by theorists exploring companionable dynamics impacts (Sarup, 1996, p.39). Furthermore, by placing the unconscious and ideas of repression at the centre of his model of identity, Freud shows that we can yet know ourselves incompletely and with difficulty, definition identity blurred and unfinished (Lawler, 2008, p.99). However, by concentrating so much on the selfs experience of identity, this approach might lack depth in grounds the impact of some well-disposed forces such as inequality, oppression and mastery (Elliott, 2007, p.70). other approach that developed around that time but in the sociological field, is the supposition known as symbolic interactionism. Largely influenced by Meads theory, it gives less importance to the individual than psychoanalysis and in contrary concentrates on the effects of interactions between the social reality and an individual. In fact, Mead believes that a intrinsic self is fashioned and shaped by the cooperative interaction with the world and others. It is hence through the use of symbols which meanings we learn and understand thanks to experiences, to languages, determine and culture and according to our surrounding environment that we are constructing our identities (Elliott, 2007, p.32). In other words, according to Mead, we make sense of ourselves only by the time we make sense of the world and others around us, by developing a sense of difference and recognition through symbols such as language. As such, it is necessary to distinguish between the I, representing the internal needs, feelings, whishes and the me, representing the socialized self, which appears in reaction to what we see around us (Carriera Da Silva, 2007, pp.51-59) it is the consciousness of ourselves we develop in reaction to developing a sense of others, a differenti ation from them.Something vulgar with psychoanalysis is the importance of childhood in development of the sense of self, as Mead believes in the importance of the processes of play and game in becoming a sun-loving mind which can interact with others and society (Carriera Da Silva, 2007, pp.48-51). However Strauss, who on that aspect shares symbolic interactionists view, rejects the idea that the self is determined only through early childhood, and would then be static, and in contrary argues about a theory of adult identity change (Musolf, 2003, p. 167) showing that we are on the table beings, and are continuously socialized into new identities (Musolf, 2003, pp. 77, 170). Finally, Strausss theory incorporates the structural influences on social behaviors that he believes are neglected in the basic theory. terminology is very important, with for example our names being the first act of self-introduction and as such functions as a social object by which others may initially typi fy us (Musolf, 2003, pp. 164-165).However, symbolic interactionism has been accused of being also rationalistic, cognitive and conscious, and indeed seems to have little recognition of the relation between desire, wishes, fantasies and social control that is argued in psychoanalysis (Elliott, 2007, p.35).Later on, approaches started to focus more on how identity functioned to try and explain what it is. This is the case of Anthony Goffman who, departing from symbolic interactionism, believes in the strategic performativity of the self in everyday life as constituting different identities for ourselves where the social sphere therefore represents a stage where we have to act an identity (Lawler, 2008, p104). Our self is studyed to the world as a faade, and the individual is the creative and reflective agent who decides and in doing so constitutes self identity on how to carry out such roles as well as the theatrical production of role performances (Elliott, 2007, p. 38). We the refore have a set of identities for which we know how to perform and what expectations people have of them, and we are forever and a day constraint to be on display and perform, as well as adding roles to adapt to every positioning (Musolf, 2003, p. 164).Taking further Goffmans performativity, Mills argues that the performing self appeared as a result of the structural transformation of society into a bureaucratic consumerist one, and that it leads to the vanish of real bonds in society replaced by a cash linkup as the only uniting element (Musolf, 2003, pp. 164, 172).Goffman takes some distance from symbolic interactionism however as he focuses on interactions and as such gives no importance to the difference between the I and the me this leads to questioning the presence of a real self existing outside such practices the real identity of the I, hiding behind the personae and roles people assume, but he seems to leave budding this aspect of the theory, concentrating on studyi ng the faades we show and not the true identity we might have behind it (Hetherington, 1998, pp. 150-151). As such theorists like De Levita have interpreted that for Goffman, the roles we play do not hide anything comparable to what Jung would argue (1965, p.132). According to Jung, the persona regroups the totality of the roles which a certain individual fulfils and portrays to the world, a similar idea to Goffmans performance but their ideas shift as for be the place of identity in this schema. Indeed it is explicit for Jung that the persona only is a shield for our true identity (De Levita, 1965, p.132) which is not so lightsome for Goffman. In contrary, he argues that the roles/performances are what make us persons we are constantly acting, but what those roles add up to is our identity (Lawler, 2008, p.106). Take a lecturer for example he will act differently while dogma in classes than how he is with his friends over lunch, and even differently than how he will act with hi s children in the evening. It doesnt mean that he is someone else more true outside of these contexts, or that he is fraudulent about his identity, but that all these roles represent who he is.Today, with the increasing influence of the media as a social force, Goffmans theory might be more adapted than ever as these media perpetuate performance demands. Indeed, as Altheide argues, our everyday life saturated by the media reshapes identity into another piece of merchandise that we shill just as advertising promotes corporate products with which we play as a toy (Altheide, 2000, pp. 13, 20). other way of thinking about identity tell aparts from Giddens theory of reflexivity and social change. Today according to Giddens, people are more self-aware, and therefore can make strategic decision for their future and about who they are or lack to be (Giddens, 1991, p.35). Identity is not passive and has to be reflexively made from a multitude of often competing choices, and the settings of uncertainty and multiple choices render the notions of trust, stake and ontological security central to the reflexive self. Indeed, as Giddens puts it, trust is at the origin of the experience of a stable external world and a coherent sense of self-identity (Giddens, 1991, p.51). His concept considers how in late modernity universe develop a psychological self and re-focus on their identity, to try and reflect on a sense of self, helped by the many experts, information and advices, for the most part psychological and sociological (Elliott, 2007, p.45), which are now available about how we should live our lives, such as self-help books or TV shows like Dr Phil which reminds of what Rose calls the psy complex (Rose, 1999). Therefore our identity becomes what we believe or interpret ourselves to be and how we want to shape ourselves. His way of characterizing individuals as being almost self-mastering leads to many critics, considering his theory as too individualistic (Elliott, 20 07, pp.48-49).Giddens is critical of overly pessimistic accounts of the post-modern self as fragmented (Heaphy, 2007, p.94). Instead for Giddens, individuals actively participate in beat their self-identities and in doing so contribute to social life in a way that has global implications. Giddens analysis begins with the premise that all human beings let an awareness of what they are doing and why they are doing so, and they monitor themselves in producing and reproducing social conventions (Heaphy, 2007, pp.95, 119). The problem with this approach is that Giddens fails to take into account power relations and the possible lack of choice or the different consequences of choices. As Lash indeed argues, contradiction and contingency, he suggests, are far more characteristic of the modern-day self than Giddens theory of reflexivity will allow and he therefore counsels to use Foucaults insights on power and control where reflexivitys shows limitation (in Heaphy, 2007, pp.112-113).To have a greater account of power relation in the creation of identity, one should turn to Foucault and Foucauldian theorists. Foucaults argument is that particular kinds of identity are made up within relations of power/knowledge (Lawler, 2008, p.55). To put it simply, he argues that how we are is an effect of what we know ourselves to be, or in other words, we are addressed, and address ourselves as certain kind of person, and through this process we become that person. Lawler gives the example of the subjectivation of sexuality, showing that we dont understand sexual preference as something we do but as something we are (2008, p.59). Subjectivation is therefore the idea of becoming subjects by gaining special identities (Lawler, 2008, p.62). Foucauldian scholars follow his theory and have argued that society is governed through self-surveillance, initiated by social institutions, to encourage individuals to actively condition and shape themselves according to social norms (Heapy, 2007, pp.33-34). Another important element is the idea that we are not regulated by the media but regulating ourselves with it, using different means such as counseling or self help books, because of our strive to be a certain type of person in order to be normal, healthy, self-fulfilled (Lawler, 2008, p.63) which relates to theories previously discussed. According to Rose, the language of psychology provides an important way of constructing ones identity, of identifying ones deepest thoughts, wishes and conflicts (Rose, 1999).However one of the critic against Foucaults ideas relates to the lack of insight into why people make subjectivation investments in some forms of self-understands and not in others, or also how such understandings come to constitute the self (Lawler, 2008, p.76).As we have seen through these renowned examples of how to figure identity, there are many approaches to the study of identity, which define or characterize it in different ways, blurring the possibili ty to give a simple unified definition. Identity is not a thing but a process in constant change of shape and meaning, and that is why it is difficult to cargo hold it. Because identity is a broad and nebulous concept, it is complex and multiple, and can mean different things depending on your purposes of research and approach. Some of these theories concentrate on how to see the individual from societys perspective, while some others study the positions of these individuals within the society, but what seems common to most of them is the idea that identity plays a role of mediator (Sarup, 1996, p.28) between the external and the internal, between the self and others.Reference listAltheide, D. (2000). Identity and the definition of the Situation in a Mass-Mediated Context. Symbolic Interaction, vol. 23 , pp.1-27.Carreira Da Silva, F. (2007). G. H. Mead A critical introduction. Cambridge Polity Press.De Levita, D. (1965). The Concept of Identity. Paris and The Hague Mouton co.Ellio tt, A. (2007). Concepts of the self. Cambridge Polity Press.Giddens, A. (1991). contemporaneousness and Self-identity. Stanford Stanford University Press.Heaphy, B. (2007). Late Modernity and Social Change. capital of the United Kingdom and unsanded York Routledge.Hetherington, K. (1998). Expressions of Identity. London shrewd Publications.Lawler, S. (2008). Identity Social Perspectives. Cambridge Polity Press.Mansfield, N. (2000). Subjectivity theories of self from Freud to Haraway, New York New York University Press.Musolf, G. R. (2003). Structure and Agency in everyday life. Lanham Rowman Littlefield Publishers.Rose, N. (1999). Obliged to be free in Governing the soul the shaping of the private self, Second edition. London Free Association Books.Sarup, M. (1996). Identity, Culture and the Postmodern world. Athenes University of Georgia Press.Mark flat solidAddressing the topicExcellentVery GoodGoodFair black marketPoorExpression of the argumentEngagement with relevant litera ture part of relevant examplesOriginality and critical insightRange of conceptsIntegration of conceptsConforms to requirements of academic writingPunctuation, spelling, sentence structure, paragraphingIn-text referencing