Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Welcome back to the series of lectures on cultural studies. As you are aware these lectures
are being recorded under the aegis of the National Programme on Technology Enhanced
Learning, it is a joint venture by the Indian institutes of technology and the Indian institute
of science Bangalore. We have so far discussed several topics and we already completed module
1, which was more or less introductory by nature. And in the last lecture, we moved
into the second module. The second module you will recall is a module
that deals with the key concepts; that in here in any enterprise we undertake to study
culture or to do cultural studies. Today's lecture is lecture 2 in module 2 and is entitled
identity. Identity is a very important key concept;
it is really a key concept in cultural studies. And as we shall see while later, it lends
itself to so many other key concepts and permits almost any aspect of cultural studies.
AF
As always we first do a recap of what was done in the last lecture and the last lecture
you will recall was on subjectivity. And before diving into subjectivity, we talked about
the importance of concepts; we try to define concepts and if you recall that you defined
concepts as units of knowledge or of meaning in which ideas...
Ideas are given a certain degree of abstractness and this abstractness we had argued, is required
if concepts have to be applied; a certain degree of abstractness we argued was important
for applicability.
We looked at subjectivity as you know the process of being or the state of being rather
sorry the state of being and the process of becoming of a person. Unlike you know all
the theories are looked at subjectivity as simply a state, we saw that in cultural studies,
it is understood also in more importantly as a process of becoming. And becoming what?
Becoming a person. We also made some settled distinctions between
kindred words like self and subject. Self referred to, if you at all have to make a
distinction as, a certain interiority and subject as related to culture and to society.
We also looked at Michel Foucault and some of his precepts on subjectivities which include
things like, there are no universal subjectivities, subjectivity is an effect of discourse, the
subject is discursive formation so on and so forth.
These are some of the formulations in subjectivity, on subjectivity, that we looked at in the
last lecture. We also looked at power, power as generative and productive of subjectivity;
this comes from Michel Foucault. And three ways - three disciplinary discourses in through
which this happens. And you will recall, we looked very quickly at this, these being the
sciences which constitute the subject as an object of enquiry.
So, power and discourse and knowledge as constitutive or subjectivity, according to Foucault happens
through three disciplinary discourses. And among them, one is the sciences, the sciences
through their taxonomy, through their categories, through their classifications and their financements
constitute the person as a subject, as what as an object of enquiry. So, the subject becomes
an object, something to be studied and category or put into categories given, labels as it
work. Then, the next one in this whole configuration
is, what he calls the technologies of the self. The technologies of the self are strategies,
whereby individuals turn themselves into subject. And you will recall that, there is a certain
very desirable complexity in the Foucault's understanding of subjectivity, as not a one
way process. So, if the sciences make an object out of
a person, we also as persons as subjects have certain technologies of the self, whereby
we can fashion ourselves - fashion ourselves as subjects. Finally, Foucault says, dividing
practices which separate the mad from the sane, the criminal from the law abiding citizen,
and friends from enemies. So, these are practices which divide... which
you know so to speak construct binaries of sane and insane, friend and enemy, criminal
and the law abiding citizen, etcetera. So, these practices also give us our subjectivity.
Then, we saw that subject position may be understood as a function of discourse.
And we also looked at two important words from Judith Butler, Gender Trouble, where
she talks about so want you go Beauvoir's very seminal sentence. One is not born, but
becomes a women and Butler goes on to argue, that there is the possibility of intervention
and resignification. We can intervene, since subjectivity is a process of becoming and
it never ends. We can, we can intervene and resignify; what it means, to be a person,
what it means and we can construct our own subjectivity.
Well, today, we are going to talk about identity. There are several occasions on which we will
find that, identity is conflated with subjectivity. Identity and subjectivity are often interchanged
in a very loose sort of a way. So, since this module in on key concepts,
it is important for us to understand the shapes of difference among topics or between two
topics. So, we are going to talk about identity in today's lecture.
Now, as I said in the beginning of this lecture, identity is phenomenally important. So, the
topic for today in this lecture is identity. And as I mentioned in the beginning of this
lecture, identity is a very important concept. There are so many key concepts that identity
as far as cultural studies is concerned, is an important concept. One of the reasons is
that, it lends itself to an analysis or it lends itself to any discourse for instance:
a discourse of class, the discourse of ethnicity, the discourse of gender, race and sexuality.
One can talk about one's class identity or one's you know *** identity or one's racial
ethnic or gender identity; so, it is an important concept.
Well, let us look at some of the formulations on identity. So, let us attempt a preliminary
discussion or a preliminary understanding of the term identity, as a concept in cultural
studies. Identity, well, at least vis a vis subjectivity
- let us put it this way. Identity is seen as a framework: identity is seen as a framework
for the instantiation or for the articulation of identity. And identity is external; yes,
I agree this is pretty preliminary and this very in a sense, that it is all most essentialist.
There are so many shades of you know meaning as far as identity is concerned.
But I believe this would be a good way to enter, at least into understanding of identity.
And as I said one of the ways to understand identity, is to first differentiate it with
another key concept, that is of subjective; and that is something that we had also touched
upon in the last lecture. So, well, identity is therefore an external frame work and we
shall see how.
Now, again, as I said coming to subjectivity and identity, how do we differentiate? How
do we draw the shapes of difference between subjectivity and identity? Well, if subjectivity
is an internal process, identity is external, subjectivity is, may you know as we seen in
the previous lecture; subjectivity may be defined as, what does it mean to be a person.
From that point of view, identity then would mean how do other people see you. So, if subjectivity
is what you feel, what does it feel like to be a person, identity is how other people
see you.
So, continuing in the same way, subjectivity is therefore how you are constituted as a
subject and our experience of ourselves. So, subjectivity is the constitution of the subject
and our experience of ourselves, so what it means to be a person. On the other hand, identity
is not only just how we see us, but how others see us; this is an important point here. Identity
entails how others conceive of us, and how others try and so to speak manage us and manage,
who we are, what we are, etcetera, try to understand us.
So, identity may have few other connotations; for instances, many people talk about self
identity. So, how do we define self identity? Self identity are verbal conceptions of ourselves
- they are verbal conceptions of ourselves - or they are attempts to know ourselves and
know ourselves through language.
On the other hand, we also have this other shade of or meaning of identity which is,
as we see here in this slide, which is social identity. Let us go back; we were talking
about self identity and now we are talking about social identity.
Social identity is not the verbal conceptions of ourselves as in self identity. Social identity
is understood as others opinions or views of ourselves, right. So, identity is therefore
understood in these two elementary divisions of self identity and a social identity.
Now, we come back again to the person whose formulations on culture and cultural studies,
and various aspects we have been following in this course. And as I said Chris Barker's
book - cultural book on cultural studies - is one of the books, that could be easily taken
up as a text book in any course in cultural studies.
Now, Barker and let us look at this Barker on identity and identification. Barker defines
identity as, this is an important point here, an emotionally charged discursive description
of ourselves that is subject to change. There are two other more than two aspects here;
one is identity and our identification with any phenomenon event x is, he says as an emotionally
we are attached to that, we are attached to identity.
When we can go so far, we do so many things with our identity are, in our bid to you we
protect our identity, in our bid to our articulate our identity, in a bid to safe guard a community
identity, etcetera. And that is why, he uses the term here emotionally.
It is an emotionally charged discursive description; it is not simply an emotional expression;
identity is not just an emotional expression that you make or that is manifested. In just
you know In some parts of time, it is also a part of discourse.
So, a emotionally charged what? Emotionally charged, it is a description of ourselves
- discursive descriptions. Now, the word discursive as you are aware, it comes from the word discourse.
Discourse, you will recall is the way of talking about everything, it is a way of speaking
about something, which entails its own terminologies, its own frame works, its own assumptions,
etcetera. So, it is a identity and identification. Identity
is an emotionally charged discursive descriptions of ourselves, that is not a given once and
for all; it is a description, that is subject to change, right. Why? We call it because,
identity is as we saw it an external frame work - identity comes from the outside. So,
identity is an emotionally charged discursive description of ourselves that is subject to
change as society and culture continues to change.
I would like to refer to... and though it is not really a cultural theorist, in the
strict sense of the turn, he is more over sociologist - Anthony Giddens . And Giddens
here, look at this slide here, Giddens considers identity as what? He considers identity as
a project. So, identity is a project in the sense, it is something that, you and I and
society something that we keep you know you keep working on that, is something that keeps
changing. So, identity is seen by Anthony Giddens as a project.
And he says that social identity - remember we talked about self identity and social identity
- social identity comprises the following, right. If you talk about a social identity
and if you have to understand how it has been constructed, if you have to understand the
term at all, then you have to understand that, it comprises among other things or these five
aspects. Now, let us look at them closely. Social identity
comprises a normative rights; what are the rights that you have as the rules and regulation
or norms allow you to have, a society allows you to have. Along with the normative rights
comes second, the issue of obligations; if you have normative rights given to you, that
give you your sense of identity, which is given to you externally by society, you are
also have certain obligations. Then, there are certain sanctions, that are
given to you, that are allowed to you by society. And finally, there are roles that you play;
and these roles these roles are constituted by what? These roles are not arbitrary, this
roles are not... you know therefore, all time to come assign to you, for all time to come
this roles are dynamic and these roles are constituted, and I would say these roles are
constituted by the these three points above them.
A - the rights that are given to you; B - the obligations that you have to have to perform
in return; and C - the sanctions that argument to you by society. So, the roles that you
play are defined your social identity so to speak.
And finally, he says number 5 - the markers. Now, what are markers? Markers are certain
signs and symbols; that is, they signify your identity. If we have a national anthem, if
we have a regional anthem, that is the marker. If you wear a certain kind of attire, if you,
if you hold on to your language, right, as a sign of your identity, in that sense as
a sign of or a symbol of your identity. These are the markers that you carry, these are
the markers that you use, so to speak in order to express that social identity which is yours.
The important point here to be noted is again this. And I cannot say you, you know, be saying
to much about this really. You know, social identity is something that has been constructed;
it has you know these five points: normative rights, obligations, sanctions, roles and
markers are, what we talked about just couple of minutes ago, are they constitute the frame
work. You recall do we use the word frame work - external frame work - these constitute
the frame work through which identity is expressed, even as it is constituted or constitutive.
Therefore, in cultural study terminology, in cultural studies understanding, identity
is here identity is not a thing, but it is a description in language. So, cultures theorists
who belong very strictly to the, you know, so to speak see the language school or the
linguistic turn school of theory would go by this, would say that, identity is nothing
but a linguistic expression. So, identity is not a thing, but it is the
description, it is a verbal description, a description in language and it is plastic.
What is the meaning of plastic? Meaning of plastic as far as we use in the liberal arts
and the humanities, is to be amenable to change; plastic means to be amenable to change. We
talked about the plasticity of neurons for instance; then, we talked about the plasticity
of neurons; so, we mean the ability or the amenability of neurons to change, which is
with learning and experience. In the same way, identity is also plastic;
in that, it is amenable to change and it is anti essentialist. You will recall, we talked
about the term essentialism, way back in I think the first or second lectures. And we
understand essentialism as you know theory or an approach that looks at something as
things as having pure essences; that is something essential about man and something essential
about human nature. So, the essentialist would argue that that
no matter how things changes, always something that is essential to a certain phenomenon
or an event or a subject or a person, but this way of looking at identity as plastic,
as identity as a description, as identity as fluid as dynamic, is an anti-essential,
is move in sociology and in cultural studies, right.
So, I hope, by now we have been able to understand the you know the complexity as far as terms
are concerned; we saw bit of that, in subjectivity and we are seeing some of it. And now, as
you talk about, as we talk about identity as being anti essentialist, has not being
given.
So, identity is therefore, if it is a frame work, it is therefore a cultural construction;
that is, that is the important, that is the important point as far as cultural studies
is concerned. We looked at identity as a cultural construction, that is external. And importantly something, that is, to do with
topic that we I actually plan to have as, you know, one of my key concept lectures,
the topic of the representation.
So, Giddens again, identity entails our ability to sustain a narrative about the self. So,
it may be an illusion also, but identity involves a person's ability to - look at this word
here - ability to sustain, a narrative about the self.
What is a narrative? A narrative is understood as a story; so, a story has a, normally has
a beginning, a middle and an end. So, to possess an identity to have a certain sense of continuity
of identity or something that, you know even if it this has been built or has been constructed,
nevertheless has threads of continuity, has threads of a certain, what would I say as,
he says here the word coherent - a certain coherence.
So, these are the terms uses a coherent biographical and continuous. So, identity entails to have
an identity, entails our ability to sustain, to keep it going a narrative about the self.
And it is a narrative that has to have some meaning, if not an ultimate value for us And
that meaning and meaningfulness is arrived that, by our sense of that narrative of the
self as being coherent, as biographical, coming from ourselves and as being continuous.
Therefore, we understand identity as what? Finally, if you have to sum up these points
here; the points are, we have been talking about identity is constructed, identity is
negotiated and identity is defended. The fact that identity is constructed is something
that we have looked at, identity is also negotiated. Do not think that as, even as we are doing
theory, that we are the cultural theory, there were cultural concepts, that we are the people
who understand the constructedness of in the fluidity and the dynamism of identity, it
is not so. To a certain extent, everyone understands that these are identity is an issue, that
you can negotiate. It is, I would say, I would even hazard saying that, subjectivity may
not come very readily to all of us, as something that can be self fashioned, something that
can be negotiated. I am hazarding this is somehow, this is what
I would like to submit, right. But identity, because you are aware that it is a label,
that is being given to you. And it is, in that sense you know a very political issue,
you or a group can always does have a feeling, that one can negotiate one's identity.
And identity is something to be defended. Let me put it this way, if you look at you
know collective identities and collective subjectivities, which is more negotiable,
it is in the first place is difficult to have a collective subjectivity. Subjectivity as
an involved process; subjectivity as a feeling of what it means to be x, what it means to
be a person, right. I am not saying it is impossible, but it is
difficult to have a collective subjectivity, simply because every person is so unique,
right; the inner workings of once mind is contingent; you know, his workings are contingent
upon time, space. And one has to have a clear idea and vision of how the brain - the human
brain works, that gives us a subjectivity. But identity in this sense, now I am arguing
simply from the point of view, you will understand of, from the point of view of difference between
subjectivity and identity. Identity being external and being a framework,
right. Being constructed through what? Remember norms, normative rights, obligations, sanctions,
roles, markers are things that we realize and we can negotiate them, rather more readily
we do for collective subjectivities. And the defend we defend identity, whether individual
or collective; we defend this from misrepresentation by people or by may be other groups.
If you are talking about the individual person by another person, so we defend and that is
why identity... And if you look at identity politics is a complex an issue and yet at
the same time it is something that is quite inevitable, something that one would in every
community would, at some point of its historical time would want to engage in identity politics.
Most of it comes if you look at one of the terms you saw, while ago as I said that, I
will talk about it later in my lecture on representation.
It is a question of representation, correctly misrepresentation of identities, whether individual
or community. Now, the orthodox view; let us look at this, here the orthodox view of,
again if you understand of self-understanding, we say view of the self as autonomous and
unified.
We previously thought of the self being, something that is completely autonomous, it has an agency
of its own and that is always unified. Something that is stable, fixed, something that is given.
The Cartesian thinking substance, I think therefore I am; this is, this is what we call,
we could call an exemptory way of this, all the way of looking at the self as autonomous.
We recall Rene' Descartes whom I have mentioned you know, I think in one in the first or second
lecture; Rene' Descartes thinking substance or I think therefore I am, is one is something
that, Descartes of course meant it in several senses of you know you could also translate
it as, I doubt therefore you know I am.
But the this phrase, I think therefore I am, is bounded about almost so much by people,
that it gives you an illusion of, I think therefore I am an illusion of autonomy of
the self; and illusion that you are incomplete control of yourself. Therefore, identity is
essentialist, non plural and universalists is the whole school of looking at identity.
It was the philosopher - David Hume who early on talked about the self or the ego as a bundle
of sense perceptions. That is here, this is when it first came about,
that is dynamic and changing; so, the self and the ego is was seen by Hume as a bundle
of sense perceptions, alright, but these perceptions are dynamic and changing -- leading, early
on, you know showing the way early on, to an understanding of identity and subjectivity
of self understanding of self identity; and finally, as a social identity as dynamic and
changing.
And in our time, it was you know the well-known cultural critique Stuart Hall, who went on
to give you know full critique of the topic of identity. Recall this, the deconstruction
of identity as a concept, the breaking down of all the ways of understanding identity
as a concept. The critique that was started by Stuart Hall, again like as we saw a while
ago, was against an understanding of identity, as something that is originary unified and
integral.
Hall says and I am very fond of this way, in which hall put this. Identity is a temporary
and arbitrary closure of meanings. Can I need you to look at this, to even enjoy this, you
know he says, identity is a closure, is the closure of meaning, is a closure of we could
say understanding ourselves, understanding the construct you know over who we are, but
it is a temporary and arbitrary. A temporary and arbitrary closure of meanings in the sense,
in almost, a deconstructive sense, you know you can never have arrived at a full understanding
of this identity. So identity, whenever you think if arrived
at a meaning, you have arrived at an understanding of identity of your identity, of others identity,
it is always temporary, just it is provisional so to speak; it is provisional and it is arbitrary,
it is arbitrary in the sense that it is not, we do not mean arbitrary here is something
random, but arbitrary as we understand, so the word remember in structuralism. The word
arbitrary has not having a definite one to one correspondence, between an object and
the name given to it; in that sense, it is arbitrary.
So, identity according to Stuart Hall, one of the finest cultural critiques, is a temporary
and arbitrary closure of meanings. Also linked to this way of understanding, identity a true
critiques like Stuart Hall is another concept, a concept of articulation. Remember, articulation
is a definite term in cultural studies; it does not mean just to articulate things. As
in the sciences, you also have, in the humanities and social sciences, in the liberal arts,
turns that, come about after one engages oneself in a discursive field, right. Then, articulation
is one of the point, many students talk about articulation simply as, expressing oneself.
As far as articulation in cultural studies is concerned and its relation to identity
is concerned, it is this, now I am reading it out.
Articulation is the temporary contingent connections of semblance of unity where no necessary connections
exist. Let us look at it again, articulation or the expression is at much like what we
have talk about just a while ago, about here, about temporary and arbitrary closure of meanings.
Articulations, any articulation is an event, is an event in time, it is an event in place,
and it is temporary, contingent - meaning it is contingent upon certain factors - external
factors. And they are articulation is a temporary contingent connection or just a semblance,
so it is not really a unity and actual unity, it is the semblance of unity. In the semblance
or in the sense almost of very similar tune, as you understand it in philosophy.
Semblance of unity, when no necessary connections actually exits, right. So, any articulation
member has to be seen, as what as a contingent event and because of this very nature of articulation,
this is the word here. It can be rearticulated, right; it can, any
articulation can be rearticulated, this are we have articulated once and for all, you
have made the connections; these are always provisional, right. and they can be rearticulated
under different regimes - different regimes of power and knowledge.
So, every regime of power, every so to speak regime of discourse, look at the word regime
here, why is the word regime here? It is used almost in the sense of you know reign, if
not a military regime. So, articulation is done, rearticulated under different regimes
of power and knowledge. Why and how is it rearticulated? Every regime or reign or era
or you know epistemological phase if you will, has certain precepts, has certain what we
call epistemes, has certain epistemes or units of knowledge at are seemed as true, right;
these two are contingent and these keep changing.
So, articulation is again rearticulated or rearticulable under different regimes of power
and knowledge and they are connotative and very evocative. So, I will quickly quote from
another person, which come from Simon during from his book cultural studies - the critical
introduction. During this to say, individuals have a number different, often mutable identities
rather than a single fixed identity; this is the same thing that is putting it, but
I thought this would be you know it says it so aptly.
Have you ever saw that you as an individual, as it if I come in to your mind, that you
as an individual or even a community as, I know, community with identity, that you may
have different mutable changing -- changeable - different of a mutable identities, rather
than a single fixed identity. And this spread of identities and the occasions for invention
and recombination, that it throws up from a ground for political and cultural agency.
The very fact of the mutability of identity, the changeability of identity and the spread
of identities, they throw up certain, they threw up certain occasions, certain historical
phases of recombination, right. And they form a ground for cultural and political agency.
So, every individual or every community may reinvent himself or ourselves or themselves,
because of this very condition of identity. What is this? The mutability of identity vis
a vis a single fixed identity.
So, let us carry on reading, we recognize ourselves in the images of people like us
that are communicated to us through the media and elsewhere. Again I urge you to recall
the external framework, that we talked about in the beginning of this lecture. So, how
do we identify and how do we go through this identification? Recall Chris Barker again
saying that, identity identification entails what, an emotionally charged discursive description
of ourselves. So, this is how it happens; we recognize ourselves
in the images of people like us, that are communicated to us, particularly through the
media and elsewhere. Now, these images beckon, these images beckon and seduce us; look at
the terms, these images call upon us, these images call us.
So, these images look at the terms here, beckon and seduce us. Now, the technical word for
here is a world called interpellation; this is the if you have to use a typical word like
say articulation in sorry the word here is inter interpellation; any cultural object,
any object that represents something or any media artifact, they interpellate, they talk
to us, they call us, they call upon us to pay attention; in the sense, that look this
is what you are, this is what you have to be.
These images beckon and seduce us, now here, it is given here; technically speaking, they
interpellate us, they call us. Now, look at this, invite us to accept their versions of
who we are, and this is a trap that we often fall into, because identity is external. These
images, so into the media image or an image in a book or a novel for instance or an image
or an idea that is given to you by a propaganda's pamphlet also.
These images they call us they beckon to us; and they invite us to accept their version,
this is the point here, their version of who we are. So, very often, then if you are not
careful, identities are carved by somebody else and they are carved by the images that
we consume, they carved by the stories that we consume. So, it is not just a media imager,
it could be also a myth or a legend for instance, right. These are also the, so to speak the
images, that are there to beckon us and to accept their version of who we are; if you
take an example the importance, the not just the importance, the share power that the idea
of say a mythical figure has Seeta for instance. So, this image of Seeta is for women something,
that is, it is the version of who we are; and that version interpellates us and tell
us, this is this is what you have to become. Recall the enormous hold, that mythical ideas
and images have on us, right. Then, ultimately, what draws subjects into this process of identification
is, their desire for wholeness and coherence. Remember Giddens, what did Giddens say? That
identity are attempt to sustain what a narrative about ourself; and what sort of a narrative?
A narrative that is biographical, and narratives that is coherent, and narrative that is continues.
Now, this is echoed here. Ultimately, now look at, let us look at this and ultimately
what draws subjects into this process of identification is their desire; we all of us given the fact
that the world is chaotic, right. The disorder is a part of our world, that order is perhaps
an imposition we make on the world; we have a desire for wholeness, we have a desire for
coherence, for meaning that we want to hold on to. We do not like fragmented things, we
do not like to live, most of us do not like to live in fragmentation. However, individually
we would like to have a sense of coherence of wholeness of a personal biography of a
narrative, that is continuous, and that gives meaning -- meaningfulness - and value to us.
So, this is what draws subject; what draws subjects? You know, in this case, draws almost
in a magnetic sense, right. You could also say why do we fall for these sort of images
and interpellations; ultimately, one this happens, because deep down each of us has
a desire for wholeness, has a desire for coherence, for meaning making. And why does this desire
happen? The point here is, we are in the last part of the sentence, the desire is driven
by a lack of secure grounding in this world; the lack of grounding is the reason, is the
cause for us nurturing a desire to a certain identity, to a certain even identification,
which is an as I said an emotionally charged one; and we go in for this images that interpellate,
that is, as I said as beckon and seduces us.
Therefore, let us keep reading here, identities then are not given in terms of what individuals
are as a whole, but in terms of more or less arbitrarily selected features, that they possess.
For the most part, individuals have little power to choose what features will be used
to identify them; they are determined socially from the outside.
Because now, this is one point which I would like to end with really here, is the importance
of identity vis a vis globalization. It is heard that today, in a globalized scenario,
the creation of identity that we are talking about a while ago as identity been created
externally, and identity as created by media images, by myths, by novels, by you know what
I have view. In a globalized setup, the argument that has been given by cultural theories is
that, identity is here a creation through the market forces.
This is one thing I would like you to keep in mind. And if we talk about globalization,
and when we talk about globalization of some point of time, I would come back to this,
but suffice if I now to understand and identity is seen as a creation through market forces.
This is one we need to be absolutely you know careful about, right; to see that, it is a
market that creates and sustains our identity and interpellates it, the market forces and
artifacts that, that interpellate and seduce us.
Because of this, there is a counter; there is a counter force to this, because you know
people have realized what we call, you can call here the homogenization - the homogenization
of this sort of interpellation. There is a revival of traditional identities; communities
now want to have, want to again reassert their own identities and they use the markers for
this identities; they set out to negotiate and defend their identities, because of the
identity creation to market forces.
So, identity politics thus give rise to coalition and shared values and markers and language.
And this is seen as enabling and a re-description and a re-signification; there are some, there
are markers like anthem's, as I said before share symbolic representations like anthem
dress, food habits and myths.
Fine, let us move on to quickly to the discussion; and if it ask this question distinguish between
subjectivity and identity, we would say that subjectivity is constitute, is a way of constituting,
being constituted as a subject and are more importantly are experience of ourselves. And
identity is not just how we see ourselves, it is also how others, and more importantly,
how others see us.
How does Stuart hall define identities? Stuart Hall defines identity as a temporary and arbitrary
closure of meanings. How does Chris Barker define identity? Barker defines identity and
identification together as an emotionally charged discursive description of ourselves,
that is subject to change.
What is the orthodox view of identity? The orthodox view of identity is one, that is
essentialist non plural and universalist and sees identity as a given. How has identity
been affected by globalization? Identity has been affected by globalization in the creation
in of identity through market forces and a certain homogenization as I mentioned a while
ago; and as a counter force to it, we see the revival of traditional identities as a
counter to the homogenizing forces. So, well, we have come to the end of this
lecture on identity. And I would like to say that, this is just a beginning; we are sort
of just you know scratching the surface of this key term, identity. And it is important
however to understand these elementary, you know this, this first takes on identity. If
we have to articulate ourselves, if we have to write you know papers, if we have to try
to talk about if at all in any an intelligent matter on identity, and this is what I wanted
to bring to you; and I hope in some of lectures later on, this the term will come up and in
an attempt to show the applicability of identity as a key term.
At least, I hope I can bring in this in for the time being, I think this should suffice
and just the few key points and differences that I made and the understandings to Anthony
Gidden through Chris Barker, Stuart Hall, Simon; stay with these, and for a sort, we
ponder on this and to internalize these concepts. Thank you so much.