165 culture and identity in anthropology: reflections on 'unity'

More documents

Recommendations

Info

VAN MEIJLThe problem with this multidimensional view of <strong>identity</strong>, however, is itselusiveness s<strong>in</strong>ce the precedence of difference over sameness makes it logicallyimpossible to provide a positive perspective on what <strong>identity</strong> actually is. The absence ofa ‘self’-generated foundation of <strong>identity</strong>, however, seems unavoidable <strong>in</strong> the currentcondition of postmodernity that denies the possibility to def<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> positive terms thecontemporary conditions of knowledge <strong>and</strong> representation, also of the subject of self(Lyotard, 1984). The postmodern rejection of the absolute foundation of knowledge <strong>and</strong>representation by Lyotard is, <strong>in</strong> turn, <strong>in</strong>terwoven with Foucault’s (1966) vigorouscritique of the sovereign subject that was so characteristic of the period of modernity.As the aspect of sameness has been eclipsed by difference, so has the aspect ofuniqueness been substituted by plurality <strong>in</strong> the contemporary perspective on <strong>identity</strong>.Identity is no longer seen as exclusive, as <strong>in</strong>dividual, or rather: <strong>in</strong>divisible, but asmultiply constructed across different, often <strong>in</strong>tersect<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> antagonistic, discourses,practices <strong>and</strong> positions. As a result, the attention has shifted from s<strong>in</strong>gular <strong>identity</strong> tomultiple identities, although this emphasis is literally contradictory to the orig<strong>in</strong>al,etymological mean<strong>in</strong>g of sameness of self (Sökefeld, 1999, 2001). Nevertheless, thefocus is now on fractured identities as well as on their flexibility <strong>and</strong> changeability. Inthis context it is also relevant to refer to Stuart Hall’s (1996) def<strong>in</strong>ition of <strong>identity</strong> as‘the po<strong>in</strong>t of suture between on the one h<strong>and</strong> the discourses <strong>and</strong> practices which attemptto “<strong>in</strong>terpellate”, speak to us or hail us <strong>in</strong>to place as the social subjects of particulardiscourses, <strong>and</strong> on the other h<strong>and</strong>, the processes which produce subjectivities, whichconstruct us as subjects which can be “spoken”’ (pp. 5-6). Identity, <strong>in</strong> other words, is ak<strong>in</strong>d of nexus at which different constructions of self co<strong>in</strong>cide, <strong>and</strong> sometimes alsocollide.The <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g recognition that identities are never s<strong>in</strong>gular, but always multiplyconstructed <strong>in</strong> different contexts, which, <strong>in</strong> turn, is <strong>in</strong>tertw<strong>in</strong>ed with the prevalence ofdifference over sameness <strong>in</strong> their mean<strong>in</strong>g, leaves unresolved the question how we canunderst<strong>and</strong> the value of <strong>identity</strong> <strong>and</strong> how we may expla<strong>in</strong> the emergence of <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong>identities <strong>in</strong> recent history. Hall (1996) acknowledges that read<strong>in</strong>g identities onlyaga<strong>in</strong>st the gra<strong>in</strong> of modern <strong>in</strong>terpretations will not lead to an improved underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g.For that reason, too, he argues that it is important that the subject of <strong>identity</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>uesto be placed on the research agenda of the social sciences. Formulat<strong>in</strong>g the parametersof the context <strong>in</strong> which the contemporary study of identities is to be situated, hecontends, firstly, that it is important to l<strong>in</strong>k the social <strong>and</strong> the psychological. In thiscontext he elaborates his def<strong>in</strong>ition of <strong>identity</strong> as an <strong>in</strong>tersection of temporaryattachments to different subject positions <strong>in</strong> various discourses <strong>and</strong> practices, by argu<strong>in</strong>gthat identities can also be seen as result<strong>in</strong>g from successful articulations of differentdiscourses <strong>in</strong> different dimensions, notably social <strong>and</strong> psychological dimensions ofreality.174
CULTURE AND IDENTITY IN ANTHROPOLOGYS<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>in</strong> this view the construction of <strong>identity</strong>, or rather: identities, is a neverend<strong>in</strong>gprocess, always <strong>in</strong>complete, unf<strong>in</strong>ished <strong>and</strong> open-ended, Hall (1996) alsoproposes the term identification above the essentialist concept of <strong>identity</strong>, which ideahas recently been corroborated by the <strong>in</strong>fluential philosopher Zygmunt Bauman (2001).Rather than be<strong>in</strong>g characterized by a s<strong>in</strong>gular <strong>and</strong> stable <strong>identity</strong>, <strong>in</strong> the contemporaryglobal world the subject is constantly ‘sutur<strong>in</strong>g’ itself to different articulations betweendiscourse <strong>and</strong> practice, which process, <strong>in</strong> turn, leads to multiple identifications (see alsoCohen, 2000).The <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g aspect of these developments is that they have raised newquestions for <strong>anthropology</strong>: to what extent is the differentiation of contemporary <strong>culture</strong>sreflected <strong>in</strong> the construction of identities <strong>and</strong> the emergence of multiple identifications?How do multiple identifications come about <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual lives? And how do multipleidentifications of an <strong>in</strong>dividual relate to the identifications of other people <strong>in</strong> a dynamicsocio-cultural context? In addition to these questions regard<strong>in</strong>g the sociologicalimplications of chang<strong>in</strong>g <strong>culture</strong>s <strong>and</strong> chang<strong>in</strong>g identities, it is important to exam<strong>in</strong>e thepsychological implications of contemporary cultural developments. The ma<strong>in</strong> question<strong>in</strong> this respect concerns the relationship between multiple identifications with<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>dividual constructions of themselves as persons (rather than between or among<strong>in</strong>dividuals). How are multiple identifications mediated with<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividualconsciousness? And how do <strong>in</strong>dividuals relate different representations of theiridentifications with<strong>in</strong> their experiences of themselves?These questions, now, raise, <strong>in</strong> turn, the methodological question whether theconcept of <strong>identity</strong>, or identification, is the best term available to address these researchquestions. Some not only consider the analytical value of the concept of <strong>identity</strong><strong>in</strong>sufficient to address its entanglement with cultural complexity, but the ambiguity of<strong>identity</strong> is also compounded by the reification of <strong>identity</strong> <strong>in</strong> popular discourses, <strong>in</strong>which frequently the focus is exclusively on aspects of sameness, homogeneity <strong>and</strong>historical cont<strong>in</strong>uity. The confusion about the essentialization of <strong>identity</strong> <strong>in</strong> populardiscourses versus the ambivalence surround<strong>in</strong>g the concept of <strong>identity</strong> <strong>in</strong> academicdiscourses has caused some to argue that <strong>identity</strong> has been charged with so manymean<strong>in</strong>gs that it has ceased to be a mean<strong>in</strong>gful concept (Brubaker & Cooper, 2000).In contrast, the German anthropologists Mart<strong>in</strong> Sökefeld (2001) has argued thatthe ambivalence caused by the co-existence of constructivist conceptions of <strong>identity</strong>with<strong>in</strong> academia <strong>and</strong> the reification of <strong>identity</strong> <strong>in</strong> popular discourse is an essentialaspect <strong>in</strong> the usefulness of <strong>identity</strong> as an analytical category. After all, the dualhermeneutics of <strong>identity</strong> enables social scientists to po<strong>in</strong>t simultaneously to theessentialist implications of <strong>identity</strong> <strong>in</strong> social reality <strong>and</strong> to the de-constructivist stance ofsocial scientists. The Janus-faced semantic structure of <strong>identity</strong> would then, if fullyrealised, offer an <strong>in</strong>surance aga<strong>in</strong>st the conflation of categories of practice <strong>and</strong> analysis.It would rem<strong>in</strong>d the academy that identities, although posed by actors as s<strong>in</strong>gular,175
Page 1 and 2: International Journal for Dialogica
Page 3 and 4: CULTURE AND IDENTITY IN ANTHROPOLOG
Page 9: CULTURE AND IDENTITY IN ANTHROPOLOG

165 culture and identity in anthropology: reflections on 'unity'

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?