下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
“Identity” has long been a subject of study in fields as varied as psychology,anthropology, sociology, philosophy, theology, and literature (Holland & Lanchicotte,2007; Kumaravadivelu, 2012). However, scholars’ opinions have diverged widely in defining “identity” and there is very little consensus about what it constitutes, or how it is actually constructed. As Elliott and Gay (2009) complain that defining “identity”“has proved to be one of the most vexing and vexed topics in the social sciences and humanities” (p.viii).
Researchers used many terminologies such as social identity, ethnic identity,cultural identity, linguistic identity, subjectivity, the self and voice , which refer to approximately the same notion. The first tricky problem in defining “identity” is to distinguish “identity” from these perplexing terms, especially from the notion between“identity” and “self ”, as Beauchamp and Thomas (2009) point out, “one must struggle to comprehend the close connection between identity and the self ” (p.176).
According to Mead (1934), “self ” can arise only in a social setting where there is social communication; in communicating we learn to assume the roles of others and monitor our actions accordingly. Mccormick and Pressley (1997) argue that the concept of “self ” can be defined as an organized representation of our theories, attitudes, and beliefs about ourselves. Oyserman et al. (2012) simply put that “self ” often refers to a warm sense or a warm feeling that something is “about me” or “about us” (p.71) while“identities” are the traits and characteristics, social relations, roles, and social group memberships that define who one is (p.69). However, the authors also note that while“self ” and “identity” are often used interchangeably, some clarity can be attained by considering them as a series of nested constructs, with “self ” as the most encompassing term, self-concepts being embedded within the self, and identities being embedded within self-concepts (Oyserman et al. 2012, p.69). The concept of “identity” has rich meanings in the literature, but these various meanings share a common idea that identity is not a fixed attribute of a person, but a relational phenomenon (Beijaard et al. 2004).Gee (2000) identifies four interrelated perspectives on “identity”: the nature perspective (N-identity, or those parts of who we are that have their source in nature rather than society, e.g. a tall person); the institutional perspective (I-identity, or those parts of who we are that have their source in institutional authority, e.g. a school teacher); the discourse perspective (D-identity, or those parts of who we are that have their source in the discourse or dialogue of other people, e.g. someone who is deemed by others to be a“charismatic” person); and the afinity perspective (A-identity, or those parts of who I am that have their source in a “distinctive set of practices”, e.g. a Red Sox fan).
The notion of “identity” is difficult to understand in terms of its nature. Mead and Ericson might be the predecessors who tried to define “identity” in early literature.“Identity” had been long considered as one of the physical characteristics of human beings in the middle 20th century (Holland and Lachicotte, 2007) until Mead (1934) connects “identity” with “the self ” and an individual’s self-concept. In Mead’s book Mind, Self and Society , the author argues that people’s identity is shaped and reshaped rather than perceived as being certain features and common characteristics. Mead’s argument is the first to expand the concept of “identity” from the inner sense of self to much wider social context. Later on, psychologist Erikson (1968) adds that “identity”is something that develops during one’s whole life, but not something one possesses. Holland and Lachicotte (2007) summarize these lines of theorizing identity that:
An Eriksonian identity is overarching. It weaves together an individual’s answer to questions about who he or she is as a member of the cultural and social group(s) that make up his or her society. A Meadian identity, on the other hand, is a sense of oneself as a participant in the social roles and positions defined by a specif c, historically constituted set of social activities.
(p.104)
Thus, based on the comparison made by Holland and Lachicotte, it can be seen that Mead’s definition stresses the social nature of “identity” while Erikson’s conception of“identity” focuses on the ongoing and coherent characteristic of “identity”. Beijaard et al.(2004) develop this notion and determine that “identity” is an ongoing process, dynamic rather than stable, a constantly evolving phenomenon. Although scholars’ opinions vary to a great extent and a clear definition of “identity” is not easily reached, a review of literature converges on the idea that the notion of “identity” is multi-faceted and dynamic in nature, as Rodgers and Scott (2008) summarize:
Contemporary conceptions of “identity” share four basic assumptions:(1) that identity is dependent upon and formed within multiple contexts which bring social, cultural, political, and historical forces to bear upon that formation; (2) that identity is formed in relationship with others and involves emotions; (3) that identity is shifting, unstable, and multiple; and, (4) that identity involves the construction and reconstruction of meaning through stories over time.
(p.733)
In this starting section, multiple definitions of “identity” as well as the relationship between “identity” and “self” are reviewed from historical perspective. In the next section, the notion of teachers’ identity will be analyzed from multiple perspectives, as a basis for understanding language teachers’ identity.