Identity and language learning: Discourse, culture and identity

Summary of B1.4: An explanation of a ‘discourse approach’ to culture is given in this section. Which, in short, is “the position that in any instance of actual communication we are multiply positioned within an indefinite number of Discourse” (Holiday 111).

Summary of Social Identity...etc: Peirce argues that theorist have not a complete understanding of social identity, and therefore fail to understand how language learners interact in the world.

Summary of Hall, K.: The article problematizes the idea of a language as a homogeneous and fixed entity in which people operate. Instead, it presents how people interact in their language as multifaceted and varied.

Summary of B1.3: This section of the book explains how people use narrative to represent their social world and to “establish themselves of members of particular groups” (Holiday 101).

I found section of the reading touching on identity found through narrative to be the most compelling topic, so I will, as a result, comment on it. On page 101, Holiday writes, “people do not possess one identity related to the social categories to which they belong, but rather they present and re-present themselves... in accordance with changing social circumstances and interlocutors.” This concept of identity as something we perform is counterintuitive because of our tendency to think of ourselves as of a unity. However, how we act in the midst of different people can be radically different. How one acts in front of their boss hopefully varies considerably from how one acts with their sibling. The people who surround us, and the environment we are in have the ability to change how we present ourselves to others and to ourselves. For instance, if I go to an event underdressed, how I act is generally vary different than than if I show up at an event overdressed. Many other examples could be given as to the environmental factors that change behavior.

I thought it was interesting that the text presented this information in the context of identity narratives. Holiday quotes Stephenson (2000) who writes, “Our sense of self is achieved through our capacity to conceive of our own lives as a unity and this in turn is a result of our capacity to tell the story of our lives” (Holiday 101). The desire to tell the “story of our lives” and what story we tell is directly correlated to our identity (Holiday 101). Naturally, if a person’s narrative includes them in a particular social group or excludes them from others, the person will act differently in these groups. I think many narratives, because of the desire for a coherent unity, are essentialist by nature. It is easy to think in terms of ‘us’ and ‘them’ in every condition rather than me and you in certain situations but not others. The partiality and fragmentation of human knowledge is frightening for most people, and this fuels the desire for security. Hence, the desire to write endings for all of our beginnings which causes people to fabricate protagonists and antagonists where none exist. (At least not in boundaries so distinct) While being aware of this tendency is perhaps the first step to resisting it, I believe it is a trait so intrinsically tied to being human that we could not function without creating tailored narratives to construct a unity out of a fragmented life. Of course, the question that now must be asked is this:

How do we gain a sense of unity without essentializing or marginalizing a group of people?

Also, if our identity is constantly shifting, can it be said we have identity, and if so what aspects make up ‘our’ identity?

and...

Is our tendency to change how we ‘perform’ our identity actually us shifting our identity merely a change in behavior?