Skip to content

Identity Essays Sociology

Not to be confused with personal identity.

For other uses, see identity (disambiguation).

In psychology, identity is the qualities, beliefs, personality, looks and/or expressions that make a person (self-identity) or group (particular social category or social group). The process of identity can be creative or destructive.[1]

A psychological identity relates to self-image (one's mental model of oneself), self-esteem, and individuality. Consequently, Weinreich gives the definition "A person's identity is defined as the totality of one's self-construal, in which how one construes oneself in the present expresses the continuity between how one construes oneself as one was in the past and how one construes oneself as one aspires to be in the future"; this allows for definitions of aspects of identity, such as: "One's ethnic identity is defined as that part of the totality of one's self-construal made up of those dimensions that express the continuity between one's construal of past ancestry and one's future aspirations in relation to ethnicity" (Weinreich, 1986a).

Gender identity forms an important part of identity in psychology, as it dictates to a significant degree how one views oneself both as a person and in relation to other people, ideas and nature. Other aspects of identity, such as racial, religious, ethnic, occupational… etc. may also be more or less significant – or significant in some situations but not in others (Weinreich & Saunderson 2003 pp 26–34). In cognitive psychology, the term "identity" refers to the capacity for self-reflection and the awareness of self.(Leary & Tangney 2003, p. 3)

Sociology places some explanatory weight on the concept of role-behavior. The notion of identity negotiation may arise from the learning of social roles through personal experience. Identity negotiation is a process in which a person negotiates with society at large regarding the meaning of his or her identity.

Psychologists most commonly use the term "identity" to describe personal identity, or the idiosyncratic things that make a person unique. Meanwhile, sociologists often use the term to describe social identity, or the collection of group memberships that define the individual. However, these uses are not proprietary, and each discipline may use either concept and each discipline may combine both concepts when considering a person's identity.

The description or representation of individual and group identity is a central task for psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists and those of other disciplines where "identity" needs to be mapped and defined. How should one describe the identity of another, in ways which encompass both their idiosyncratic qualities and their group memberships or identifications, both of which can shift according to circumstance? Following on from the work of Kelly, Erikson, Tajfel and others Weinreich's Identity Structure Analysis (ISA), is "a structural representation of the individual's existential experience, in which the relationships between self and other agents are organised in relatively stable structures over time … with the emphasis on the socio-cultural milieu in which self relates to other agents and institutions" (Weinreich and Saunderson, (eds) 2003, p1). Using constructs drawn from the salient discourses of the individual, the group and cultural norms, the practical operationalisation of ISA provides a methodology that maps how these are used by the individual, applied across time and milieus by the "situated self" to appraise self and other agents and institutions (for example, resulting in the individual's evaluation of self and significant others and institutions).[citation needed]

In psychology[edit]

Erik Erikson (1902–1994) became one of the earliest psychologists to take an explicit interest in identity. The Eriksonian framework rests upon a distinction among the psychological sense of continuity, known as the ego identity (sometimes identified simply as "the self"); the personal idiosyncrasies that separate one person from the next, known as the personal identity; and the collection of social roles that a person might play, known as either the social identity or the cultural identity. Erikson's work, in the psychodynamic tradition, aimed to investigate the process of identity formation across a lifespan. Progressive strength in the ego identity, for example, can be charted in terms of a series of stages in which identity is formed in response to increasingly sophisticated challenges. The process of forming a viable sense of identity for the culture is conceptualized as an adolescent task, and those who do not manage a resynthesis of childhood identifications are seen as being in a state of 'identity diffusion' whereas those who retain their initially given identities unquestioned have 'foreclosed' identities (Weinreich & Saunderson 2003 p7-8). On some readings of Erikson, the development of a strong ego identity, along with the proper integration into a stable society and culture, lead to a stronger sense of identity in general. Accordingly, a deficiency in either of these factors may increase the chance of an identity crisis or confusion (Cote & Levine 2002, p. 22).

Although the self is distinct from identity, the literature of self-psychology can offer some insight into how identity is maintained (Cote & Levine 2002, p. 24). From the vantage point of self-psychology, there are two areas of interest: the processes by which a self is formed (the "I"), and the actual content of the schemata which compose the self-concept (the "Me"). In the latter field, theorists have shown interest in relating the self-concept to self-esteem, the differences between complex and simple ways of organizing self-knowledge, and the links between those organizing principles and the processing of information (Cote & Levine 2002).

The "Neo-Eriksonian" identity statusparadigm emerged in later years[when?], driven largely by the work of James Marcia. This paradigm focuses upon the twin concepts of exploration and commitment. The central idea is that any individual's sense of identity is determined in large part by the explorations and commitments that he or she makes regarding certain personal and social traits. It follows that the core of the research in this paradigm investigates the degrees to which a person has made certain explorations, and the degree to which he or she displays a commitment to those explorations.

A person may display either relative weakness or relative strength in terms of both exploration and commitments. When assigned categories, four possible permutations result: identity diffusion, identity foreclosure, identity moratorium, and identity achievement. Diffusion is when a person lacks both exploration in life and interest in committing even to those unchosen roles that he or she occupies. Foreclosure is when a person has not chosen extensively in the past, but seems willing to commit to some relevant values, goals, or roles in the future. Moratorium is when a person displays a kind of flightiness, ready to make choices but unable to commit to them. Finally, achievement is when a person makes identity choices and commits to them.

Weinreich's identity variant similarly includes the categories of identity diffusion, foreclosure and crisis, but with a somewhat different emphasis. Here, with respect to identity diffusion for example, an optimal level is interpreted as the norm, as it is unrealistic to expect an individual to resolve all their conflicted identifications with others; therefore we should be alert to individuals with levels which are much higher or lower than the norm – highly diffused individuals are classified as diffused, and those with low levels as foreclosed or defensive. (Weinreich & Saunderson, 2003, pp 65–67; 105–106). Weinreich applies the identity variant in a framework which also allows for the transition from one to another by way of biographical experiences and resolution of conflicted identifications situated in various contexts – for example, an adolescent going through family break-up may be in one state, whereas later in a stable marriage with a secure professional role may be in another. Hence, though there is continuity, there is also development and change. (Weinreich & Saunderson, 2003, pp 22–23).

Laing's definition of identity closely follows Erikson's, in emphasising the past, present and future components of the experienced self. He also develops the concept of the "metaperspective of self", i.e. the self's perception of the other's view of self, which has been found to be extremely important in clinical contexts such as anorexia nervosa. (Saunderson and O'Kane, 2005). Harré also conceptualises components of self/identity – the "person" (the unique being I am to myself and others) along with aspects of self (including a totality of attributes including beliefs about one's characteristics including life history), and the personal characteristics displayed to others.

Further information: Self (psychology)

In social psychology[edit]

At a general level, self-psychology is compelled to investigate the question of how the personal self relates to the social environment. To the extent that these theories place themselves in the tradition of "psychological" social psychology, they focus on explaining an individual's actions within a group in terms of mental events and states. However, some "sociological" social psychology theories go further by attempting to deal with the issue of identity at both the levels of individual cognition and of collective behavior.

Collective identity[edit]

Main article: Collective identity

Many people gain a sense of positive self-esteem from their identity groups, which furthers a sense of community and belonging. Another issue that researchers have attempted to address is the question of why people engage in discrimination, i.e., why they tend to favor those they consider a part of their "in-group" over those considered to be outsiders. Both questions have been given extensive attention by researchers working in the social identity tradition. For example, in work relating to social identity theory it has been shown that merely crafting cognitive distinction between in- and out-groups can lead to subtle effects on people's evaluations of others (Cote & Levine 2002).[2]

Different social situations also compel people to attach themselves to different self-identities which may cause some to feel marginalized, switch between different groups and self-identifications,[3] or reinterpret certain identity components.[4] These different selves lead to constructed images dichotomized between what people want to be (the ideal self) and how others see them (the limited self). Educational background and Occupational status and roles significantly influence identity formation in this regard.[5]

Identity formation strategies[edit]

Another issue of interest in social psychology is related to the notion that there are certain identity formation strategies which a person may use to adapt to the social world. (Cote & Levine 2002, pp. 3–5) developed a typology which investigated the different manners of behavior that individuals may have. (3) Their typology includes:

Psychological symptomsPersonality symptomsSocial symptoms
RefuserDevelops cognitive blocks that prevent adoption of adult role-schemasEngages in childlike behaviorShows extensive dependency upon others and no meaningful engagement with the community of adults
DrifterPossesses greater psychological resources than the Refuser (i.e., intelligence, charisma)Is apathetic toward application of psychological resourcesHas no meaningful engagement with or commitment to adult communities
SearcherHas a sense of dissatisfaction due to high personal and social expectationsShows disdain for imperfections within the communityInteracts to some degree with role-models, but ultimately these relationships are abandoned
GuardianPossesses clear personal values and attitudes, but also a deep fear of changeSense of personal identity is almost exhausted by sense of social identityHas an extremely rigid sense of social identity and strong identification with adult communities
ResolverConsciously desires self-growthAccepts personal skills and competencies and uses them activelyIs responsive to communities that provide opportunity for self-growth

Kenneth Gergen formulated additional classifications, which include the strategic manipulator, the pastiche personality, and the relational self. The strategic manipulator is a person who begins to regard all senses of identity merely as role-playing exercises, and who gradually becomes alienated from his or her social "self". The pastiche personality abandons all aspirations toward a true or "essential" identity, instead viewing social interactions as opportunities to play out, and hence become, the roles they play. Finally, the relational self is a perspective by which persons abandon all sense of exclusive self, and view all sense of identity in terms of social engagement with others. For Gergen, these strategies follow one another in phases, and they are linked to the increase in popularity of postmodern culture and the rise of telecommunications technology.

In social anthropology[edit]

Anthropologists have most frequently employed the term 'identity' to refer to this idea of selfhood in a loosely Eriksonian way (Erikson 1972) properties based on the uniqueness and individuality which makes a person distinct from others. Identity became of more interest to anthropologists with the emergence of modern concerns with ethnicity and social movements in the 1970s. This was reinforced by an appreciation, following the trend in sociological thought, of the manner in which the individual is affected by and contributes to the overall social context. At the same time, the Eriksonian approach to identity remained in force, with the result that identity has continued until recently to be used in a largely socio-historical way to refer to qualities of sameness in relation to a person's connection to others and to a particular group of people.

The first favours a primordialist approach which takes the sense of self and belonging to a collective group as a fixed thing, defined by objective criteria such as common ancestry and common biological characteristics. The second, rooted in social constructionist theory, takes the view that identity is formed by a predominantly political choice of certain characteristics. In so doing, it questions the idea that identity is a natural given, characterised by fixed, supposedly objective criteria. Both approaches need to be understood in their respective political and historical contexts, characterised by debate on issues of class, race and ethnicity. While they have been criticized, they continue to exert an influence on approaches to the conceptualisation of identity today.

These different explorations of 'identity' demonstrate how difficult a concept it is to pin down. Since identity is a virtual thing, it is impossible to define it empirically. Discussions of identity use the term with different meanings, from fundamental and abiding sameness, to fluidity, contingency, negotiated and so on. Brubaker and Cooper note a tendency in many scholars to confuse identity as a category of practice and as a category of analysis (Brubaker & Cooper 2000, p. 5). Indeed, many scholars demonstrate a tendency to follow their own preconceptions of identity, following more or less the frameworks listed above, rather than taking into account the mechanisms by which the concept is crystallised as reality. In this environment, some analysts, such as Brubaker and Cooper, have suggested doing away with the concept completely (Brubaker & Cooper 2000, p. 1). Others, by contrast, have sought to introduce alternative concepts in an attempt to capture the dynamic and fluid qualities of human social self-expression. Hall (1992, 1996), for example, suggests treating identity as a process, to take into account the reality of diverse and ever-changing social experience. Some scholars have introduced the idea of identification, whereby identity is perceived as made up of different components that are 'identified' and interpreted by individuals. The construction of an individual sense of self is achieved by personal choices regarding who and what to associate with. Such approaches are liberating in their recognition of the role of the individual in social interaction and the construction of identity.

Anthropologists have contributed to the debate by shifting the focus of research: One of the first challenges for the researcher wishing to carry out empirical research in this area is to identify an appropriate analytical tool. The concept of boundaries is useful here for demonstrating how identity works. In the same way as Barth, in his approach to ethnicity, advocated the critical focus for investigation as being "the ethnic boundary that defines the group rather than the cultural stuff that it encloses" (1969:15), social anthropologists such as Cohen and Bray have shifted the focus of analytical study from identity to the boundaries that are used for purposes of identification. If identity is a kind of virtual site in which the dynamic processes and markers used for identification are made apparent, boundaries provide the framework on which this virtual site is built. They concentrated on how the idea of community belonging is differently constructed by individual members and how individuals within the group conceive ethnic boundaries.

As a non-directive and flexible analytical tool, the concept of boundaries helps both to map and to define the changeability and mutability that are characteristic of people's experiences of the self in society. While identity is a volatile, flexible and abstract 'thing', its manifestations and the ways in which it is exercised are often open to view. Identity is made evident through the use of markers such as language, dress, behaviour and choice of space, whose effect depends on their recognition by other social beings. Markers help to create the boundaries that define similarities or differences between the marker wearer and the marker perceivers, their effectiveness depends on a shared understanding of their meaning. In a social context, misunderstandings can arise due to a misinterpretation of the significance of specific markers. Equally, an individual can use markers of identity to exert influence on other people without necessarily fulfilling all the criteria that an external observer might typically associate with such an abstract identity.

Boundaries can be inclusive or exclusive depending on how they are perceived by other people. An exclusive boundary arises, for example, when a person adopts a marker that imposes restrictions on the behaviour of others. An inclusive boundary is created, by contrast, by the use of a marker with which other people are ready and able to associate. At the same time, however, an inclusive boundary will also impose restrictions on the people it has included by limiting their inclusion within other boundaries. An example of this is the use of a particular language by a newcomer in a room full of people speaking various languages. Some people may understand the language used by this person while others may not. Those who do not understand it might take the newcomer's use of this particular language merely as a neutral sign of identity. But they might also perceive it as imposing an exclusive boundary that is meant to mark them off from her. On the other hand, those who do understand the newcomer's language could take it as an inclusive boundary, through which the newcomer associates herself with them to the exclusion of the other people present. Equally, however, it is possible that people who do understand the newcomer but who also speak another language may not want to speak the newcomer's language and so see her marker as an imposition and a negative boundary. It is possible that the newcomer is either aware or unaware of this, depending on whether she herself knows other languages or is conscious of the plurilingual quality of the people there and is respectful of it or not.

In philosophy[edit]

See also: Personal identity and Identity (philosophy)

Hegel rejects Cartesian philosophy, supposing that we do not always doubt and that we do not always have consciousness. In his famous Master-Slave Dialectic Hegel attempts to show that the mind (Geist) only become conscious when it encounters another mind. One Geist attempts to control the other, since up until that point it has only encountered tools for its use. A struggle for domination ensues, leading to Lordship and Bondage.

Nietzsche, who was influenced by Hegel in some ways but rejected him in others, called for a rejection of "Soul Atomism" in The Gay Science. Nietzsche supposed that the Soul was an interaction of forces, an ever-changing thing far from the immortal soul posited by both Descartes and the Christian tradition. His "Construction of the Soul" in many ways resembles modern social constructivism.

Heidegger, following Nietzsche, did work on identity. For Heidegger, people only really form an identity after facing death. It's death that allows people to choose from the social constructed meanings in their world, and assemble a finite identity out of seemingly infinite meanings. For Heidegger, most people never escape the "they", a socially constructed identity of "how one ought to be" created mostly to try to escape death through ambiguity.

Many philosophical schools derive from rejecting Hegel, and diverse traditions of acceptance and rejection have developed.

Ricoeur has introduced the distinction between the ipse identity (selfhood, 'who am I?') and the idem identity (sameness, or a third-person perspective which objectifies identity) (Ricoeur & Blamey 1995).

Implications[edit]

The implications are multiple as various research traditions are now[when?] heavily utilizing the lens of identity to examine phenomena.[citation needed] One implication of identity and of identity construction can be seen in occupational settings. This becomes increasing challenging in stigmatized jobs or "dirty work" (Hughes, 1951). Tracy and Trethewey (2005) state that "individuals gravitate toward and turn away from particular jobs depending in part, on the extent to which they validate a "preferred organizational self" (Tracy & Tretheway 2005, p. 169). Some jobs carry different stigmas or acclaims. In her analysis Tracy uses the example of correctional officers trying to shake the stigma of "glorified maids" (Tracy & Tretheway 2005). "The process by which people arrive at justifications of and values for various occupational choices." Among these are workplace satisfaction and overall quality of life (Tracy & Scott 2006, p. 33). People in these types of jobs are forced to find ways in order to create an identity they can live with. "Crafting a positive sense of self at work is more challenging when one's work is considered "dirty" by societal standards" (Tracy & Scott 2006, p. 7). "In other words, doing taint management is not just about allowing the employee to feel good in that job. "If employees must navigate discourses that question the viability of their work, and/ or experience obstacles in managing taint through transforming dirty work into a badge of honor, it is likely they will find blaming the client to be an efficacious route in affirming their identity" (Tracy & Scott 2006, p. 33).

In any case, the concept that an individual has a unique identity developed relatively recently in history. Factors influencing the emphasis on personal identity may include:

  • in the West, the Protestant stress on one's responsibility for one's own soul
  • psychology itself, emerging as a distinct field of knowledge and study from the 19th century onwards
  • the growth of a sense of privacy since the Renaissance
  • specialization of worker roles during the industrial period (as opposed, for example, to the undifferentiated roles of peasants in the feudal system)
  • occupation and employment's effect on identity[citation needed]
  • increased emphasis on gender identity, including gender dysphoria and transgender issues[citation needed]

Identity changes[edit]

An important implication relates to identity change, i.e. the transformation of identity.

Contexts include:

See also[edit]

References[edit]

Bibliography[edit]

  • Leary, M. R.; Tangney, J. P. (2003). Handbook of self and identity. New York:Guilford Press. ISBN 1-57230-798-6. 
  • Tracy, S. J.; Tretheway, A. (2005). "Fracturing the Real-Self-Fake-Self Dichotomy: Moving Toward "Crystallized Organizational Discourses and Identities"". Communication Theory. 15 (2): 168–195. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00331.x. 
  • Tracy, S. J.; Scott, C. (2006). "Sexuality, masculinity and taint management among firefighters and correctional officers: Getting down and dirty with America's heroes and the scum of law enforcement". Management Communication Quarterly. 20 (1): 6–38. doi:10.1177/0893318906287898. 
  • Social Identity Theory: cognitive and motivational basis of intergroup differentiation. Universiteit Twente (2004).
  • Anderson, B (1983). Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. 
  • Barnard, A. & Spencer, J. (Eds.) (1996). Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology. London: Routledge. 
  • Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Oslo: Bergen. 
  • Bourdieu, Pierre (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 
  • Bray, Z. (2004). Living Boundaries: Frontiers and Identity in the Basque Country. Brussels: Presses interuniversitaires européenes, Peter Lang.
  • Brubaker, R. (2002). Ethnicity without Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 
  • Brockmeier, J. & Carbaugh, D. (2001). Narrative and Identity: Studies in Autobiography, Self and Culture. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Brubaker, R.; Cooper, F. (2000). "Beyond 'Identity'". Theory and Society. 29: 1–47. doi:10.1023/A:1007068714468. 
  • Calhoun, C. (1994). "Social Theory and the Politics of Identity," in C. Calhoun (Ed.), Social Theory and Identity Politics. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Camilleri, C.; Kastersztein, J. & Lipiansky E.M. et al. (1990) Stratégies Identitaires. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
  • Carey, H. C. (1877). Principles of social science. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co. 
  • Carey, H. C. & McLean, K. (1864). Manual of social science; being a condensation of the "Principles of social science" of H.C. Carey, LL. D.. Philadelphia: H.C. Baird.
  • Cohen, A. (1974). Two-Dimensional: an essay on the anthropology of power and symbolism in complex society. London: Routledge
  • Cohen, A. (1998). "Boundaries and Boundary-Consciousness: Politicising Cultural Identity," in M. Anderson and E. Bort (Eds.), The Frontiers of Europe. London: Printer Press.
  • Cohen, A. (1994). Self Consciousness: An Alternative Anthropology of Identity. London: Routledge.
  • Hallam, E. M., et al. (1999). Beyond the Body: Death and Social Identity. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-18291-3.
  • Ibarra, Herminia (2003). Working identity: unconventional strategies for reinventing your career. Harvard Business Press. ISBN 978-1-57851-778-7. 
  • James, Paul (2015). "Despite the Terrors of Typologies: The Importance of Understanding Categories of Difference and Identity". Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies. 17 (2): 174–195. 
  • Little, D. (1991). Varieties of social explanation: an introduction to the philosophy of social science. Boulder: Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-0566-7.
  • Meyers, D. T. (2004). Being yourself: essays on identity, action, and social life. Feminist constructions. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 0-7425-1478-1
  • Modood, T. & Werbner P. (Eds.) (1997). The Politics of Multiculturalism in the New Europe: Racism, Identity and Community. London: Zed Books.
  • Ricoeur, Paul; Blamey, Kathleen (1995). Oneself as Another (Soi-même comme un autre), trans. Kathleen Blamey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-71329-8. 
  • Smith, A.D. (1986). The Ethnic Origin of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell. 
  • Cote, James E.; Levine, Charles (2002), Identity Formation, Agency, and Culture, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 
  • Mead, George H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 
  • Stryker, Sheldon (1968). "Identity Salience and Role Performance". Journal of Marriage and the Family. 4 (4): 558–64. doi:10.2307/349494. JSTOR 349494. 
  • Stryker, Sheldon; Burke, Peter J. (December 2000). "The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory". Social Psychology Quarterly. 63 (4): 284–297. doi:10.2307/2695840. JSTOR 2695840. 
  • Hasan Bülent Paksoy (2006) [IDENTITIES: How Governed, Who Pays? Malaga: Entelequia 2nd Ed. https://web.archive.org/web/20131021121511/http://www.eumed.net/entelequia/pdf/b002.pdf]
  • Sökefeld, M. (1999). "Debating Self, Identity, and Culture in Anthropology." Current Anthropology40 (4), August–October, 417–31.
  • Thompson, R.H. (1989). Theories of Ethnicity. New York: Greenwood Press.
  • Vermeulen, H. & Gowers, C. (Eds.) (1994). The Anthropology of Ethnicity: 'Beyond Ethnic Groups and Boundaries'. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
  • Vryan, Kevin D., Patricia A. Adler, Peter Adler. 2003. "Identity." pp. 367–390 in Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism, edited by Larry T. Reynolds and Nancy J. Herman-Kinney. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
  • Ward, L. F. (1897). Dynamic sociology, or Applied social science. New York: D. Appleton and company.
  • Ward, L. F. (1968). Dynamic sociology. Series in American studies. New York: Johnson Reprint Corp.
  • Weinreich, P. (1986a). The operationalisation of identity theory in racial and ethnic relations, in J.Rex and D.Mason (eds). "Theories of Race and Ethnic Relations". Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Weinreich, P and Saunderson, W. (Eds) (2003). "Analysing Identity: Cross-Cultural, Societal and Clinical Contexts." London: Routledge.
  • Werbner, P. and T. Modood. (Eds.) (1997). Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multi-Cultural Identities and the Politics of Anti-Racism. London: Zed Books.
  • Williams, J. M. (1920). The foundations of social science; an analysis of their psychological aspects. New York: A.A. Knopf.
  • Woodward, K. (2004). Questioning Identity: Gender, Class, Ethnicity. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-32967-1.

External links[edit]

The United States is the most diverse and cultural country in the world today. However, if we were to choose one race or culture to represent America, we would never be able to come to a concrete conclusion. I honestly do not think that we can call America a melting pot of cultures. When we blend many cultures together we are trying to create one definite ethnicity and/or culture. I would call America a bowl of trail mix. Each culture still maintains its own traditions but when mixed with others, can still create a diverse and cultural entity.
What is identity? Identity can be defined as the characteristics of determining who or what a person is or where he or she is from. I was born in China but my parents brought me over to the United States when I was only around ten months old. To this day, I have spent almost 19 years of life living in the United States. If a person asked me if I was proud to be American or Chinese I would have no answer for them. I can’t say I am proud of being Chinese because I was born in China or say that I am proud to be American because I grew up here. What I can say is that I am proud that my parents introduced me to both cultures. They brought me to America so that I could have a better life. It was my parents that taught me to bilingual and I owe everything I have to them.
Growing up in America, schools basically taught me everything about being an American. I learned the customs and traditions of American culture through my teachers and peers. However, at home, my parents took care that I did not forget about my Chinese roots. At home I would use chopsticks to eat while at school I would pick up a spoon or a fork. As soon as I would enter my house, I would greet my parents in Chinese with respect while at school I would fist bump my friends and throw around the ‘hey what’s up.’ At home my parents do allow me to speak English with them, however, I try my best to communicate in Chinese to stay connected to my ancestral roots. As a child my parents sent me to Chinese school every Friday, saying that I needed to learn my native language to balance with the English I learned as my first language. I believe that I am very lucky to be bilingual. Language plays a huge part in defining my cultural identity because everyone around you can identify you by the way you speak. In a way, speaking a different language from others around you can automatically show how culturally different you are and ultimately makes your own cultural identity even more distinctive from others around you.
Holidays have always been a big part of cultural identity. I celebrate both American and Chinese holidays. As a child however, I would be more excited to get red envelopes with money rather than opening a new game system gift on Christmas. I think that is just my personal taste because I like the feeling of money in my hands. Anyways, parties on holidays would consist of groups of Chinese families going to one Chinese restaurant to celebrate together. I would only see a sea of Chinese people speaking in their native languages. It would be impossible to hear one of them talk in English. However, I liked this because I would be able to learn more about the Chinese culture that I wouldn’t learn from my parents. Even though we do celebrate American holidays like the Fourth of July and Thanksgiving, we usually celebrate with the same groups of Chinese families. At these parties we would have both American and Chinese cuisine, which made each party a great experience. Through the different holidays I celebrate I was able to experience the best of both cultures even if it involved more Chinese than Americans.
Although I did grow up in America, I was still brought up in a Chinese household. Like all Chinese parents, mine would push me to my limits to get good grades and never skip school. I was always considered to be the ‘Asian’ one in my group of friends because of my work ethic. However, I embraced trying to be the perfect Chinese child while embracing the laid-back culture of Americans. In school I did everything any American child would do; I attended sporting events, spent time with friends, and played video games to pass time. As a matter of fact my parents were accepting the American culture as their own, allowing me to make decisions for myself just like American parents do. Although they encompassed the strictness of Chinese parents, they still accepted the fact that children in America need their own freedom. As a college student right now, I’m glad that I was introduced to both the American and Chinese cultures as a child. I have the work ethic to succeed in school and I have the laid back personality that allows me get out and have fun with friends when I want to. One can say that my personality is 50% Chinese and 50% American.
After growing up learning the beliefs and traditions of two cultures I still get puzzled about which culture I identify myself as belonging to. It is tough for a person to choose one culture over another when they love being a part of both of them. I believe that it is easy for someone to adopt a certain culture through learning the language, living styles, and beliefs but it becomes hard to actually say that you are now of that culture. Going back to the question on whether I am proud of being American or Chinese, I can say that I will never be able to answer that question with one definite answer. I can say that I am 100% Chinese because of my parents and birthplace but I can also say that I am 100% American because my entire life was spent growing up in America. I strongly believe that it is this diversity between these two distinct cultures that make up my cultural identity. It is this diversity that has molded my personality into what it is today.