Food For Thought

 Identity also implies a relationship with a broader collective or social group of some kind.  When we talk about national identity, cultural identity, or gender identity, for example, we imply that our identity is partly a matter of what we share with other people. Here, identity is about identification with others whom we assume are similar to us (if not exactly the same), at least in some significant ways. (p1)

The chapters in this book deal largely with teenagers and their uses of technology in social, cultural and learning context.  Because of their specific emphasis on this demographic the chapters do not particularly reflect my area of research, however, the introductory chapter by David Buckingham provides a useful layout of a number of approaches to thinking about identity.   Buckingham allows that in many circumstances identity is used as a unique marker of a person – the elements that make us unique and remain consistent over time – however identity is also about how we relate to those around us.  Terms like cultural identity and  national identity, and the process of  ‘identification’ do not point towards an individual and unique characteristic, but rather a shared relationship and a sense of belonging. Buckingham lays out five key approaches, as he sees it, to thinking about identity.

According to the social theorist Zygmunt Bauman, the new prominence that is accorded to identity is a reflection of the fact that it is becoming ever more problematic. Globalization, the decline of the welfare state, increasing social mobility, greater flexibility in income, insecurity in personal relationships – all these developments are contributing to a sense of fragmentation and uncertainty, in which the traditional resources for identity formation are no longer so straightforward or so easily available. (p1)

The first approached laid out is that of psychology or development. Buckingham cites Erik Erikson’s book Identity: Youth and Crisis (1968) which draws from Piaget’s ‘ages and stages’ work, identifying adolescence as a period in which young people develop their independent social skills by joining new social groups or ‘cliques’, interacting with their peers, and break away from their family as their primary identity marker.  Erikson views adolescence as a “psychosocial moratorium” – a time when young people experiment with their identities and engage in risk. James Marcia’s work supports and builds on this idea of adolescence as identity crisis.

 A critical period of identity formation, in which individuals overcome uncertainty, become more self-aware of their strengths and weaknesses, and become more confident in their own unique qualities. In order to move on, adolecents must undergo a “crisis” in which they address key questions about their values and ideals, their future occupation and career, and their sexual identity. (p2)

The second approach is that of Sociology, dealing with socialisation of adolescents. This approach is largely concerned with social issues such as that of of youthful deviance and delinquency. Young people are frequently seen as problematic or ‘at risk’ and their anti-social behaviour is largely put down to social risk factors such as poverty or inequality.  Social historians argue that the idea of youth has changed over time and it varies between social groups and cultures – certainly the concept of a teenager is a relatively new one, and the term was only coined in the 1950s and initially used largely as a marketing tool. There is a substantial amount of work in the sociology field on youth subcultures, appropriation and resistance (subordinate and subversive) which initially focused almost entirely on young male subcultures, though more recently it has expanded into the areas of female and ethnic subcultures.

The third approach detailed by Buckingham is that of Social Identity.  This deals with how people define themselves and others as part of different groups. A sense of identity is defined both how they see themselves and whether others accept them as such.  Stereotyping or ‘cognitive simplification’ helps them to define their group in positive ways (and others in negative ways). Buckingham refers to Richard Jenkins who believes that social identity is a process of linking the self to the social.  Erving Goffman’s The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life (late 1950s) discusses the performative nature of social interaction, however Buckingham notes that his work is problematised because he draws a distinct separation of individual and social identity, which Goffman terms back-stage and front-stage behaviour.

The fourth approach is that of Identity Politics, which refers to activist social movements that seek equal status or recognition for minority social identities, such as ethnicity, gender or sexuality. Issues of representation are crucial in identity politics with who has the right to speak for said group being a contentious issue.  Identity Politics can lead to ‘essentialising’ one social identity trait in individuals and defining them by this alone.  This can be detrimental as it runs the risk of reinforcing binary oppositions.

The final approach identified by Buckingham is Identity in Social Theory. He deals with Anthony Giddens theory that because traditions such as religion are now much less influential that they were in the past we are now living in a ‘post-traditional’ society.  This means that we have many more life choices to make, guided by popular media and various experts. Modern people must be constantly self-reflexive because they are constantly working on creating their own biographical narrative. Buckingham says that Giddens gives little evidence that this is specific to the late-modern era, nor that it is a widespread phenomenon, though Michel Foucault’s writings also deal with at type of post-traditional society.  Where Giddens see this lack of traditions as liberating, Foucault sees it as a means of exercising disciplinary power.  He sees identity not as individual choice , but rather the influence of government. Power is diffused through social relationships and individuals are encouraged to regulate themselves. To Foucault, Giddens ‘self-reflexive’ process is that of self-monitoring and surveillance – a virtual Panopticon, if you will, that we have all be lured into without our knowledge. Buckingham feels that it’s important to look at work such as Giddens and Foucault because there have been many social changes in modern society  and it is important to note that they are not all generated by technological advances.

The second part of the chapter deals with two key theories when writing about the uptake of technology.  The first is technological determinism – the attribution of enormous power to technology.  Carolyn Marvin (1988) has wrote about the binary views that are often held of technology throughout the last number of centuries.  New technology like the telephone was perceived either as a threat to social relationships and hierarchies or a virtual panacea that would have great power to improve life.

These discussions are mirrored by modern day discussions on technology- eg, the internet – which are often either celebrated or greeted with extreme paranoia. Technological determinism in its most basic form is the notion that technology is an autonomous force that emerges and forces itself upon a social system, its impact on the society in no way determined by the circumstances or application of its use .  In binary opposition is the Social Shaping of Technology – the idea that technology is a value-free entity that can be manipulated by social need and be whatever people choose to make of it. The truth generally lies somewhere in the middle ground; that technology use is determined both by those with a vested interest in its success (producers) and by the perceived need that the consumers have for it.  In the end viewing technology as either the cause or fix of social change is problematic.

Television is a passive medium, while the net is active; television “dumbs down” its users, while the net raises their intelligence; television broadcasts a single view of the world, while the net is democratic and interactive; television isolates, while the net builds communities; and so on. (p13)

Buckingham next touches on Prensky’s popular distinctions of ‘digital natives’ and ‘digital immigrants’ and Tapscott’s ‘Net Generation’.  These schools of thought deal with young people born into an era when they have grown up using the internet.  They indicate a new way of learning for young people that is not dominated by authoritarian teachers and allows young people to explore information at their own pace.  These arguments again ignore many variables, such as that many digital natives use tv more than internet while many of their parents may spend more time online, the down sides of technologies undemocratic online communities, and the limitations of digital learning, and the issue of the digital divide between tech rich and tech poor.