Cultural Identity Politics in the (Post-)Transitional Societies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Cultural Identity Politics in the (Post-)Transitional Societies Anthony Giddens defines self-identity as “the self as reflexively understood by the person in terms of her or his biography” (Giddens, 1991: 53). It would not be static but “something that has to be routinely created and sustained in the reflexive activities of the individual” (Giddens, 1991: 52). Self-identity means the descriptions that an individual makes of his or her role in the world, of how he or she is different from others, and of what he or she has in common with others. It is influenced by and continuously produced and reproduced by social practices of humans in society. The various relationships that humans enter and the experiences they have in these relationships shape how an individual understands and describes himself or herself. Self-identity forms a foundation of communication processes in social relationships by which it is enabled and constrained. In particular phases of transition or loss, and the emergence of new roles in the life of an individual are also phases of instability of self-identity that can result in changes of selfdescription. In such phases, people enter or leave social groups that have certain collective identities and have to reposition their personal identities. They might enter new groups where they are confronted with new collective identities that enable and constrain their personal identities and that are influenced by actions and communications based on their personal identities. Individuals, to a certain extent, identify with the identity of the social groups in which they act or of which they are part. Individual identity is a positioning of a human being towards all group identities with which she or he is confronted. Group identities emerge from continuous communication processes, which individuals enter with their personal identities, and they enable and constrain personal identities that again influence group identities, and so on. Hence, identity is a self-referential process that permanently connects an individual and a collective level. Some recent contributors to the literature have expressed serious doubts about whether identity and identification matter as much as social science appears to think they do. Their scepticism has some justification, and is a useful reminder that we should not take identity for granted. First, and most fundamentally, there are doubts about whether identity, in itself, actually causes behaviour. Martin (1995: 5), for example, has insisted that “identity”, despite its high profile in accounts of recent conflicts, such as in the Balkans, “fails to provide an explanation … [for] why actors are making certain utterances or why certain events are happening”. This was a response to claims that explicitly connected identity to actions, a response to assertions that, under the circumstances, the people concerned could not have done otherwise (and were, hence, blameless). Recently Malešević (2002: 62) has also put forward arguments broadly similar to Martin’s. In order to begin thinking about this issue, we must decide what we mean by “identity”. As a very basic starting point, identity is the human capacity – rooted in language – to know “who’s who” (and hence “what’s what”). This involves us knowing who we are, knowing who others are, them knowing who we are, us knowing who they think we are, and so on: a multidimensional classification or mapping of the human world and our places in it, as individuals and as members of collectivities. It is a process – identification – not a “thing”. It is not something that one can have, or not; it 104
How modern technology shape-shifts our identity is something that one does. Following Martin and Malešević, it cannot be said too often that identification does not determine what humans do. Knowing “the map” – or even just approximately where we are – does not necessarily tell us where we should go next (although a better or worse route to our destination might be suggested). In modern society, virtual reality is part of our social reality. For most people, the Internet is more of a medium than a technology. Moreover, it is a shape-shifting, borderless medium firmly in the hands of ordinary citizens bent on turning it to extraordinary ends. Cyberspace becomes a system that mediates and influences our cognition, communication and cooperation in everyday life, “ the material basis on which we live our existence, construct our systems or representation, practice our work, link up with other people, retrieve information, form our opinions, act in politics, and nurture our dreams” (Castells, 2001: 203). The anonymity of cyberspace enables an endless space of possible identities that humans can construct in online communication. Online personae are connected to the social life of the individual who feels a desire to act and communicate in certain ways online. Online characters are an expression of real-world experiences, desires, fantasies and ideas; they are connected to the offline world. If we know the endowment of an individual with different types of capital, we cannot deduce his or her online identities. Thus, cyberspace offers a niche for each of these specific facets of selfhood. Some people even talk about how we can “deconstruct” ourselves online. We do not have to present ourselves in total – how we look, move, talk, our history, thoughts, feelings and personality, all in one big package. In different environments, we can divvy up and present our characteristics in packets of various sizes and content. Thanks to thousands of online groups each devoted to a distinct professional, vocational or personal topic, we can express, highlight and develop specific interests and life experiences while setting aside others. When we join an online community, we often have a choice about how much, if any personal information should be placed into the members’ profile database. Online communication tools even give us the choice about whether we want people to see how we look or hear our voice. The desire to remain anonymous reflects the need to eliminate those critical features of our identity that we do not want to display in that particular environment or group. The desire to lurk – to hide completely – indicates the person’s need to split off his entire personal identity from his observing of those around him: he wants to look, but not be seen. The different components of who we are can be categorized as either positive or negative. There are some universal criteria that can help us distinguish the two. Most of the time we will criticize a person’s need to hurt other people and applaud compassion. But it is not necessary to present universal truisms about good and bad. Subjectively, a person can feel shame, guilt, fear, anxiety or hatred about some aspect of their identity, while accepting and appreciating other aspects. People also strive to attain new, idealized ways of being. Those who act out in cyberspace – who are in some way hurting or violating the rights of others, or hurting them – are usually discharging some negatively charged aspect of their psyche. This purely cathartic act often goes nowhere. An insecure, passive-aggressive person gets stuck in an endless 105
Page 1 and 2:
Cultural Transitions in Southeaster
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
C o n t e n t s Foreword . . . . .
Page 9:
FOREWORD
Page 12 and 13:
Cultural Identity Politics in the (
Page 14 and 15:
Page 17:
PART ONE Histories, memories and na
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63: Cultural Identity Politics in the (
Page 69 and 70: Culture of trauma and identity poli
Page 75 and 76: References Culture of trauma and id
Page 77: PART TWO Communication, media and c
Page 109 and 110: How modern technology shape-shifts
Page 111: How modern technology shape-shifts
Page 121 and 122: Cultural identities in Southeastern
Page 131: Cultural identities in Southeastern
Page 135 and 136: Cultural identities from the bottom
Page 149 and 150: From productivity to creativity - t
Page 155: From productivity to creativity - t
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 171 and 172:
Repetition of difference - the sear
Page 173 and 174:
Repetition of difference - the sear
Page 175 and 176:
Report on the conference “Questio
Page 177 and 178:
Report on the conference Peace Inst
Page 179:
Report on the conference of ‘inde
Page 183 and 184:
Notes on the authors PAŠKO BILIĆ
Page 185 and 186:
Notes on the authors ANDREA KOMLOSY
Page 187 and 188:
Culturelink Joint Publications Seri
show all

Cultural Identity Politics in the (Post-)Transitional Societies

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?