Interpreting Identity, Part 5

View Part I, View Part II, View Part III, View Part IV




Proportionately historians are underrepresented — almost absent — from the study of identity as a concept.[1] The emphasis in anthropological, sociological, and geographical studies has been on understanding the nature of the ‘identity divide’ itself: how people relate to it and how they situate themselves with respect to it. One of the most valuable insights that can be taken from these studies is that invoking identity is how boundaries are made visible. That visibility suits identity to historical analysis — though historians would do well to steer clear of the using term, as it does nothing to enhance clarity. What I mean as writer by using identity in a text may not be what you as a reader think I mean and vice versa, were the tables turned, because I cannot know what you believe the word means. In this presentation alone the word appears more times than I wish to count, and the meaning has varied, requiring that at least four additional and very different definitions be set out in instances where — were this not a piece in which I was making a particular point about the slipperiness of the term — eliminating the word and relying solely on the meaning supplied in parenthesis would probably have enhanced clarity.

Nevertheless, recognizing identity as a signal of contest enables examination of when, where, and why ideas of difference came to the fore or receded from view. In terms of historical analysis, how that difference is described or defined and whether the difference is called an ‘identity’ or something else is not of central importance. What matters is that difference becomes an issue in some contexts and not in others. Those contexts need to be examined. Simply ascribing a name to a subject group because the name is ‘old’ is not a means of ensuring historical accuracy, achieving better description, or maintaining objective neutrality. One must ask: what contest did the name arise from? What relation does use of the name perpetuate? In terms of reflexivity: if it is necessary to perpetuate that relation linguistically to support one’s argument — why is that so?[2] How is this different from othering (see also avoiding othering)? What would charting the identity divides that one’s work creates, or supports, say about one’s relation to historiographical debate? If, as Said remarked, “the challenge is to connect [past texts] with the imperial process of which they were manifestly and unconcealedly a part,” then understanding uses made of identity — in past contexts, but most particularly in one’s own present text(s) — matters.[3]


[1] See Lamont and Molnár, “The Study of Boundaries,” 167-169, 171, 183-186; Sanders, “Ethnic Boundaries,” 329; Sanders, “Ethnic Boundaries,” 337; and S. Hall, “Ethnicity,” 11-12. James E. Coté, Identity an International Journal of Theory and Research, lists relevant areas of analysis as: anthropology, cultural studies, education studies, gender studies, psychodynamic theory, political science, psychology, social psychology, and sociology.
[2] For example, if conclusions are being drawn from a comparison of contending groups, is that comparison being  carried out at appropriately commensurate scales? In naming one’s subjects and creating a classification system, one ought to be wary of comparing a non-specific, monolithic category such as ‘White colonists’ to a sub-categorical specificity such as ‘Catholic, French-speaking, adult males from the parish of St. Norbert, Red River Settlement.’
[3] Said, Culture and Imperialism, xiv.



Published 1 March 2010


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s