I must say that this week’s readings left me wondering a lot. It is either there is still a lot of a framing and new grounds to explore in identity and literacy theories or there is something missing. Not to mince the amazing research in these articles, but I feel we are going around the same old ideas wrapped differently. I understand that idea of situated identities in Bartlett (2007) and how certain cultural artifacts have affordances that aid in performing unique contextual identities. I also get the idea of sedimented identities in Rosewell and Pahl (2007) and how in this case, children’s identities are so sedimented that when they create texts, their identities and texts are intertwined with each other. The article by Lammers and Marsh (2018) highlighted the identity cube model and the development of a core identity left me questions. All these articles were good but often while reading I thought this theory is drawing on so many theories that for me it complicates identity. But then again, identity itself is complicated to narrow down. I would raise a number of issues or questions below to helping in my understanding of all these theories.
The first day of class when we were asked to create our identity text, most of all, if not all of us framed our identities by our relationships, places, occupation, experiences, and culture. Beth mentioned in class last week when discussing her identity text that she realized that it describes who she is to people not necessarily herself. That struck me. Who then is Beth really? I do that too so I found the idea of core identity in Lammers and Marsh (2018) fascinating. What do you consider your core identity? Do you have one or not?
I also found the idea of sedimented identities interesting when looked at as national identities. Let’s take the idea ‘American’ given that who the ‘American’ identity has been ‘sedimented’ by historical, political, social, and cultural practices, I ask, “who is an American?”. Often in tragic and horrific events, national identity is placed above every other identity. I admit that the notion might be complicated given the heterogeneous composition of America, but going back to the idea of core identity, depending on whether you agreed above to having one or not, is there a core identity of American? Watch the CNN video below on American Identity: Who is us?
I know my examples might be far-fetched but those questions help me make a little sense of some of these theories we read about this week. I don’t have answers but hopefully, you do. Thinking of these theories in terms of national identities remind me of the Taye Selassie’s talk on “Where are you local?”. Maybe national identities don’t matter or do they?
While situated, sedimented, laminated identities and the identity cube afford us the opportunity to think about identity in development, they raise many questions about identity and literacy practices. Can sedimented identity be resisted? Do we choose what identities we laminate?
Edwin-Thank you for bringing in these outside questions and raising issues based on examples. That helps me think about what these theories "look like" in terms of conversations such as "What does it mean to be an American?" I think that, based on this idea of a 'core' identity, the jury is out for me as to whether or not this exists for each person. Wouldn't that be similar to the concept of the self?
ReplyDeleteIn terms of a 'core American identity,' I'm inclined to say that no, there isn't a core American identity as a result of the heterogenous nature of the country you mentioned but also as a result of the systematic oppression and dehumanization on which the country was built. In turn, I think that while there might be ideological language (or even played off as hegemonic at this point) that presents a 'core American,' those characteristics are written, formed, reformed and reinforced by normative standards (read: White, male-dominated rhetoric) that consider some people to be 'American' and others to be less than 'American.'
Edwin,
ReplyDeleteWow! The way your posts allow me to continue to explore my own identities as we learn such rich content is energizing to me.
Monica, I don't know if I agree that there isn't a core American identity, at least not in my experience as a person of color who, quite frankly, has benefited more from assimilation than not. Isn't the dominant American Discourse still one that is mainly white (European descent), middle class, educated, and mostly male? After all, aren't normative standards at play in habitus? Perhaps it's about disposition. If Compton-Lilly's (2014) Peter can "exhibit[ ] dispositions related to being a good student", do those of us who choose assimilation not exhibit dispositions that we think might lean toward a "core American identity"?
Lius's (2018) words "Asian Americans have not yet been fully integrated into American life" makes it clear that in many instances folks who choose assimilation into a culture do intentionally choose the identities they laminate. Do I think people choose all the identities we laminate? No, I do not. Perhaps some lamination occurs because of the relationships we build with others. Laura's theater mentor nudged her away from a disposition of perfectionism and toward a disposition as a risk-taker (Lammers & Marsh, 2017).
I am thinking about my identity as a researcher, which I think can parallel Laura's identity as a writer in many ways. Some sides of that identity cube, I actively work to laminate myself by positioning myself to build expertise--seeking out a cohort of sorts, spending time reading and writing, dedicating time for class. Others are put upon me by those with whom I interact, which reminds me of Monica's Drew who was limited by the girls who invited him to sit with them, Bartlett's (2007) voter faced with, and mentors and teachers in both Compton-Lilly's (2014) Peter and Lammers and Marsh's (2017) Laura's lives . All of this goes back Edwin's example of Beth. Perhaps it is not a matter of describing identity as either to other people or to ourselves. Perhaps it simply depends upon which metaphors we choose to unravel and explain this thing we call identity.
Edwin, I thought this article adds to the conversation you began: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/02/21/black-history-african-american-definition/1002344001/. Looking forward to our discussion in class this evening.
DeleteEdwin,
ReplyDeleteI also think identity got a little lost in the articles this week. I understood each of the authors' perspectives, and I understood their argument/rationale, but I feel like I'm stuck in the middle of a Dallas freeway exchange with theories and ideas going in every direction and I'm not sure which lane I'm supposed to be in to headed in the right direction. I'm hoping that as we continue to discuss identity theory, it will clear up and will have a better understanding how all this different thoughts fit together. Your discussion about the American identity reminded me of the video that Dr. Zapata shared of Taiye Selasi in class. For me, I think national identity is a figured world that I don't conscious participate in. In class I enjoy hearing the pride and love that you and Christina share about your nationality and heritage. I often leave class thinking, "Wow! I have really missed out on something in my life." I appreciate what opportunities and affordances being American has afforded me, but I don't think I have a core American identity. I think the heterogenous nature of the United States makes it so there isn't one way to be or act like an American. Like in the video clip you shared, the US is great at making Chinese Americans, but China is not good at making American Chinese. It's two different figured worlds and how they create the actors within their worlds.
~Sarah
Edwin,
ReplyDeleteYour honesty is well accepted and as you read on my post, I agree we are going around with the same ideas wrapped differently. You wrote to me, "I say this because your question assumes that the machine and the individual are separate. Maybe form another point of view they are not so separate but one entity." I agree they are one entity which is why all of this is overwhelming and why I am stuck with there is not an answer! No one knows how these identities are taken on and why, because we don't know how meaning is created-how the outside world is brought into the person. Sarah mention the awe of hearing about you and Christina's nationality and I am as well. What does it mean to be an American? I question this when I hear people who can answer this questions with ease-I look to find who I am by who my family was not because I live in America. Thank you for your post and writing to create discussions related to the readings.
Edwin,
ReplyDeleteI always enjoy reading your reflections on the reading...they are always so insightful. I, too, thought of identities as complex. As I was reading Compton-Lilly (2014) and Bartlett (2007), I certainly couldn't help think of the formulation of identities being closely related to critical literacy theory, perhaps even critical race theory. My reasoning is that both research studies chose to look at black persons and their experiences and habitus and how that worked together with their intrinsic sensibilities to shape their view of themselves. Be it in resistance to the societal distinctions or stereotypes like the women interviewed by Bartlett, or the fact that Compton-Lilly presented Peter as almost "surprisingly capable". I agree that identities are complex based on many factors - sedimentary identities making the most sense perhaps - the idea that over time each experience and place within which we live (given its possibilities and limitations) all work together to shape us into who we are. I have to say that I like that we (the individual) do have the final say. We ultimately are the builders and shapers of our identity, we "do" literacy and "enact" literate acts in response to both external and internal stimuli.