How are marked and unmarked identities socially produced

Authors Avatar by laudanum (student)

A simple definition of identity might be no more than “who we are”.  People of the same nationality or age, for example, can be said to have an identity in common.  It follows that by virtue of belonging to more than one group, or “collective identity”, we all have multiple identities.  Identities can connect people; and disconnect them too.  Similarities in group identities may give rise to positive connections between people, but equally connections may be negative when referring to differences.   An identity created by differences can be: one that is negatively valued; one which ceases to be equal; and one where social life is maintained on an imbalance.  Identities can be both individual (for example: female, Southerner) and, through referring to relationships and connections to others (whether they be similar or different), social.  Furthermore, social identities can be either situated, that is given by what people are doing (shopping, working), or relational and given by the relationships between people.  It is important to note this relational identity can be unequal.  The concepts of marked and unmarked identities are a pairing of unequal relational identities where the unmarked identities - taken for granted - are not noticed; in contrast to the marked identities, which always are.  As Taylor states, the marked identities “in most cases carry a negative value” (Taylor, 2009, p179).  This essay describes the way marked and unmarked identities are created.

An example of marked and unmarked identity is found in Raban’s Street People.  They were the homeless living on the streets of New York; they were grouped by “others” (everyone else) as a collection of “thieves, alcoholics, the temporarily jobless” (Raban cited in Taylor p176).  The identity given to the Street People is relational; it is both detailed and negative and is the marked identity of the pairing.  “Everyone else”, the other half of the relationship, is of course the unmarked identity.  People with unmarked identities have a “vaguely positive ‘normal’ identity which is not really described” (Taylor, 2009, p179).   Moreover, the Street People were grouped together as being the “same”, because as Taylor suggests it is part of the nature of group identities that they are not seen as individuals with different life histories (2009, p177).  “The social process through which the difference of other people is marked and their negatively valued identity becomes established” is known as Othering (Taylor, 2009, p179). 

From the articles both the Roma or “immigrants” and the “thugs” are the marked identities.  The Roma immigrants have a racial and ethnic collective identity; they are Roma, from Romania, living in Northern Ireland, some of whom are English-speaking.  The attacks against them (by the thugs) are racially motivated, and in racist rhetoric a frequent insistence is that immigrants should ‘go back to where they come from’.  As Taylor observes, a racial and ethnic identity, like the Roma, often positions people “as recent immigrants to the country in which they were born and grew up” (2009, p182).  Although the article doesn’t say how long the immigrant Roma people have been living in Belfast, the mention of a baby indicates that in this community there is at least a second generation.  The other marked identity is that of the thugs.  They are described with labels such as, “gang”, “neo-Nazi”, “racist criminals” and “far-right faction” whose actions were “illegal”; although unlike the Street People they may be comfortable claiming at least part of that identity.  In both articles figures of authority use powerful language to condemn the behaviour of the thugs and unconditionally support the Roma.  The Roma are recognised as making a contribution to the community where they were living, presumably side by side with their assailants, in a cosmopolitan district of Belfast.  Despite this, however, they remain marked; their identity is further reinforced and re-created by the negative effect of the rhetoric of persecution and discrimination in both the articles. 

Join now!

In contrast, the unmarked identity are the Western, white, Irish who are also given a situational identity by association with their “cosmopolitan and affluent” place of residence - a strong impression is given of a “nice” (not a “working-class”) place to live.  In the article the journalist makes a particular point of mentioning that the attacks did not happen in a working-class, Protestant neighbourhood, where perhaps it would be less surprising to see this behaviour?  In a modern society it is no longer possible to divide up a community into Karl Marx’s neat groups of capitalists and workers.  A more ...

This is a preview of the whole essay