Describe any one approach to identity. Discuss how this approach can help to explain the identities of people with disabilities.

University Degree Subjects allied to Medicine

Introduction

Identity is the term used to describe who a person is in the way they see and react to the world around them. Identity is constructed by how we see ourselves and how we think other people perceive us. For decades, (the first psychological theory of identity being created by William James, 1890) psychologists have conducted research into this field in order to understand how people make sense of the world and how they go about their everyday lives.

At the present day there are three main approaches to identity: Erik Erikson and James Marcia’s psychosocial approach; Henri Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory (SIT); and Social Constructionist theories. All three approaches can be applied to the identity of people with disabilities but for the purpose of this essay I will be focusing on the Social Constructionist theories. This is mainly because I feel that social constructionism it is the theory that allows a more fluid approach to the identities of people with disabilities. For example, Erikson and Marcia’s psychosocial approach, although has scope to explain the identities of those with disabilities in adolescence through normative crisis, it can be argued that it then ignores any significant changes in later life. Therefore, does not take into account when a person becomes disabled succeeding adolescence. Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory allows for a significant change in any stage of life and could well have been a good choice of an approach to identity for the purpose of this essay. However, I think that the criticism of this particular theory is that it could be seen to trivialise major social differences, such as disability, due to it being based on laboratory-based studies from simplified social processes. Social constructionism focuses on how we negotiate embodied identities by analysis of day-to-day discourse and so can tackle the diversity of the subject of disability in a natural setting. Also, even though social constructionism and SIT both agree that group relationships are important to our identities, social constructionism allows the group to which we belong to be subdivided, highlighting differences in social categories, such as black and disabled and therefore addresses the diversity in the identity of people with disabilities.

Social Constructionism

There are many social constructionist perspectives in many disciplines and therefore there is no one author to this approach, unlike the other theories mentioned above. The main aspect of this approach is that there is no division between social and personal identity, and they are not treated as different systems. As personal identity is dependant on social identity, identity must be wholly social. Social constructionism means the construction of identity through social processes: how society treats certain groups of people; discourses (the language we use); and how we see and interact with other people. We ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Social Constructionism

Social construction of identity is based on us seeing and reacting to the world according to everyday social situations and interactions between people and so identity is ‘constructed’ and not purely ‘natural’. For example, it is argued that our identity is developed through the language available to us; what we read or hear; and how we use and interpret it (discourse). This is also dependant on our culture and histories. This can be seen in Britain’s law on homosexual relations 40 years ago compared to the same laws at the present day. It was much less acceptable 40 years ago for us to engage in homosexual relationships therefore the way in which people thought and talked about it and so the attitudes towards homosexual people would be completely different to those of the present day, where it is now legal for couples of the same sex to marry. This means our identities change over time to mirror the changes in society in our particular culture.

Social constructionists argue that our identity is always being developed and is not fixed nor is it something that can be achieved. It changes from situation to situation (as it is formed socially) and so is provisional and dynamic. As a result of this, we do not have one core identity, but many de-centred identities which make up a coherent whole. This contradicts Erikson and Marcia’s psychosocial theory and Tajfel’s SIT approach and could even be seen as a criticism to the social contrusctionism theory as it goes against the view of ourselves having a stable identity: a stable sense of who we are. However, it could then be argued that we develop one continuous identity in our autobiographical narratives of ourselves as having a stable identity.

Other factors of the social constructionist theories are: we use our identities to negotiate everyday interactions; there are differences between people who belong to the same social category and identity involves power relations. I will explain these points in a little more detail as I apply them to the identities of people with disabilities.

Social constructionist approach to the identities of people with disabilities

In order to discuss identity, especially in relation to disability, I would have to explain the concept of embodiment. Embodiment is an important factor in all three identity theories. It indicates that as we live through our bodies, we experience them physically and biologically at the same time as socially and psychologically. It is easier to be conscious of the importance of our bodies when they do not work as well – especially those who acquire a disability at some point of their life. How our bodies work can affect what we can do and so how other people see, react to and treat us. In social constructionist terms, as identity is constructed socially, what we can or cannot do will affect how other people treat us and so has a direct impact on our identity.

The social model of disability states that the everyday limitations of people with disabilities are not only because of their physical impairments but mainly caused by the attitudes of other people and the make-up of the environment around them. It is seen that in society, their needs are not fully addressed and catered for. This is mirrored by the social constructionist views that identity is constructed by social situations. Depending on how well catered for they are in a certain situation, will determine how independent they are and feel at that particular time. This would affect their confidence and the views of other people around them towards them. This would then directly affect their identity at that time, in that particular social situation.

Social constructionists believe that society and culture play a huge part in the identities of large-scale groups including disability. For years there have been debates on how the media can influence how people think and behave and this can be applied to disability. For example Radio 4, from the beginning of the disability movement in the 1970’s aired programmes such as Does He Take Sugar? which covered disability issues. It could be argued that mainstreaming disability in this way developed a better understanding of disability, altering it’s social status and perspectives of people with disabilities. On the other hand it could be argued that it ‘was ultimately stigmatising of disabled people by underlining their difference from others’ (Brian Sweeny and Sheila Riddell, 2003). Either way, as programmes such as this would affect people’s perceptions on disability, it would affect the identities of people with disabilities as their identities are constructed socially.

In this theory, identity is not seen as an achievement. it is seen as a “resource that we can use in interactions” (Hall, 1996 as cited in Phoenix, 2007, p77). This can also be applied to disability. For instance, Watson et al., 2000 gives an example of disabled children, even though refused to label themselves as disabled, would use the term to benefit them in certain situations, such as asking to leave class early ‘because they are disabled’. Therefore, their identity would alter to suit them in different situations.

Social constructionism allows the identity of people with diabilities to be constantly negotiated as society and also their understanding of their disability changes. This means that their identities will be historically and culturally specific. An example of this is an account by Begum, 1994 who is an Asian disabled woman. ‘People

As I mentioned earlier in this essay, social constructionist theories allows us to belong to more than one social category (such as black and disabled). The group to which we believe is the most important to us, the group we most identify with, due to power relations will prevail over the other, making power relational.

In my opinion if identity is constructed socially one person’s identity can be extremely diverse. In this day and age, with the help of technology, we could completely change our identities through social networking sites such as Facebook and other chat sites. Facebook in particular allows you to create your own website with your front page being your identity. It allows you to publicise your beliefs and to post your feelings as and when you wish and adds these feelings to your ‘status’ which is available to be seen by all your ‘friends’. This means in effect you could create your online identity as you wish. And as in our culture today, your online identity is easy accessible and can account for a large part of our identities as social sites such as these become a part of everyday life.

Conclusion

Not one theory can answer all questions on identity. How we view the world and how we see other people, names we have for certain groups of people proves that language is imperative to S.C.

We actively construct our identities according to the social situation we are in. Social relations.

NEGOTIATE

“Bruner (1990) suggests that ‘we make ourselves’ and our identities through the stories about ourselves that we tell others and ourselves (our autobiographical narratives)” (as cited in Phoenix, 2007, p.73)

References

Phoenix, A. (2007). Identities and diversities. In D. Miell, A Phoenix, & K. Thomas. Mapping Psychology (2nd ed., p73). Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Phoenix, A. (2007). Identities and diversities. In D. Miell, A Phoenix, & K. Thomas. Mapping Psychology (2nd ed., p77). Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Sweeny, B and Riddell, S (2003) Mainstreaming disability on Radio 4. In Disability, Culture and Identity (1st ed, p158) Pearson Education Limited

Phoenix, A. (2007). Identities and diversities. In D. Miell, A Phoenix, & K. Thomas. Mapping Psychology (2nd ed., p51). Milton Keynes: The Open University.