This article explores various theories attempting to explain identity, the factors that define it and the dynamics it generates. It is worth mentioning that identity as a research subject is, reasonably, quite difficult to deal with. Glynis Breakwell notes that identity is a term with indistinct borders [1] and rather slippery term for researchers to be precisely worked with. In the mainstream language it is used in various contexts, usually describing a personality or a lifestyle, a certain atmosphere or a genius loci of a place. It is challenging to determine the integral components that construct identity. Even though it is hard to be precise, it remains a powerful and valid intangible force transmitting its meaning into a tangible form. 

I do not aim not to build a definition of identity. Rather I seek to explore different approaches towards explaining it and different aspects that surround this concept. As I observed and followed this phenomena, I am rather convinced that it is something strong and resonant to encounter when it comes to the city. It strikes me greatly to explore it in unusual contexts, for instance in stigmatized urban districts.

The Self-Concept

Historically the word identity originates from the Latin expression identitas as the fact of being who or what a person or a thing is. The use of this term in philosophy is dated back to the 16th century and was used until its substitution in the 1950s defining it as „the unity of the self“ [2]. The dictionary of urban planning holds identity as the expression of distinguishing features of a being, which are unique to it [3]. The definitions vary across different contexts and theories and are largely dependent on their disciplinary scope. Social psychology uses the term self-concept which often follows as an answer to the question ‘who am I’. The response to this question is followed by organized knowledge about who one is, which includes characteristics, behavioral patterns, goals and preferences that are associated with the concrete self.

This self-concept is built of references that characterize us and select out those that do not. It is a unique concept of us, something that can only be understood through relation to something else or others [4]. Positioning the subject in a relation to something else creates the initial impulse of the identity formation. According to Katzenstein this is called mutual construction which points out the evolving nature of identity [5] as well as the fact that the concept of identity involves an element of comparison. Comparison and mutual construction create a key substance of the next step — the construction of the social identity, the representation of »we«. Reframing the question to »who are we« calls for creation of schemas which contain information about a group such as social position [4] defined by social status, nationality, religion, family or culture [6]. 

Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory describes these two dimensions — the I and the we — as the two axes along which the identity of an individual is defined. They represent two categories: 1. personal — the idiosyncrasies of an individual based on which he or she is differentiated and 2. social — as a membership in a social group based on these idiosyncrasies [7]. As people structure the ways they perceive themselves and others into abstract social categories, it becomes an integral part of their self-concept. In every situation, the self-concept is being created out of many different combinations of these abstract categories resulting in production of the self-image. Any given circumstances create a different combination of these categories producing different kinds of self-images. By their interaction, group behavior is produced (ibid), which leads to finding, building and occupying a certain social position. Because „the social positions [which] we occupy have immediate consequences for our sense of self, group schemas play a major part in the processes of identification“ [4]. When we define what we are and what we are not, it creates a basis for our personal identities to join the groups and interplay with other people’s identities based on similarities or dissimilarities, in other words, if we do identify with them or not.

Tajfel defines social identity as the individual’s knowledge of belonging to a certain group, additionally stressing the role of emotions and values which are associated with holding the membership in a group [6]. This perceptual phenomena — the cognitive concepts — serve as explanatory tools and justifications of social schemas embedded in the social relationships, which can be understood as a foundation for the abstract framework for identity.

Cognitive Process

The structure of the cognitive process also comes together in the theory of social representations by Serge Moscovici from 1981. His perspective is that the knowledge structures which are collectively shared, originate and develop via communicating and social interaction [8]. This theory suggests that the mentioned social schemas are undergoing a continual re-casting that is based on ever-developing social interaction [4]. The basic elements of social interaction are created by the meanings and patterns transmitted and developed by communication. Symbolic interactionism addresses these elements and transmission processes as attaching symbolic meanings to objects, behaviors, themselves and other people. That means that people do not behave towards the objects based on their objective status, but based on their assigned meanings. As these meanings are developed and strengthened by people using them, such as those patterns which form the sense of identity, it can also be characterized as a set of meanings.

Identities localize the person in the social context defined by these symbols and meanings. The interactionist approach also emphasizes the fact that negotiation is an essential part of identity creation. The characteristics, meanings and social positions are being constantly negotiated which leads to developing mutual definitions and further reassuring or re-framing over time [9], which relates to the initial Moscovici’s premise of the continual re-casting and ever-developing through social interaction. On a larger scale, Cote’s model links these identity shifts to the historical and cultural re-configurations (1996).

Performed Identities

In order to gather and evaluate the schemes of thought and action, we rely on development of stable imagery of the environment through the narration of specific social groups inhabiting and performing certain self-concepts. The act of performing identity relies on a set of practices and thought associations that have been established among the inhabitants within this specific context. It is the importance of the used language, as Dixon and Durkheim note, what enables the observer to understand the construction of identity and its place-related components [10]. To build the theoretical framework, these core factors can be extracted and used as referential categories to indicate the identity-creating factors:

1. Comparison aspect — subject is set in a relation to other subject and compared to it, followed by recognition and evaluation of the difference

2. Uniqueness factor — subject recognizes its unique traits and exclusive characteristics, developed sense of distinguished self

3. Value, content, patterns — subject establishes its own specifics, characteristics and behavioral idiosyncrasies based on own preferences, develops self-concept

4. Negotiation — subject negotiates its substance with a subject lying outside of its area of definition (reflection on the other, defense...)

5. Contextual self and social recognition — subject localizes itself within a social context

6. Identification, sharing, membership — subject evaluates social environment based on similarities and dissimilarities, finds a match, identifies with it, joins a group

7. Experience, familiarity, memory — subject builds a history within its location and context and perceives the accumulated experience, projects it into a practice of recognition and identification; usage of symbolics and established meanings

— book chapter extract

References:

[1] Breakwell, Glynis M. (1986) Coping with Threatened Identities; Methuen & Co. London. 

[2] Gleason, Philip (1983) Identifying Identity: A Semantic History.;The Journal of American History, Vol. 69 No. 4; p. 910- 931. 

[3] Ocakci M.; Türk Aydın T. (2012) Urban identity. The Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Urban Planning; edited by Ersoy M.; Istanbul Ninova; p. 226-228 

[4] Howard, Judith (2000) Social Psychology of Identities; Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26:367-393.

[5] Katzenstein, Peter J. (1996) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.

[6] Tajfel, Henri (1981) Human Groups and Social Categories; Cambridge University Press. 

[7] Deaux, Kay (1993) Reconstructing Social Identity; Sage Journals, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; p. 4-12. 

[8] Moscovici, Serge (1981) On Social Representations; Social Cognition: perspectives on everyday understanding p.181-210.

[9] McCall, George; Simmons; J.L.(1979) Identities and Interactions; American Journal of Sociology, Volume 74, Number 1.

[10] Dixon, John; Durrheim, Kevin (2000) Displacing Place-identity: A Discursive Approach to Locating Self and Other; British Journal of Social Psychology Vol. 39 No.1; p. 27-44.