Sociological Theories of Identity

- The idea of personality comes from the Ancient Greek Theater.

-The term “personality” derives from a Latin word “persona” and is itself an adaptation of an Etruscan word which designated a mask.

- In the Ancient Greek Theater the mask represented a character with psychological features.

- This character should be immediately recognized by the audience as soon as he appeared on the stage. These characters were a real symbolism for the Citizens.

Examples of Ancient Greek masks from Louvre Museum

Old Woman MaskEnd of IVe siècle B. C.

Peasant Maskapprox. between 300 and 280 B.C.

Material : Terracotta

Bearded Mask (pornoboskos or

procurer)IIIrd - IInd century B. C.

Dionysos MaskYoung Man Mask

IInd – Ist century B. C.

Young Man Mask(« effeminate soldier »or « blond young

man »)About 150 B.C.

House of Atreus

The 2 families represented in the Ancient Greek Theater

House of Labdacos

Plays acted during :

-Dionysia = March

-Lenaia = DecemberCelebrating Dionysos

Chorus Comments about the events

-History of the Greek City

- rules and duties to be respected by the citizens

The Chorus represents citizens

The actors represent the divinities and some other secondary characters of the story

The plays show what happened to the famous characters when they didn’t follow the prescription of divinities

aim sanctimonius = give an example to the citizens

Ancient Greek Theater is cultural and religious

Personality is something :

closely interrelated to a group for instance the community

it is directly related to a set of characteristics

it depends on a rule

which iself depends on :

a position in the city

the relationships engaged toward protagonists

age, sex…

Sociology Many theories using the concept of identity or giving definition of identity

Link between identity and personality :

The identification :

To a group = whish to belong to a group

To a character = parents, friends, teachers, famous persons…

To an ideal = features corresponding to what we suppose to be necessary, or commendable… good/bad, beautiful/ugly, loveable/abhrorrent…

All that is also :

closely interrelated to a grouprelated to a set of characteristicsdepending on a rule

Main differencies between sociological theories of identity :

one point of view first considering social pressures

a second point of view considering individual’s social actions

Both of those 2 approaches can be seen on three main points of view :

macro-sociological considering institutions, norms and laws prescribed…

meso-sociological considering middle groups,

relations between them

between those groups and institutions,

rules, organizations, conventions…

micro-sociological considering individuals and their relations with groups, institutions, with the rules, the organizations, the conventions, the laws, the norms, etc. and how they can change or influence them

2 principal approaches - a process of evolution

Society

Institutions

Superstructures(Political institutions, Laws, Religion, Philosophy, Ethics

and Morals,

Substructures(Social relationships, Social

classes, …)

Individuals

Middle groups

Small groups

Social links under different levels of consideration

According to the points of view and the approach :

More or less power is supposed to be possessed by Institutions, or Groups, or Individuals

More or less choices for individuals to move in society

Historical process of construction of sociological theories

(Paradigms)

Historical process of societal evolution

(Economy, Politics,Thought…)

Production relationships Constraints

(Subtructures) (Superstructures)

Capitalism, IndustrializationCapitalism, Industrialization

Social classes (Marx)

Erosion of Social Conscious

Mass Production and consumption

Mass Education

Individuality

Theories of middle and small groups

Micro sociology

And theories of « actor »

Three interpretations of the process :

-Karl Marx Revolution process from capitalism to communism

As liberation from high class domination

-Max Weber Rationalization process from Community to Society

Gemeinschaft // Gesellschaft

change of social relationships

constraints to contract

- Norbert Elias Civilization process from collective forms to individualised forms

symbolic forms of identification

(Ourselves//Myself)

What does-it mean concretely ?

Individual forms and conceptions

« I, Me, Myself… »

Domination of private or individual illustrations

Domination of« Individual » processes of socialization

Individual Identifications and Identification to Individual forms

(persons, « individual » constructions…)

to

Collective forms and conceptions

« We, Us, Ourselves… »

Domination of collective illustrations

Domination of Collective processes of socialization

Collective Identifications and Identification to collective forms

(groups, classes…)

From

Roughly, two opposite considerations :

A strong social belonging

The Individual’s identity is only determinated and prescribed by

the collective wish

complete subordination to social code

no transgression admitted

any deviant has no choice but suicide or voluntary exile

Social relationships based upon negotiation or special interest

The Individual’s identity is determinated by values consciously

selected

social and individual codes depend on rationality

some transgressions are admitted

deviants can create some changes in social habits

Those 2 forms are supposed to correspond to an historical evolution from « primitive societies » to « modern and

advanced sociology »

This rough opposition has been abandoned

because it didn’t reflect the reality

Forms of identification are mixed :

- part of collective prescriptions and identifications

- and part of individual considerations and identifications

But Identity is constructed by several steps which represent different process, or different phases of socialization

Sociology generally distinguishes 2 forms of socialization :

- Primary socialization mainly by family and relatives during childhood

- Secondary socializations different places and moments : shoolship, friendship,

work, other relationships such as neighbourhood, associations, sport and leisure, politics commitment…

So, many symbolic summons and injunctions

are transmitted by those places, means, institutions

What does-it mean for the individual’s identity ?

Which symbolic forms, for instance, can be considered as an injonction in modern European societies ?

-Fashion, for instance is not a duty, a law or even a rule.. But it is not possible to avoid it completely…

- Language : could you use any level and any style of language ?

-Ways of being, of walking, of speaking, of standing, of behaving, of dressing speak about you and your social belonging

Those elements = habitus concept from Pierre Bourdieu

Identity = social construction

• Personality usually considered as an intimate issue

• Combining different psychological features• For instance :

Way of speaking, walking… Values mainly influenced by tastes Tastes influencing choices Temper

• Elements which are considered as natural

• Those elements enter in the definition of habitus and they are considered by sociologists and anthropologists as :– Social families, groups, institutions– Cultural main cultures and subcultures– Historical moving in time and historically

constructed

A typical example of something

considered as naturalDirectly linked with – Personal and individual choices – Unavoidable = no control possible

Love/union= wife/husband choice

In fact, marriage is a social matter

• The idea of a natural choice is constructed upon the myth of romantic union

• In the Ancient monarchies existed a real• spatialisation on unions

Sociologists usually that unions are still

homogamies

In the same circles • People choose according to : values for instance • They often meet at

– Work – School/university– Parties organised by friends – Weddings

• So, they still meet persons who – Look like them– Have the same values, habits– Frequent the same places

• Furthermore what constitute habitus is a social element of judgement to choose relations, friends and wife/husband

• The way women/men speak, the way they walk, their dressing habits, their leisures, their knowings…= social codes translated consciously or

unconsciously

In vocational guidance how does it work?

• Same process

• Choose profession/training according to social criteria depending on :– Families positions in society– Examples of different professions– Historical changements

What else?

• Sex/Gender for instance

= discrimination criteria

Society organised upon

sexual division of WorkMen = production / outside / hunting, building…

Women = reproduction / inside / « care »

Going against = transgression / deviance

From their identity

Social and historical constructions

always disappear

behind a principle / a process

of essentialisation

2 main dangers for coaching :

• Essentialisation / naturalisation of tastes wishes / choices…

• Too much attention to social origins

– Notion of « social handicap » (sex, social class, ethny)