Explain Three Structural Influences On Identity

Identify and describe three structural influences on identity

The term identity refers to who we are; what we have chosen to be and that from which we are different. “Identity is marked by similarity… and by difference” (Woodward, 2000). Our choices throughout our life shape our identity, we will have multiple identities and these in turn may change over time. In that sense, our identity reflects our history. We are free to choose some aspects of our identity, however, these choices or personal agency are constrained by social structures. There are many different social structures, among the most important are the role of the state, gender and class. This essay sets out to describe these three structural influences on identity and to outline their main characteristics.

We present
our identities to the world using symbols; words and images which have meaning to our audience. We choose these symbols using our insight and understanding of how others will understand our choices. George Herbert Mead (1934) argued that this self-consciousness and use of symbols was distinctively human and key to describing the relationship between the individual and the social world. The society in which we live provides a context for our symbols to be understood, and presents a choice of social roles that we can take up.

Social structures determine what individuals do and thus limit or constrain the choices available to them.
The UK state, through its capacity to make and enforce law, regulates what we can do and constrains our personal agency. It defines who can be a citizen. It is only within that definition that individuals have agency to choose their citizenship, for example, through emigration and immigration. Government statistics provide an official view of racial and ethnic groups; these groups change over time through collective action and negotiation. There are clear interactions between social structures and personal agency. UK legislation in the 20th century has legalised homosexuality and, recently, civil partnerships between couples of the same sex. The change in legislative context has supported a change in the social roles that homosexual couples can take up, moving from a more covert identity signalled through a discrete choice of symbols to sympathetic groups within society, to an open identity recognised by the state. Individuals can influence the state, often through collective action or party association, acting to modify policy through the political
process.

We associate certain behaviours in our society with men or women; this is known as gender. Men and women have different characteristics; Sandra Bern argued that an individual may have both feminine and masculine aspects (Bem, 1976). Freud argued that we take up an identity as “a result of unconscious feelings” (Woodward, 2000) and that the dominant influence on childhood development is the child’s relationship with its parent, in particular the parent of the same sex. However, we can assert personal agency as we develop through understanding this early relationship, which may influence and change the identity set in childhood. Society has associated gender to roles in the way that it is organised; economic activities are linked to male roles and domestic activities to female roles. A combination of legislation and social convention has limited women’s choice of occupation; for example, women were not permitted to take highly-paid underground mining work. Male roles have been seen as higher status, as they have an economic value, and hence the relationship between male and female roles has traditionally been unequal.

Social class provides a way of grouping society in economic terms by occupation, defining individuals by what they do. The definition of social class has changed over time but the concept of class division continues to reflect inequality in society.
Marx (1867) divided society into a property-owning group, capitalists, and a class without property, the proletariat. Weber (1922) argued that capital, skill and education created different life-chances. He also recognised that different patterns of consumption create different status groups, forming the idea of lifestyle, which intersects with class. Contemporary society is moving away from collective, class-based identities towards those shaped by personal choice of consumption. Class, therefore, is a less important part of identity now than in the past, although claims that “class is dead” (Pakulski and Waters, 1996) may seem extreme, class does not predict opportunity in life as strongly as it once did.

We are free to choose some aspects of our identity within the context of the society in which we live, which presents a choice of social roles that we can take up. However, our personal agency is also constrained by social structures, which limit the choices available to us.

Word count: 755

Reference:
Woodward, K. (2000) Questions of identity. In K.Woodward (ed.) Questioning identity: gender, class, ethnicity, Bath, The Open University
Marx, K., (1867, 1885, 1894) Capital, London, Lawrence & Wishart, 1970
Mead, G.H. (1934) Mind, Self and Society, Chicago, Chicago University Press
Pakulski, J. and Waters, M. (1996) The Death of Class, London, Sage
Bem, S. L. (1976) Yes: Probing the Promise of Androgyny. In M. R. Walsh (ed.) The Psychology of Women: Ongoing Debates, New Haven, Yale University Press

Weber, M. (1922), Economy and Society: An outline of interpretive sociology, New York, Bedminster Press