First off, I’ll discuss the group work and presentations we did then i’ll talk about the assignment we completed in class.
So Myself Brian, Mick and Dean grouped together to discuss Gender Identity. We managed to dig up quite a bit of info, we discussed A-sexual humans, Parents who hid the gender of their child, children who had gender identity disorder, the idea of Pan-gender humans (Humans who feel they cannot be classed by any specific gender or sexuality) and heterosexual queers (Humans who typify the opposite genders stereotypes whilst maintaining a heterosexual relationship, e.g a butch female who is hetero, or an effeminate man who is hetero)
We also considered the fact that when someone is Gay or transgender it is often the most striking thing about them, it is what we remember the most and what we comment on when describing this person to others THis can easily be considered a slight form of racism. we question the fact that this development occurs throughout culture.
Now, I’ll discuss the assignment i did during class:
Cultural Identity
1. Social Identity and its constructs
Social Identity is the concept of individuals labeling themselves as members of particular social groups. These groups include but are not limited to; nationality, social class, subculture, ethnicity gender and employment.
TO me the most obvious form of social identity is that of the clique, popularized by TV, practiced by school children and adults alike in one form or another, the social Clique is a foundation of human culture.
· Structuralist view
The structuralist view considers Identity a by product of society
· Interactionist view
The interactionist view considers Identity in the Modern sense, i.e. something that can be shaped or changed by the individual, something to be reflected on, and perhaps improved upon by the individual.
It’s difficult to argue definitively one way or the other that one theory is more accurate than the other, or that one is entirely correct. To be honest I feel it differs form one person to the other; it depends on how aware or considerate of your own identity you are.
For example, let’s say wearing no clothes became popularized; you may decide to change aspects of your identity, in order to conform to that new social norm. In which case you would both be Consciously choosing to change your identity but at the same time changing it because of changes in society.
THUS, I strongly feel that the Structuralist, Interactionist view is a bit too black and white, and doesn’t cover all the bases.
2. Web of identity
The Web of identity is a visual representation of the intersection between identity and society. It basically centers on the individual, and branches out beginning with their personal identify traits and branching out further into their place in society.
Web of identity heavily argues that the individual’s identity is greatly shaped by the individual’s society
· Deconstruction
Deconstruction pulls apart processes and dislocates our belief in stable subjects such as gender, class ethnicity. Deconstruction is heavily associated with the Post Modern school of thought; it argues for the dissolution of constricting standards, that everyone is free to shape their own identities.
Personally I find the idea of having no boundaries or categories to rationalize identity a bit simplistic. I think social structures exist as a result of human nature; one can ignore them and “deconstruct” them if they wish, but some are simply side effects of human nature.
Whilst I agree categories do not suit every individual, they do suit the majority, the vast majority in fact. Most people would have no problem being categorized as Straight, gay or bi sexual for instance, but de construction deems these terms
3. Examples – Web of identity
Web of identity can be considered how a person’s surroundings/society affects their identity, for example; how person’s ethnic background directly affects their beliefs, their faith, and their prejudices. For example a person born on Shan kill road will undoubtedly be affected by the areas history, and is much more likely to have an interest in the political, cultural and racial norms of their society.
· Examples – Deconstruction
Deconstruction is simply the concept of disagreeing with a structured set of categories for defining an individual’s identity. Deconstruction argues that each and every person is able to choose their own destiny and that these categories that people associate or label themselves constrict their path.
A deconstructionist might argue the validity of any number of labels, such as gender, sexuality, and race. However in my personal view, it is an unrealistic way of thinking.