44
bartendinginordertogetpaid.
35
4.Onemightwishtofollowanormbecauseotherwiseone’sbehaviorwillbeunintelligible
tootherswithwhomonewishestocommunicateorinteract,andintelligibilityisdesired
foritsownsakeorbecauseitisnecessaryforotherends.
5.Onemightfollowanormbecausethisistheonlywayoneknowshowtoactinsome
circumstance {if askedtoactdierently,one wouldnotknow how tochooseamong
innitelymanypossibilities.
36
Onthesecondquestion{whyisXthenorminthissituationratherthanY,orsome-
thingelse? { { there areagainmany possible types ofanswers, , ranging g from historicalac-
countstofunctionalistandrationalchoiceargumentstoevolutionaryargumentsaboutwhy
onenormismorelikelytosurviveovertimethanothers.
37
Forsocialscientists,theexplanationofactionbyreferencetoanidentity-as-a-social-
category andnothingelseisunlikely tobesatisfyingorinteresting. . Usedinthis s fashion,
\identity"isarubricthatcoversalargeanddiversesetofpossibleexplanationsthatmainly
relyonreferencetonorms,whichshouldbeunpackedtogettothepointofinsight.
Acommonargumentinrecentsocialtheoryisthat\Identitiesarethebasisofinterests"
andthusthat\...actionalongthe...[linesofinterestandstrategiccalculation]presupposes
somekindofcommitmenton,andevenresolutionof,issuesconcerning[identity]."
38
Asthe
examples above illustrate, , it t is reasonable tobeginto explain interests or preferences by
35
It might be argued that for abartender toservedrinksis not tofollowasocialnorm, but rather to
engageintheactivitythat constitutes or denesbeingabartender. . Usingtermsgiven n earlier,onemight
saythatservingdrinks isnotpartofthecontentofthecategory\bartender,"butratherthemembership
rule. Thedistinctionparallelsthatbetweenconstitutiverules,whichdenewhatanactivityconsistsof,and
regulativerules,whichregulateantecedentlyexistingactivities(Searle1995).Iwouldagreethatthisusage
stretchestheusualunderstandingof\socialnorm,"whichtypicallyreferstostandardsofconductthatare
notquitesorole-specic. Butitispossibletobeabartenderandnevertoserveasingledrink. Thisisto
beabadbartender(oranunfortunateone,etc.). Themembershiporconstitutiveruledening\bartender"
issomethinglike\apersonwho issupposedtoservedrinksin n certain situations,"and not\aperson who
servesdrinksincertainsituations."Thus,forabartender,toservedrinksistofollowanorm.
36
Schelling’ssuggestivequote,givenabove,bringsboththis andthepreviousreasontomind. . Bothhave
astrong\coordinationgame"aspect.
37
Onevolutionaryarguments,seeinparticularSugden(1989).
38
TherstquoteisfromWendt(1992,398),whoisbestknownforthisargumentintheeldofinternational
relations.ThesecondisfromHerrigel(1993,371).
29
40
referringtoanidentity (asa socialcategory). . For r example, , my y preferenceforpublishing
journalarticlescannotbeexplainedwithoutreferringtothefactthatIamaprofessor. But
itmaybemisleadingtoposeabinaryschemawhereinidentitiesgiveusourpreferencesand
thenrationality(orpsychologicalbias)tellsushowtoachievethem.
39
Ingeneral,beingamemberofasocialcategorydoesnotentailhavingthedesiretoact
inaccordwiththenormsassociatedwiththeidentity.
40
Icanbeaprofessorwithoutdesiring
topublishjournalarticlesortogettenure;astatecanbea\greatpower"withoutdesiringto
actasagreatpowershould.Inotherwords,preferencesneedtobeinvokedtoexplainwhy
oneactsinaccordwithasocialnormattachedtoasocialidentity. Imaywanttopublish
articlestoincreasemysalary,ortomaintainmyself-respectorother’sgoodopinions.
41
One
might argueinreplythattherealways mustbesome\identity"thatis behindany desire
orpreference{forinstance,Iwanttomaintainmy self-respectbecauseIhavesomeother
identity. This s response works only if theimplicit meaning of\identity" is broadenedfar
beyondthe idea ofidentity asasocialcategory,tothe point of emptiness. . It t is just not
truethatwehaveallofourpreferencesordesiresonlyinvirtueofbeingmembersofsome
particularsocialcategory. Ratherthanitbeingasimplematterofreadingpreferencesout
ofouridentities,itisatleastascommontohavetoformulatepreferencesoveractionsthat
wouldbeconsistentandinconsistentwithmultiplesocialcategoriestowhichwebelong.
Aperverseconsequence ofanattempt todrawalinebetweenthesphereofidentity
fromwhich\interests"aresaidtoemerge,andthesphereofrationalityorinstrumentality
whereactorstrytomaximizetheirinterests,isthatthismaymakeitimpossibletounder-
39
Ininternationalrelations,Wendt(1992,1999)isbestknownforthisformulation.
40
Theexceptionswouldbecaseswherehavingcertainpreferencesispartofthemembershipruleofasocial
category,asin,arguably,heterosexual/homosexual. Hereidentityisthebasisofpreferences,butonlyina
weakdenitionalsense.
41
Preferences (or r desires) ) and d interests are usefully y distinguished d in ordinary y language but t commonly
con
atedinsocialsciencetalk(see,forexample,muchrecentconstructivistworkininternationalrelations
theory,suchasWendt(1999)).Inordinarylanguage,interestshaveanormativeelement. Thus,Icanhave
apreferencefordoingsomethingthatisnotinmyinterest,suchassmoking. Insomecases,identitiesmay
\explain"interestsin the denitionalsensethat the normsof behavior attach tothe socialcategory,but
moreisneededtoexplaindesiresorpreferences.
30
30
standthesocialconstructionofidentity.Ratherthanbeingseparate,strategyandchoiceare
infactfundamentalto,andinextricablyboundupin,processesofthesocialconstructionof
identity.ThisisamajorthemeinrecentworkbyLaitin(1993,1998).Laitin(1998)considers
theconstructionofpoliticalandsocialidentities byRussian-speakers intheformerUnion
RepublicsoftheU.S.S.R.Heconceivesoftheprocessintermsofalarge-scale\tipping"or
coordinationgameofthesortanalyzedbySchelling(1978). Manyidentitiesarehypothet-
icallypossiblefortheRussian-speakers, butnoindividualcanunilaterallychoosewhatit
willbe. Further,preferencesoverdierentformulationsofidentityfortheRussian-speakers
areinterdependent. How w one personchoosestoformulate it(forexample,\weareethnic
Russians," \Russian-speakers,"or \(assimilated) Ukrainians") depends inpartonhow he
thinksotherswillformulateit,andonhowhethinks titularnationalswillreact. . Inmore
concreteterms,theidentityofone’schildrenmaydependonthelanguageinwhichtheyare
schooled,andthelanguage/schoolonechooseamaydependone’sbeliefsaboutwhatother
Russian-speakingparentsaredoing.AsLaitin’sworkshows,thesocialconstructionofiden-
tityhasapowerfulaspectofcoordinationofexpectationsandstrategicdynamicsassociated
withcoordinationgames.
Thisisnottosaythatrationalchoicemethodsarethebestorevenaparticularlygood
waytoanalyzethesocialconstructionofidentity(asasocialcategory).Itissimplytopoint
outthatifonebelievesthatidentitiesaresociallyconstructed,thenonemustbelievethat
thereareimportantaspectsofinterdependentchoiceinvolvedintheconstruction. Thus,it
doesn’tmakesensetorulerationalityandchoiceoutoftheboundsofidentityconstruction
bymethodologicalat.
7.2 Actionsexplained d byreferencetopersonal identity
Someexamples:
1.Weprotestedinordertoarmouridentity.
2.Membersofthesecessionistmovementaremotivatedbythedesiretoprotectanddefend
theiridentity.
3.EvenaftershemovedtoBerkeley,shecouldneverweartie-dyebecauseshefeltitwas
inconsistentwithheridentity.
31
How to C#: Basic SDK Concept of XDoc.PDF for .NET XDoc.PDF for .NET allows C# developers to edit hyperlink of PDF document, including editing PDF url links and quick navigation link in bookmark/outline.
active links in pdf; add hyperlink to pdf in VB.NET PDF: Basic SDK Concept of XDoc.PDF XDoc.PDF for .NET allows VB.NET developers to edit hyperlink of PDF document, including editing PDF url links and quick navigation link in bookmark/outline.
add hyperlinks pdf file; adding hyperlinks to pdf files
33
4.InSearchofIdentity{thetitleofAnwarSadat’sautobiography.
5.Tryingtodenyhisidentity,heaectedmannerismsoftheworkingclass.
Theseexamplesshowhow\identity"isusedinordinarylanguagetoexplainactions.
Notethattheseexamplesarequitedierentfromtheearlieroneswhereactionwasexplained
byreferencetothemoreacademicmeaningofidentity-as-social-category.Mostofthetimeit
wouldbepeculiartosay\heservedthedrinkinordertoarm(orprotect)hisidentityasa
bartender."Thereasonisthatintheseexamples\identity"doesnotmean\socialcategory"
butrathersomethinglike\thebasesofone’sdignityorpride."Infact,Inditquitestriking
that,withtheexceptionofexample5,onecansubstitute\dignity"or\thebasesofdignity
orself-respect"fortheword\identity"inthesesentenceswithvirtuallynolossinmeaning
atall.
42
Thus, one e side e of f \identity" " serves as s a recently y devised d substitute for r \dignity,"
\pride,"\status,"\honor,"\self-respect,"andsoon.Thisobservationhelpssolvethepuzzle
ofhow itiswecantaketheconceptcompletely forgrantedasacentrally importantand
powerfulmotivator ofhumanaction,whilegreat socialthinkersofthepast neverreferred
to\identity" (as such) at all. . They y did referto theimportanceof dignity,pride,status,
andhonorasthingsthatpeopledesire,oftenfervently. Hobbesisniceexample. . Henever
speaksof\identity"inourmodernsense,andusesnootherwordthatcloselymirrorsitsfull
meaning. Butheseesthehumandesireforhonor,
attery,andthegoodopinionsofothers
asalmostoverwhelminglystrong.
Ifthissideof\identity"diersatallfrom\thebasesofone’sdignity,honor,orself-
respect,"itisduepreciselytotheimplicitassociationwiththeothersideofitsmeaning.Our
modernconstructionof\identity"tacitlyconnectsthebasesofself-respectwithmembership
insocialcategories.
42
Togiveanexamplefromtheacademy,Jepperson,WendtandKatzenstein(1996,36)writethat\unlike
Britain, France maintained d its commitment to o the exchange rate mechanism of the European n Monetary
System(EMS)partlybecauseitis afoundingmember{thatis,becauseofidentityinterests."Neglecting
theproblemofwhat\identity"meansappliedtocorporateactorslikestatesandthecuriousterm\identity
interests,"Iwouldtranslatethisasfollows: FrancemaintaineditscommitmenttotheEMSpartlybecause
ittookaspecialprideinhavingbeenafoundingmember.
32
33
Iclosethissectionwithabriefnoteontheanomalousexample5,whichillustratesthe
ideaofwantingto\denyone’sidentity."Thisusageinvokesameaningof(personal)identity
notcapturedbythe\basesofself-respect"denition. Itrefersinsteadtotheideaofidentity
asanessentialnature(desires,preferences,beliefs)thatonecannotwillfullychange{part
(c)ofthedenitiongivenattheendofthesectiononpersonalidentity. Evenso,thereason
wemaythinkittragictowanttodenyone’sidentityisthatweassumethatone’sidentity
isnormallythebasisofone’spride,andoneshouldnotwishtodenigrateordisguisewhat
oneshouldtakepridein.
8 Identitiesofcorporateactors
Individuals are e not t the e only entities s that can n described d as having g identities, , whether r in
ordinary language e or r social science writing. So o too can states, , churches, , rms, , politi-
calparties, universities, indeed, practically any y corporate actor.
43
To give animportant
example from politicalscience, , arapidly y growing literaturesees \state identities" as cru-
cialforunderstandingboth foreignpoliciesandthe overalltenor of internationalpolitics
(Katzenstein1996;Wendt1999;LapidandKratochwil1996).
Iftheprecedinganalysisof\identity"appliedtopersonsisontarget,onemightexpect
ittohelpclarifyterms suchas\stateidentity"aswell. . Howcanastatehave e anidentity
and what doesthis mean? ? Isstate e identitydierentfromnationalidentity? ? Iwillargue
thatalthoughnewissues arise(whichIcan’t fully address here),theabove analysisdoes
illuminatethemeaningof\identity"appliedtocorporateactors. Duetoitsimportancein
recent debates in international l relations,I focus s on the muchinvoked but underspecied
conceptofstateidentity,distinguishingbetweenseveralmeaningsofstateidentitythatthe
literaturelumpstogether.
Overwhelmingly,corporateactorssuchasstatesorrms aretreatedinordinarylan-
guageandsocialscienticpracticeasmetaphoricalpersonsendowedwithwillandagency.
44
43
Forinstance,arecentNewYorkTimesheadlinedeclared\CatholicSchoolsSeeksNewIdentity."
44
Tocallsomething\anactor"istousejustthismetaphor. SeeWendt(1999)fortheargumentthatthe
33
36
Consider,then,cashingout\stateidentity"intermsofsocialandpersonalidentityasdened
above,butappliedtostates-as-persons.
Inthesenseofsocialidentity,\stateidentity"wouldthenrefertocategoriesofstates.
Just as individuals are members of socialcategories, , so o are there socialcategories whose
members arestates. Examples s include e major r power, , superpower, democracy, federation,
LDC,netcreditor,sub-SaharanAfricanstate,memberoftheOECD,NATO,theU.N.,the
E.U.,ASEAN,OPEC,andsoon.
45
By contrast,inthesenseofpersonalidentity, , \stateidentity"wouldrefer r todistin-
guishing features of f a state that form m the basis s for its self-respect or r pride. When n one
describestheRussianstateas\searchingforanewidentity"thisistheintendedmeaning.
Justasinthecaseofpersons,thebasesofastate’ssenseofdistinctionandpridemay or
may notinvolve membershipina category ofother states. . Beinga a democracy might be
saidtobeanimportantpartofU.S.\stateidentity,"butsomightU.S.-specichistorical
memoriesofthecivilwar,therevolutionagainstBritain,andsoon.
46
Atleastregardingstates,thisanalysisisincomplete.Asusedbyinternationalrelations
scholars,\stateidentity"canreferalsotothatpackageofattributesthepossessionofwhich
makessomethingastateandnotsomeotherkindofthing. Thisisclosertothedictionary
senseof\identity"andthesensediscussedbyanalyticphilosophers{theconditionorfactor
beingastateandnotsomethingelse. Agrowingliteratureontheinstitutionofsovereignty
uses\stateidentity"mainlyinthissense,whichisratherdierentfromthesocial-category
andbases-of-distinction-from-other-statesmeanings. Authorsinthisliteratureunderstand
states assovereignpoliticalcommunities, , and argue e that themeaningofsovereignty y is s a
collectively determined d social l convention n that t varies over r time e (Krasner 1999;Biersteker
practiceisactuallymorethanmetaphorical.
45
Wendt(1994)dened\socialidentities"intermsofroles,andusedexamplesofthissorttoillustratethe
meaningof\stateidentity."
46
Thesamekindofanalysisappliestoothercorporateactors. The\identity"ofarmmightrefereither
toa\socialcategory"ofrms(e.g.,wholesaler,grocerystore,corporation,multinational,familybusiness)
ortoasetofdistinguishingfeaturesorcharacteristicsthatthemanagers/ownersofthermtakeaspecial
prideinandwishtoadvertisetotheworld(e.g.,\Family-runsince1913!"or\BuyingaSaturnislikejoining
afamily").
34
26
and Weber 1996;Wendt 1999;Ruggie 1983)State identity y here refers mainly towhat it
means tobea state. . Thissensecanbecombinedwiththebases-of-self-respect t sense. . In
studies of isomorphism in the structure e of f state bureaucracies and militaries, Finnemore
(1996)andEyreandSuchman(1996)arguethatnormsdeterminestateleaders’perceptions
oftheattributesaproperstateshouldpossess,notasamatterofdenition(likesovereignty),
butasamatterofself-respect(afancymilitary,abignationalhealthministry,forinstance).
Thisimpliesanotionofstateidentityasthedistinguishingfeaturesthatmarkaproperor
exemplarystate.
Yetmorethingscanbetermed\stateidentities."Analogoustothephilosophicaldebate
onpersonalidentity,onecanconceiveofstateidentityasthosepropertiesinvirtueofwhich
astateremainsitselfthroughtime,despitecompleteturnoverinthebodyofcitizens.Noting
thatAristotleaddressedthisveryquestioninthePolitics,Booth(1999)uses\stateidentity"
inthissensetoanalyzetheconditionsunderwhichastateispoliticallyresponsibleforacts
committedinthepast(suchastheHolocaust). Andnally,internationalrelationsscholars
oftentreat nationalidentityas acomponent ofor equivalent to\stateidentity." Thereis
much potentialfor confusion here. As s we e have seen, , national identity refers to o a social
category,asetofpersonsmarkedobyamembershipruleand(alleged)socialcontent.By
contrast,astateisonlyambiguouslyasocialcategory. When\state"isusedtorefertoa
politicalcommunity(asetofcitizens),itisasocialcategory. Butinthemorecommonuse
of\state"asacorporateactor,thereisnosetofpersonsthatuniquelyidentiesthestate.
Thestateasapoliticalcommunitymighthaveorentailanationalidentity,butthestateas
acorporateactorcannot.
9 Conclusion
\Identity" in its current, , historically y novel l complex x of meanings derives most of allfrom
ErikErikson’sworkinthe1950s. Bythe1970sthewordusedinthissensehadacquireda
35
35
highlysuccessfullifeofitsowninordinarylanguageandmanysocialsciencedisciplines.
47
Under the in
uence e ofpostmodernism and d debates over multiculturalism, the late 1980s
and1990sfoundhistorians,anthropologists,andmostofallhumanitiesscholarsrelyingever
more heavily on \identity"as they exploredthe culturalpolitics of race, , class, ethnicity,
gender,sexuality,citizenship,andothersocialcategories.
48
With some important t exceptions, political scientists have e generally y held d back k from
thismostrecentroundofinquiryconcerningidentities,oftentreatingboththeconceptand
humanities researchusingit withskepticism. . Thisis s partlyskepticism by association. . A
roughcorrelation obtains betweenrecent work k focusedon\identity"andpostmodernism,
whichoftenseemstorejectsocialscienceasanempiricalenterpriseofanyvalue.
Butpoliticalscientists’skepticismabout\identity"stemsalsofromthevaguenessand
implicitcomplexityofthetermitself.Theexamplesandanalysisaboveshoulddemonstrate
thatinthisregardapprehensioniswarranted.ComparetheOEDdenition,thelistofshort
denitionsbysocialscientistsgiveninsection2,andtheresultsoftheanalysisofusagein
sections 4and 6. . Theformulations s arestrikingly dierent despiteshowingfamily resem-
blances. TheOEDdenitionwillworkforexamplessuchas\acaseofmistakenidentity"or
\theidentityofthemurderer,"butdoesnotcapturethemeaningsembodiedin(forinstance)
\Russia’spoliticsnow turnonasearchfor nationalidentity," or \beingaprofessorwas a
crucialpartofhisidentity."Theacademicglossesinsection2arequitevaried,thoughinal-
mostnocasearetheyasspecicandconcreteaswhatIhavearethemainmeaningsimplicit
incontemporaryusage. Tosummarizethese,inordinaryspeechandmostacademicwriting,
\identity" means either (a) a social l category, dened by membership rules s andallegedly
characteristicattributesorexpectedbehaviors,or(b)asociallydistinguishingfeaturethat
apersontakesaspecialprideinorviewsasunchangeablebutsociallyconsequential(or,of
course,both(a)and(b)atonce).
47
SeeMackenzie(1978),Gleason(1983),and,forpoliticalscienceexamplesfromthisperiod,Glazerand
Moynihan(1975).
48
Appiah and Jr.(1995,1)beginan editedvolumecalledIdentitiesbysayingthat"Aliteraryhistorian
mightverywellcharacterizetheeightiesastheperiodwhenrace,class,andgenderbecametheholytrinity
ofliterarycriticism."
36
35
Ifthisisareasonablestatementofthemeaningof\identity"asnowused,thenpolitical
scientistshavenogoodreasontoavoidtheconcept. Quitethecontrary,bothsocialcate-
goriesandthesourcesofindividuals’senseofself-respectordignity areobviouslyrelevant
tounderstandingpoliticsinmanyofitsaspects.
49
Itmaybethatinspeciccasesitisbet-
tertodispensewith\identity"andanalyzeinsteadthepoliticsofsocialcategoriesandthe
politicalimplicationsofdesiresfordignity,honor,andself-respect.Thesearemoreconcrete
objectsofanalysisthan\identity,"whichlinkstogethersocialcategoriesandthesourcesof
self-respectinasomewhatmurky(unarticulated)way. Evenso,thereisnogoodreasonto
trytobanish\identity"infavorofthesemorespeciccomponentideas.Byputtingtogether
socialcategoriesandthebasesofourself-respect,\identity"makesasuggestiveconnection
betweentwoimportantaspectsofsocialandpsychologicalreality.
50
Asecondmotivationforthispaperhasbeentoillustrateandadvocateordinarylan-
guageanalysisasameanstointerrogateandclarifysocialscienceconcepts. Ihaveargued
thatwhen a complicated or unclear concept used by y socialscientists has strongroots in
ordinarylanguage{averycommonoccurrence{explicationofitsordinarylanguagemean-
ingisa valuable placetostart. . Standardpracticefor r socialscientists inthis situationis
to legislate a denition,to say that \byX Imeansuch-and-such,no morenoless." But
legislationwithoutagoodpriorunderstandingofwhat users alreadymeanisadangerous
business. Totheextentthatthelegislateddenitiondivergesfromcommonunderstanding
one risks confusion(bothforauthor andreader),andthereisnowaytoguagethiswith-
out explicating theordinary languagemeaning. . Second,as s Ihopethe case of \identity"
illustrates,theintuitions that govern ordinarylanguageuse canre
ectimplicit rules that
aremorenuanced,subtle,andprecisethanareacademics’eortsatlegislatedglosses.Ata
minimum,socialscientists interestedinclarifyingcontestedandimportantconceptsmight
49
Thepoliticsofsocialcategorieshavebeenparticularlyneglectedintherationalchoicetradition,though
thereisnoreasonthatthishastobethecase. ForcounterexamplesseeKalyvas(1996),Laitin(1998),and
Fearon(1999).
50
Cf. BrubakerandCooper(1999),whowanttoexile\identity"infavorofadierentsetofcomponent
concepts.
37
28
addthisapproachtotheirarsenalofmethods.
51
References
Appiah,KwameAnthonyandHenry LouisGates Jr.,eds.1995. . Identities. Chicago,IL:
UniversityofChicagoPress.
Berger,PeterL.andThomasLuckmann.1966. The e SocialConstructionof Reality. . New
York:Doubleday.
Biersteker,ThomasJ.andCynthiaWeber,eds.1996.StateSovereigntyasSocialConstruct.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Bloom, William.1990. . Personal l Identity, National Identity, andInternationalRelations.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Booth, W. James. 1999. \Communities s of f Memory: : On n Identity, , Memory, , and d Debt."
AmericanPoliticalScienceReview93:249{264.
Brubaker, Rogers s and Frederick Cooper. 1999. \Beyond d Identity." Theory and Society.
Forthcoming.
Calhoun, Craig.1991. \The e Problem m of f Identity y in Collective Action." " In Macro-Micro
LinkagesinSociology,ed.JoanHuber.NewburyPark,CA:Sage.
Carroll,Lewis.1992. Alice’sAdventuresin n Wonderlandand Through the Looking Glass.
NewYork: DellBooks.
Chauncey,George.1994. GayNewYork: Gender,UrbanCulture, , andthe Makingsofthe
GayMaleWorld,1890-1940.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Cliord, James.1988. . The e Predicament of Culture. . Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity
Press.
51
Forrecentworkinpoliticalscienceontheanalysisandclaricationofconcepts,seeCollierandMahoney
(1996),CollierandMahon(1993),and CollierandLevitsky(1997). . FearonandLaitin(1997)proposesan
ordinarylanguageanalysisof\ethnicgroup"and\ethnicviolence."
38
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested