Multiple Identities

In modern society, social movements are often represented as “characters” with a strategic capacity for action and bearing a specific cultural role. For these reasons, they are also seen as having a homogeneous and integrated identity. Little attention has been given to the systems of relationships in which actors are involved, and this has prevented the multiplicity of identities and allegiances among militants and movement groups from being recognized. Rather it has favored the tendency to see identity as the mirror of an underlying objective reality. In fact, however, collective identification is rarely expressed through the integrated and homogeneous identities which these visions of movements presuppose. As identity is first, a social process and not a static property, feelings of belonging among groups and collectivities which originated from these are, to a certain extent, fluid. A less rigid approach to the question of identity leads us to recognize that it does not always presuppose a strong “collective we”. Identifying with a movement does not necessarily mean sharing a systematic and coherent vision of the world; nor does it prevent similar feelings being directed to other groups and movements as well. Forms of allegiance which are not particularly intense or exclusive can, in certain contexts, guarantee continuity of collective action (Melucci 1989). In reality, it is rare that a dominant identity is able to integrate all the others. More usually, identities have a polycentric rather than a hierarchical structure. But excessive insistence on role of identity as a source of coherence often leads to neglecting the importance of forms of multiple identities. It must be remembered that movement identities can be shared by individuals, detached from every organizational allegiance. In fact, it is possible to feel part of a movement without identifying with any specific organization and, indeed, even express an explicit dissent towards the notion of organization in general. In some cases, collective identities expressed by different movements or different movement organizations can be mutually incompatible. The rise of feminism has revealed the persistent subordination of women within workers’ movement organizations or in many of the “new movements” themselves. In this way, they have shown the deep contradictions in actors’ identities which, nevertheless, can generally be explained with reference to the same area of “progressive” movements.

Does Identity Facilitate Participation?

The starting point for his reflection is the concept of collective action as concerned with the production of collective goods. These derive their nature from the fact that, once obtained, they may be enjoyed by any member of a social group, regardless of his/her contribution to the clause. Sometimes the “social group” consists of people living in a given territory. For example, once a local environmental coalition has had stricter controls on car emissions implemented in its community, the collective good “cleaner air” is accessible to all the residents, no matter whether they supported the campaign or not. At other times, the “social group” may consist of a collectivity defined by specific characteristics. For example, once voting rights were extended to women, any women were entitled to them, again irrespective of her contribution to the suffrage movement. Or, if a regional business association successfully pressures the government to launch a plan of massive investment in public communications in the area, all single business operators will profit from it, including those who are not members of the association.

How is Identity Generated and Reproduced?

Self and hetero-definitions of identity- Identity emerges from the processes of self-identification and external recognition. Actors’ self-representations are, in fact, continuously confronted with images which institutions, sympathetic and hostile social groups, public opinion and media produce of them (Melucci 1989). The construction of identity at the same time contains an aspiration to differentiate oneself from the rest of the world and to be recognized by it (Melucci 1989). A collective actor cannot exist without reference to experiences, symbols, and myths which can form the basis of its individuality. Social movements challenging form of domination deeply embedded in cultural practices, lifestyles, mental habits, and inbred stereotypes offer a particularly fitting illustration of these dynamics. Stigmatization from the outside often ends up blocking the development of a strong autonomous identity and limiting the possibilities for collective action. This is very clear, for instance, in the case of gay and lesbian movements as well as in less controversial movements like those acting on behalf of animal rights. In all cases, challenging negative stereotyping is a major component of movements’ cultural production. A most blatant example is the stereotyping of women as uninterested in the public and political dimensions of social life, inclined towards the private sphere, most particularly family life, and as lacking the rational abilities which are held to be essential in order to act in the public sphere.