Production of identity: symbols, practices, rituals

Among contemporary movements, nationalist movements are probably those most explicitly rooted in historical experience. Even students of nationalism, however, are skeptical of essentialist views of identity. Differences run in the historical foundations of the symbols and myths used to fabricate modern national identities. Some argue that modern national identities draw upon events, institutions, myths, and narrations which precede by a long period of time the existence of the nation-state. Others object that large parts of the myths on which these are based do not have any historical foundation, and that one should rather talk of “invention of tradition”. All protest events promoted by movements have a ritual dimension, which often assumes a powerfully dramatic and spectacular quality. The forms which demonstrations take, the type of slogans shouted, the banner or placards waved, even the conduct of marshal bodies, are all elements which, potentially render the practice of a movement distinctive. Through rituals, traditional symbolic codes are overturned and the rules which habitually determine appropriate social behavior are denied. For example, by recounting in public their experiences of sexual abuse, many American women have transformed episodes which might otherwise have produced only feelings of shame and personal isolation, into a source of pride.

Identity and the political process

For political movements, the construction of identity is often conditioned by variables of a strictly political nature. The criteria by which social groups identify themselves and are identified externally echo characteristics of the political system and of the political culture of a given country. It seems that the development of collective identity can be explained by reference to a reformulated version of the well-known argument that forms of policymaking determine forms of political action, and not vice versa. Social actors, in fact, tend to structure their action and establish alliances in different ways on different policy issues, with large interest groups dominating distributive policies and more pluralistic networks characterizing regulatory policies.

Interactions with authorities often represent important sources of identity. It has long been noticed how “encounters with unjust authority” (Gamson 1990) may facilitate the consolidation of both motivations to act and hostility towards power holders and their representatives who fail to recognize people’s genuine needs as facilitators of the development of political identity.

Thus identity construction is an essential component of collective action. It enables actors engaged in conflict to see themselves as people linked by interests, values, common histories – or else as divided by these same factors. Although identity feelings are frequently elaborated in reference to specific social traits such as class, gender, territory, or ethnicity, the process of collective identity does not necessarily imply homogeneity of the actors sharing that identity, or their identification with a distinct social group. Nor are feelings of belonging always mutually exclusive. On the contrary, actors frequently identify with heterogeneous collectivities who are not often compatible among themselves on fundamental issues.

References

Gamson, William A. 1990. The Strategy of Social Protest. Wadsworth Pub Co.

Johnston, Hank. 1995. Social Movements and Culture. Routledge.

Melucci, Alberto. 1989. Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary Society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Reger, Jo, Myers, Daniel J. and Ejnwohner, Rachel L. 2008. Identity Work in Social Movements. University of Minnesota Press.

Touraine, Alain. 1981. The Voice and the Eye: An Analysis of Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.