‘’Mutable and Plastic’’: An interrogation of the Forms and Production of Identity using Denise Riley
In 2000, Denise Riley, a renowned British poet and writer published The Words of Selves which explored the effect of language and irony in relation to the forms and production of identities. She examined the radical suggestion that identities are ‘’mutable and plastic,’’ rendering it ‘’remarkable’’ that they are ‘’periodically invoked and hunted as if...they... had the hard permanence of diamonds” (Riley, 2000, p.131). Identities are socially constructed and spatially contingent despite often being essentialized to represent a fixed, stable sense of self (Holloway, 2010). Identities are defined by ‘’social categories,’’ as well as ‘’socially distinguishing features’’ such as class, gender, age, religion or ethnicity; these factors need to be acknowledged as collective, or unique to one person (Fearon, 1999, p. 1). The disparity between the collective and personal establishes the fact that identities can represent different versions of one’s self, varying across time and space; thus, complicating the forms and productions of identity further.
An ‘identity crisis’ is a relatively modern phenomenon contrasted with an older definition of identity, suggesting that it relates to a person’s name in the eyes of the law (Fearon, 1999). This definition is still used today but is convoluted by feelings regarding character or personal goals (Erikson, cited in Fearon, 1999, p. 9). In order to understand identity, (or a crisis of) what is required ‘’is not a theory of the knowing subject, but rather a theory of discursive practice’’ (Foucault, 1970, xiv, cited in Hall & Du Gay, 2000, p.6). Demonstrating that identities are not just internal, they are a product of the external world, shaped by wider modes of discourse; such as family values, or ideologies learnt through the internalization of the media. Identity is rooted in lived experience, often through the process of cultural participation in a community, influencing narratives of the self (Wegner, 1998). Social roles shape experience and participation in society. This leads to social relations that contribute towards multifaceted identities which are not one fixed entity; rather are constantly evolving. This evolution is as a result of lived experience which incorporates the past and future, by ‘’negotiating the present’’ (Wegner, 1998, p. 155). This process establishes the mutable nature of identities as their complex trajectories enables them to be spatially and contextually dependent. Generational identities for example, ‘’are invested in ...moments of history,’’ which communicate cultural heritage as an integral part of some identities (Wegner, 1998, p. 157). By viewing identities as rooted in culture and history, Riley’s suggestion that identities are plastic, could arguably be disproved, as culture and history can be interpreted in different ways, but hold significant meaning for some individuals.
In order to interrogate Riley’s quote, first, her use of language must be analyzed in order to fully grasp her academic intentions. I first felt discontent when I read Riley’s quote that labelled identities as ‘plastic’ as I felt more affiliation with the belief that identities exist by representing multiple aspects of one’s sense of self. The Oxford Dictionary defines plastic as something which can be easily ‘’shaped or molded’’ and that is ‘’capable of adapting to varying conditions’’ (Warren-Crow, 2014, p.1). This definition implies identities are mutable which I agree with; I however feel that the word plastic has negative connotations connoting a fake image associated with characters such as ‘The Plastics’ from the popular film Mean Girls. These girls are positioned against each other in a power battle for popularity. Their plastic, mutable identities represent a white female, hegemonic and heteronormative fight for the role as lead plastic in order to gain social status (Currie et al, 2009). In this instance, their toxic identities were rightly questioned, as they were causing harm to others through inciting hateful norms. It could be suggested however, that they were not presenting as themselves, but as plastic, mutable objects attempting to gain social recognition. If the word plastic is taken to mean something which fluctuates, then I agree with Riley that identities change across time and space. It is therefore remarkable that something changeable would be hunted without a necessary cause.
Identities are generated from ‘’common origin or shared characteristics’’ leading to ‘’solidarity and alliance’’ (Hall, 1996, p. 6). Identities can be understood as ‘’never unified and increasingly fragmented,’’ making them never singular, as they are ‘’constructed across different... discourses, practices and positions ‘’ (Hall & Du Gay, 2000, p. 4). An identity is more complex than visual clues, such as skin colour or fashion; these things cannot be taken to indicate any concrete sense of self, as identities represent a multiplicity of identifications. Names given to us at birth are designed to individualize us, this is inherently paradoxical as the very thing intended to make us unique, inscribes symbolic or cultural meaning (Riley, 2005). By names being drawn in from the outside, they are taken to be part of the flesh, unlike a social security number for example, which feels far removed from one’s sense of self (Riley, 2005). Riley uses this example to demonstrate that irony can clarify the ‘’true perplexity,’’ (Riley, 2000, p. 147) felt in relation to a wide encompassing entity, like an identity. By viewing identities as rooted in ‘’the intersection of language, culture and society,’’ (Llamas & Watt, 2010, p. 18) they can be interpreted as shaped by language and the environment. Language is a key discourse to consider when understanding the forms and production of identities as they are ever changing depending on social and cultural contexts (Hall, 1996). An identity is over simplified if it is bound to strict language categories, limiting the variation of identity. When analyzing identities, language is vital to consider as the use of labels influences one’s sense of self through association and then resonance. Labels are ‘’endemically inconclusive’’ (Riley, 2000, p. 89) because identities are not always ‘’adequately captured by categories;’’ which work to define complex conceptions contributing to one’s self (Holloway, 2010, p. 199). It is therefore through language that the changing nature of identities can be understood. By looking at labels and their inefficiency to define us, we can understand the complexity of our identities.
‘’Who we are’’ is often asked in conjunction with ‘’where we are’’ (Dixon & Durrheim, 2000, p.27). Constructing an identity is a ‘’form of self-creation’’ located in a symbolic process of ‘’emplotment’’ (p. 31) where place relations are understood as aligned with the use of language. One realm of identity is spatial, rooted in the process of physical mobility shaping us, as we shape the landscape (Schwartz & Halegoua, 2014). Spatial identities can be seen online but they are not a new phenomenon. Urban flaneurs from the Victorian era have been conceptualized for their movement through space, more specifically for their relationship to ‘’social class, gender and public and private space within the city’’ (Wilson, 1992, cited in Schwartz & Halegoua, 2014, p. 1647). The spatial self is curated to produce an idealized version of the self, demonstrating culture through the experiences of new places. Butler suggested that identity performance is constructed through the ‘’stylized repetition of acts'' (Butler, 1988, p.519). In this instance, it is not only the repetition of acts, but the sharing and reproduction of cultural acts which contributes towards a spatial identity (Schwartz & Halegoua, 2014). This helps individuals to interact and converse with a wide range of people, based on their shared spatial and cultural experience of the world. Symbolic and cultural meaning resulting from spatial identities refutes Riley’s contention that identities are plastic. Lived experience often acts as a shared understanding of a place or culture, which can be drawn upon when conversing with people of different identities, making it present in the form of cultural knowledge and experience. On the other hand, spatial identities do support the claim that identities are mutable, as to travel could require the self to be able to adapt to many different cultural scenarios.
By using space and place to assess identities, it becomes evident that the ‘’dissolution of place’’ (Harvey cited in May, 1996, p.194) can fracture identities leading to spatial separation, therefore an increase in discrimination. The stigmatization of a group of people based on the dissemination of harmful ideologies can lead to racism based on the notion of ‘’nationhood and belonging,’’ resulting in an oppressed and oppressor (Bhavani & Phoenix, 1994, p. 5). Riley suggested that identities ‘’being constructed from the outside can be no source of relief’’ (Riley, 2000, p.120). Externalities such as observable cultural practices are often interpreted by others as one’s cultural identity. However, this can lead to issues of prejudice when aspects of an internal cultural identity such as self-image, heritage and history contradict an external impression (Kwan & Sodowsky, 1997). If identity incorporates ‘’a material, a social and a spiritual self,’’ it therefore constitutes more than meets the eye (Sampson, 1978, p. 552). Meaning that identities are not immediately obvious, they are a combination of complex internal and external factors which come to shape us.
Alongside incorporating many aspects of the self, identities are grounded and complicated by power struggles, positioning certain identities as ‘other’ (Hall, 1996). This creates a dichotomous, hierarchical system as categories of identity are positioned against each other, creating a winner / loser scenario. Xenophobia occurs when difference is bound up with power, creating a fear of the unknown (Hall, 1996). The racialized, gendered or sexed other becomes stigmatized in favor of the homogenization of culture. This othering can be categorized through discourses surrounding bodily identities. But how is the physical body bound up with the concept of identity? Bodies and identities are both shaped by discursive practices and history, rendering them both to be malleable. The body works as ‘’the signifier of the condensation of subjectivities in the individual’’ (Hall, 1996, p. 24). Our bodies are interpreted at face value, which is subject in accordance to the interpreter. By viewing the body as a marker of identity, gendered assumptions can arise, like in the workplace for example. Women’s professional identities can be constrained by gendered discourses sexualizing the female bodily identity (Budgeon, 2003). From a young age, women are conditioned to ‘’sit, stand, walk, tilt their heads and carry objects’’ in a feminine manner (Trethewey, 1999, p.424). This fragile socialization encourages women to experience their bodies as objects, distancing themselves from their bodily experience. Allowing the body to become docile could be welcoming modification, arguably leading towards plasticity. Men’s bodies are also expected to adhere to a professional identity, the parameters for them are arguably much more accepting (Budgeon, 2003). Bodies and identities have a fluid and entwined relationship: ‘’the body is intrinsic to the reflective project of self-identity'’ (Budgeon, 2003, p.36). The body cannot be altered to simply align with a different sense of self despite feelings of disembodiment. If the body feels unsatisfactory and in need of restoration, norms which seek to discipline the body are in force (Budgeon, 2003). The body needs to be envisioned ‘’beyond the binary of materiality and representation – the body not as an object but as an event’’ (Budgeon, 2003, p. 36). This would transcend beyond restrictive boundaries which police the body and dictate bodily norms. Overcoming the materiality of bodily identities could allow for free-flowing expression and less rigid bodily norms which constrict some bodies’ movement through space.
Globalization could be argued to be changing the form and production of identities. The digitalization of the self is turning body parts such as fingerprints, iris scans and facial recognition into a form of biometric identity used to unlock a smartphone, or cross international borders. This not only raises privacy and security concerns, but also raises questions about the body and how intrinsic it is to our identities. Biometric systems ‘’are not true proof of identity’’ (Mordini & Massari, 2008, p. 493). This informatization of the body could produce disembodiment as the human identity is being simplified and digitized. The concept of a biometric identity refutes Riley’s idea that identities are mutable, demonstrating that the physical body can act as a marker of an element of one’s self. Identities however are wider encompassing than a fingerprint, identities are made up of a complex web of experiences, characteristics and feelings constructed internally and externally to the body (Hall, 1996). Showing that physical body parts make up an element of our identity, but not the whole thing, as the combination of internal and external factors help us to negotiate who we are in different scenarios.
In the act of performing one’s identity online, the body becomes cyborg which is ‘’ a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction’’ (Haraway, 2006, p. 117). To some extent, social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram could be facilitating mutable and plastic identities as the physical boundaries involved in the communication of an identity are transgressed online. Thus, enabling disembodiment considered ‘’inauthentic’’ due to the detachment of the online world from the physical world (Valentine & Holloway, 2002, p 304). Having the option to change your online age, history, gender, personality or appearance enables a plethora of performances of the self (Suler, 2002). Resulting in an element of competition and hierarchy of social connections online (Seargeant & Tagg, 2014). Users may feel encouraged to present a mutable identity to attract a wider audience, in order to increase their number of followers, equating to a form of social status in some scenarios (Valentine & Holloway, 2002). The production of online identities demonstrates that identities take many forms, these are diverse and show the range of human characteristics. No identity should therefore be taken as a given, instead they need to be acknowledged as fluid and relational to their environment.
Goffman’s (1978) theory of self-presentation suggests that identity cues are given off through a conscious effort to present an idealized sense of self. On social media these cues are often presented in the form of imagery. This places visual pressure on the body to conform to social norms or unrealistic standards regulated as ‘common discourse’ online (Mascheroni et al, 2015). By viewing online identities as ‘front stage’ and offline as ‘backstage’ Goffman’s theory would suggest that imagined audiences reinforce the value of presenting a variable identity, able to appeal to a wide audience online (Mascheroni et al, 2015). Reiterating the importance of Riley’s contention that it is remarkable that identities are hunted when they are ultimately something alterable depending on the context given and the impression one intends to make.
Mascheroni et al (2015) discovered that in Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom, girls aged eleven to sixteen are subjected to peer pressure to visually perform their identities online, then are later scrutinized for ‘’conforming to a sexualized stereotype as a means of being socially accepted by peers’’ (p.1). This research shows that as Denise Riley suggested, identities should not be scrutinized as if they had the hard permanence of diamonds, as they can often be fabricated to gain popularity or to make friends. Acknowledging identities are flexible allows for the free expression of individuality. The negative effects of presenting a plastic identity online should however not be disregarded; as staged hyper-sexualized online can create double standards for young women (Macheroni et al, 2015). The presentation of online identities being polarized along the lines of gender differences, stimulates visual pressure on women to conform; consequently, a tension occurs between ‘’what is socially constructed as appropriate for a boy or a girl and what is actually enacted’’ (Macheroni et al, 2015, p.6). If identities are interpreted as shifting, the presentation of the self on social media should theoretically be a free space, yet it is instead associated with one’s self-worth being imagined as grounded in beauty standards and social acceptance (Livingstone, 2008). The production of identity is therefore worth investigating as it can reproduce harmful ideologies. Identities however should not be ‘’periodically invoked and hunted;’’ (Riley, 2000, p. 131) as everyone has the fundamental right to expression, whether their performance is authentic or not.
Seargeant and Tagg (2014) suggested that a key part of presenting online identities relates to the concept of authenticity. This ‘’acts as a baseline from which this belief can be built’’ (p.7). The most famous and successful social media accounts show intimate aspects of their life, using pictures, videos and text to prove the authenticity of their identity (Seargeant and Tagg, 2014). This identity performance is arguably a construction intended for the public eye ‘’constructed in active processes of... commonality and connectedness’’ (Seargeant and Tagg, 2014, p. 9). In this instance these constructed identities are scrutinized because in some instances they can promote unrealistic beauty standards or materialistic lifestyles (Macheroni et al, 2015). The investigation into online identities can be a necessary process as some online accounts can be harmful for vulnerable people who are susceptible to be groomed for example. The freedom to perform online needs to be interrogated as political accounts are used to influence public opinion through fake accounts for example (Cook et al, 2014). Political activists can gain power online as the volume of people on each site is of major significance. Twitter estimated in 2013 that it had 10.75 million non-genuine accounts, constituting: ‘’fake followers, or accounts associated with individuals with numerous personas’’ (USSEC, 2013; Yarrow, 2013, Cited in Cook et al, 2014, p. 58). The freedom to perform online is a legal right under the freedom of speech act, this however could be up for debate when platforms are used for spreading ‘’misinformation,’’ ‘’propaganda’’ and upsetting images or videos (Cook et al, 2014, p. 59). The virtual world and physical world are mutually constituted as they are incorporated into each other, it is therefore pivotal to question online and offline identities as they could infer wider meanings related to discourse and identity production.
Political identities can be defined as related to ‘’citizenship, immigration, and judicial issues of membership and group rights’’ (Goodwin et al, 2001, p. 84). Political identities can constitute a category of lived experience, making the ‘’nation state a mobilizer of political emotion’’ (Goodwin et al, 2001, p. 84). By blurring the boundaries between the self, the other, and the nation-state, national polity is dramatized, invoking a sense of national belonging. Nationalism is a subset of political identities which is often gendered and heterosexist (Peterson, 1999). Heterosexist ideologies assume ‘’hierarchical dichotomies that codify sex as male-female...gender as masculine-feminine ...and sexuality as heterosexual-homosexual'’ (Peterson, 1999, p. 40). These assumptions become naturalized through dominant discourses which re-inscribe the use of binaries, leading to power struggles and inequalities. Certain political identities have been historically hunted because binary political views can be a site of great contestation in the case of extremist views such as the Nazis. Worldwide political beliefs can change over time or depending on knowledge, adding to Riley’s idea that identities are mutable.
Identities come in many forms, ranging from political, to spatial, to virtual. In the production of identity there is a ‘’production of the self as an object in the world’’ this sense of self can be created or discovered through ‘’practices of self-constitution, recognition and reflection’’ (Hall, 1996, p.26). Identities are complex entities made up of many physical and internal forms of one’s self. Considering that ‘’the personal is political’’ (Hanisch, 1969, p.113, cited in Crow, 2010), identities can be labelled as highly political, signifying the rigid discourse surrounding many aspects of society. Identities are so important as they ‘’inform self-other representations, embed subjects in meaning systems and collective agency’’ (Bloom, 1990, cited in Peterson, 1999, p.37). By understanding all types of identity, a more inclusive society should follow. Identities are not monolithic, therefore should not be ‘’hunted as if they had the hard permanence of diamonds’’ as ‘’classifications may become dully stiff’’ and ‘’hardened like cooled lava’’ (Riley, 2000, p. 130-131). Acknowledging identities are mutable shows that identities are an ‘’escape from the uncertainty of not quite belonging’’ (Zygumunt, cited in Riley, 2000, p. 131). By moving away from labels and rigid discourses, towards an inclusive fluid view of identity, a better encompassing view of the self can be developed.
Bibliography
Bhavnani, K., & Phoenix, A. (1994). Shifting Identities Shifting Racisms, Feminism & Psychology, Vol. 4, (1), pp. 5–18.
Budgeon, S. (2003). Identity as an Embodied Event, Body & Society, Vol. 9, (1), pp. 35–55.
Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre journal, Vol. 40, (4), pp.519-531.
Cook, D., & Waugh, B., & Abdipanah, M., & Hashemi, O., & Rahman, S.A. (2014). Twitter deception and influence: Issues of identity, slacktivism, and puppetry. Journal of Information Warfare, Vol. 13, (1), pp. 58-71.
Currie, D., & Kelly, D., & Pomerantz, S. (2009). ‘Girl Power’: Reinventing Girlhood. Peter Lang Publishing, Inc: New York.
Crow, B. (2010). Radical Feminism: A Documentary Reader. New York University Press.
Dixon, J., & Durrheim, K. (2000). Displacing place‐identity: a discursive approach to locating self and other. British journal of social psychology, Vol. 39, (1), pp.27-44.
Fearon, J. (1999). What is Identity (As We Now Use the Word)? Unpublished manuscript, Department of Political Science, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif, pp. 1-43.
Goodwin, J., & Jasper, J., &Polletta, F. (2001). Passionate Politics: Emotions and Social Movements. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Goffman, E. (1978). The presentation of self in everyday life. Ancor Books: London.
Hall, S. (1996). Who Needs Identity. Questions of Cultural Identity. Vol. 16, (2), pp. 1-17.
Hall, S. & Du Gay, P. (2000). Questions of Cultural Identity. SAGE Publications: London.
Haraway, D. (2006). Chapter 4: A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late 20th Century. Cited in The International Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments. Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Holloway, S. (2000). Identity, contingency and the urban geography of ‘race’. Social & Cultural geography, Vol.1, (2), pp. 197-208.
Kwan, K., & Sodowsky, G. (1997). Internal and external ethnic identity and their correlates: A study of Chinese American immigrants. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, Vol. 25, (1), pp.51-67.
Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking Risky Opportunities in Youthful Content Creation: Teenagers’ Use of Social Networking Sites for Intimacy, Privacy and Self-expression. New Media & Society. Vol. 10, (3), pp. 393-411.
Llamas, C., & Watt, D. (2010). Language and Identities. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh.
Massey, D. (1994). Space, Place and Gender. Polity Press: Cambridge.
Mascheroni, G., & Vincent, J. & Jimenez, E. (2015). Girls are addicted to likes so they post semi-naked selfies: Peer mediation, normativity and the construction of identity online. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, Vol. 9, (1), pp.1-5.
May, J. (1996). Globalization and the politics of place: place and identity in an inner London neighborhood. Transactions of the institute of British geographers, pp.194-215.
Mordini,E., & Massari,S. (2008). Body, Biometrics and Identity. Bioethics, Vol. 22, (9), pp. 488-498.
Peterson, S. (1999). Political Identities/ Nationalism as Heterosexism. International Feminist Journal of Politics. Vol.1, (1), pp. 34-65.
Riley, D. (2000). The Words of Selves. Stanford University Press: California.
Riley, D. (2005). Impersonal Passion: Language as Affect. Duke University Press: London.
Sampson, E. (1978). Personality and The Location of Identity. Journal of Personality. Vol. 46, (3), pp. 552-568.
Seargeant, P., & Tagg, C. (2014). The Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet. Palgrave MacMillan: Basingstoke, UK.
Schwartz, R., & Halegoua, G. R. (2015). The spatial self: Location-based identity performance on social media, New Media & Society, Vol. 17, (10), pp. 1643–1660.
Suler, J. (2002). Identity Management in Cyberspace. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies. Vol. 4, (4), pp. 455-459.
Trethewey, A. (1999). Disciplined bodies: Women's embodied identities at work. Organization Studies, Vol. 20, (3), pp.423-450.
Valentine, G., & Holloway, S. (2002). Cyberkids? Exploring Children’s Identities and Social Networks in On-line and Off-line Worlds. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 92, (2), pp. 302-319.
Warren-Crow, H. (2014). Girlhood and the Plastic Image. Dartmouth College Press: United States of America: New Hampshire.
Wegner, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
