Professional Documents
Culture Documents
From Precolonial to
Posthuman
Sadeq Rahimi, 1999
Transcultural Psychiatry
McGill University
INTRODUCTION
Threatened Identities
A FRAMEWORK OF CHANGE
The posthuman
A hyperquest: academia
A hyperquest: real life
A hyperquest: the collective
Disappearing space, shrinking time
The smooth space
New philosophies and the mimetic evolution
Fragmentation and multiplicity
A note on the politics of fragmentation
SEMIOTIC SELVE AND COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES
A sense of coherence
The psychological self
Loosening the Empire: Other Conceptions of the Self
A collective illusion
CONCLUSION
The advantages of a semiotic model
A concept-to-work-with
A final note on politics
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Comments
INTRODUCTION
Identity is the question of our era. Contemporary developments have added much
tension, weight, and intricacy to the terms self and identity. Traditionally the
philosophers game alone, self and identity are now open ga mes to the psychologist,
the anthropologist, the sociologist, the mathematician, the physicist, the computer
scientist, the geographer, and many more. Human and social sciences are especially
overflowing with passionate discussions of who, what, and how t he subject is (see
for example Ashmore & Jussim, 1997; Banaji & Prentice, 1994; Markus & Herzog,
1991; Markus & Wurf, 1987; Marsella, DeVos, & Hsu, 1985; Porter & Washington,
1993; Whittaker, 1993 for literature reviews in different areas).
Threatened Identities
One possible explanation for these developments is the now old threatened identity
hypothesis. Whether played in the colonial context as the threat from the Other, or in
the postmodern field as the threat of falling apart; and whether felt at the individual
level as the pathology of multiplicity, or at the collective level as the loss of
cultural and social values, threatened identity has been a common human concern
for the last few centuries. "Wh y, indeed, should we have so many identity problems
in modern life? It cannot be for lack of rationality for we have more rational
information and techniques than ever," writes Klapp (1969). Certainly not for lack of
rationality, I would insist. Lerner (1 959) had earlier addressed this question, with
reference to rituals and traditions. As the process of modernization progressed and
the new environment asked for new behavior, Lerner (1959) explained, a
displacement of old traditions had to take place, whi ch in turn called in for changes
in our sense of identity. This, of course, was before the age of mobility, when
globalization was not yet the buzzword; and exclusively western, where there was
no threat of a robust Other deliberately seeking to displace your identity. Though
much has changed since the times of Lerner (1959) or Klapp (1969), the spirit of
their concerns seems to apply to recent developments in similar ways. If the
postmodern condition is a continuation, or an ;aftermath of modernization (see
Harvey, 1989; or Jameson, 1984, for example), one which would not have come to
be without the modern predicate, then change and speed might give useful clues to
the qualitative differences between the eras. And if we accept Giddens (1991)
description of modernity as a "post-traditional order," (p. 2), then post-modernism
may be described as simply furthering the irreverence of modernity for tradition, to
target "order" itself. Human mind, in this account, is un dergoing continuous and
fundamental change in response to the shift in environmental demands, from
premodern to modern to postmodern. "Never before," writes Melucci (1996), "in the
history of the great transformations have the changes under wa y been met with
such a bewildering confusion" (p. 99). More specifically, connectedness and
identification are the two senses where such shifts are experienced most
dramatically by both individuals and collectives as instability and lack of coherence
at p sychological (the epidemy of modernism) and metaphysical (marking the
postmodern condition) levels. Warning against the postmodern notions of self and
identity, Glasss (1993) lament testifies to just that sense of threat: "the danger to
identity her e seems obvious: a boundaryless self is a self without identity . . ." (p.
148).
A FRAMEWORK OF CHANGE
The following paper is a theoretical discussion of recent transformations of the
human condition, with an accent on developments that constitute the postmodern
condition. While it is difficult to elucidate wh at exactly the phrase recent
transformations means, locating it against a general framework might help. An
important determinant in constructing such a framework is the coincidence of
technological and political (colonial, to be exact) develop ments. It is an important
coincidence, because while each of the two can be laid singularly to map recent
transformations, neither can fully express the multiple dimensions of these changes,
nor would these changes have taken place in the same way in the absence of either
factor. Briefly, I tend to break down the history of these changes on the
human reality become less inflexible, it becomes imperative for any new theory of
identity to accommodate a conception of identity ultimately unconstrained by these
grids. It is possible, I will suggest, only by removing th e notion of identity from
phenomenological domain to the semiotic field, to dismiss direct involvement of
either time or space in its construction.
Finally, despite the specific philosophical perspective endorsed through the language
of this paper (i.e., western postmodern), and while accepting Baumans (1995)
suggestion, that "identity is a name given to the sought escape from uncertaint y" (p.
82), I would insist nonetheless that political and clinical concerns demand certain
concepts-to-work-with, certain constructions meant to translate Being into the
human reality. True, such translation spells violence, but th e fact is that in a final
analysis violence appears as the other name for being, and any semiotic
construction of the world always already exists through a systemized (if partial)
negation of Being. That is to say, a philosophical appreciation of the void behind the
term identity does not necessarily render a conceptualization of identity futile, or
useless. The challenge, however, may lie in gradually freeing the concept, so as to
move as far as possible from positivistic reification towards the least rigid
conceptualizations permitted within the current discourse of a given era. Currently,
for example, the notions of change and fluidity championed by postmodern thinkers
may provide useful metaphors towards such liberation of the working conc ept. That
is why environmental change is the main theme of this paper, and that is why I
suggested earlier a theory of identity in motion.
The posthuman
The environmental changes the current paper is concerned with may be recognized
in the structural and semiotic transition from the modern to the postmodern. In other
words, the current hyperquest for identity can be considered a conversion effect of
a postmodern condition replacing the modern. The frenzy with which human
consciousness is struggling to locate itself and its world well signifies the
disorienting effects of shattered grand narratives and the deconstruction anxiety that
results from a continuous calling into question of reality and truth, the Reality and
Truth which have served as the center of poise for our conception of Being
throughout the history of consciousness. This is a state of liminality well beyond
what human consciousness has experienced or is prepared for; a passage to a
universe so different one may call it posthuman. No rites de passage have been
prescribed for this transition, so anxiety, fear and mourning seem to be the only tools
our species has for rendering the passage meaningful. For the human (or more
precisely, the posthuman) subject to be at ease within a world that is not bound
together with static concentric patterns, and to find exhilaration in fragmentedness
and comfort in multiplicity and super-rapid change, a serious reorientation, a redefining of the system of signification has to take place, and anxiety is bound to be a
side-effect of such transformation. Anxiety may thus be recogniz ed as the drive
behind contemporary passion for identification, if we understand this enterprise in
terms of an attempt at reorientation. If it is true as Douglas (1966) asserts, that what
cannot be classified is dangerous and polluting, what would be the logical
consequence of the prospect of everything slipping into that space between the
boundaries where current human structures simply do not cohere? Let me repeat
Glasss (1993) classic statement of horror: "the danger to identity here seems
obvious: a boundaryless self is a self without identity..." (p. 148).
A hyperquest: academia
lund (1997) claims that during the past two decades "the quest for identity ... has
become one of the most central characteristics of our civilizations transformation"
(p. 102). According to Ashmore and Juss im (1995), self-concept and self-perception
have expanded to have the largest number of abstracts in psychological literature
over the last two decades (p. 5). Though North American psychological literature
reflects a long tradition of neglecting the _ 5;collective to favor the individual, the
collective has always been present in the margins of this tradition. Psychological
theories of Baldwin (e.g., 1897), James (e.g., 1890), or Jung (e.g., 1945), as well as
more sociologically infor med thinkers like Cooley (e.g., 1902), or Mead (e.g.,
1934), though far from being the mainstream material, have nonetheless survived on
the margins. More importantly, the recent resurgence of interest in self and identity
is certainly accompanied by an i ncreased consideration of the collective even within
the North American psychological mainstream (see Banaji & Prentice, 1994, and
Markus & Wurf, 1987 for example reviews). For the anthropologist, of course, the
collective has always played an imp ortant role in understanding the individual (see,
for example, Klukhohn & Mowrer, 1944; Honigmann 1967), even for those who did
not take clear sides in the culturalist/universalist game (e.g., Hallowell, 1955 or
Obeyesekere, 1981).
Haraway, 1985, 1997; or even Gergen, 1991) may provide further support for the
perspective th at prophesizes the end for human identity. The quality of changes
assessed by these (and many other) thinkers, and the practical implications of such
changes may not be as easily observable (nor understandable) in daily life as they
are in the realm of di gital mimesis, but as more humans adopt dual citizenships of
the real and the simulated worlds the experience becomes more translatable from
one realm to another. Experiences whose pronunciation alone would have spelled
psychosis a generation or two ago are now common place channels of
communication, especially within virtual communities. The very notion of identity,
stability over time, is directly challenged and destroyed by experiences which are
becoming part of the norm before most of us have a chance to create cognitive maps
to trap and solidify them: identities without precedence.
the locus of identity, or at least an expansion of the locus of identity, from the
bounded unit traditionally understood as the individual to the wider domain of _
5;culture, the collective. "The memory system," writes Donald (1993), "once
collectivized into the external symbolic storage system, becomes virtually unlimited
in capacity and much more robust and precise." (p. 311). Such dynamic can be
discussed i n two terms: the presence of the collective in what constitutes the
individual, and the expansion of the individual through the collective. The notion of
a collective that informs the individuals sense of identity is in fact what will be
discussed b elow as collective identity. The notion of expansion, the individual with
a sense of memory and identity spread beyond and outside his or her traditional
self, is closely relevant to the postmodern notion of fragmentation discussed
below. While I used earlier the metaphor of falling apart to suggest a dysfunctional
reaction to environmental demands, I would like to propose that the phenomenon
most frequently described as the fragmentation of human identity w ithout any
implications of a disorder, may be understood as an adaptive response to those
demands.
Jean Baudrillard (1987) reports contemporary human condition in this way: "[we
are] in that state of hyperreality . . . we are dealing with a sign that posits the
principle of non-reality, the principle of the absolute absence of realit y. We went
beyond the reality principle a long time ago, and now the game which is being
played is no longer being played in the world of pure illusion..." (pp. 46-47). Note
that Baudrillards hyperreality is not a simulated reality, it i s a state of reality,
one which Levin (1996) calls "reality conceived without otherness" (p. 274). It is
more in line with Heideggers Ge-Stell, which describes an enframing of the human
experience of Being by the creation of its o wn mind, i.e., technology. Baudrillards
conception of the simulacra --the third order, to be more specific: see Baudrillard
(1993) for details-- as the narrative of human identity in the postmodern condition,
would be a useful framework for conceptu alizing the transformation of human
identity as a result of technological change. Far from revolutionary, as notes Pefanis
(1991), the simulacra (and hence the theoretical possibility of transitional
developments of meaning), could be defended with perspe ctives as old as Platos
notion of society as mimesis (see pp. 59f.). Once we recognize social human as a
simulation, an abstraction shared by (and, simultaneously, constitutive of) the
individual members of a given society, then the transition from one level of
simulation to the next would be more readily conceivable. Baudrillard (1983) speaks
of the latest order(s) of simulation as maps without a territory. "Simulation is no
longer that of a territory," he writes, "it is the map that precedes the t erritory...that
engenders the territory" (p. 2). Philosophically, I would problematize the idea of "no
longer". To use that means to imply that at some point these maps, the simulations
within which humans semiotic existence has been established, ac tually referred to a
territory, a substance, a referential being. It is the assumption of this paper that
such substance has never been in place, and thus has never disappeared or replaced,
despite the fact that certain perspectives have assumed (and thus observed) such
qualities. To use other words from Baudrillard himself, it is in fact more true to
understand all systems of representation as "the situation created by any system of
signs when it becomes sophisticated enough, autonomous enough, to abolish its own
referent and to replace it with itself" (1991, p. 157. Note also that the notion of a
map that precedes its territory has implications for my earlier discussion of the
theoretical possibility of a reversal in the orders of signification and identification).
xviii). In other words, it may be an uncalled-for error to interpret and thus reject
postmodern literature (or at least all postmodern literature) as prescriptions for
dysfunctional pathologies based on "distortions" of "the face of madness" (Glass,
1993, p. 148). "If postmodernism is a historical phenomenon," writes Jameson
elsewhere (1984, p. 85), "then the attempt to conceptualize it in terms of moral or
moralizing judgements must finally be identified as a category-mistake."
A sense of coherence
I have chosen to understand identity (personal or collective), as a semiotically
conceived sense of coherence. There are a few arguments for this choice, one of
which I discussed earlier as the need to locate human (sense of ) identity outside the
rigidities of time or space. Somewhat traditionally, American theorists of self and
identity have generally relied heavily on temporality as the anchorage of their
theories, even where their conceptualizations have been proposed as semiotic
arguments (see, for example, the theories of Mead, Peirce, James, or Dewey, all of
whom claim more or less semiotic bases for their understanding of the self). In a
recent reconciliatory attempt at combining the different American the ories of self
and identity (specifically, those of Mead and Peirce) together as complements, Wiley
(1994) suggests a "triadic" theory of identity. Wileys (1994) triad locates human
identity in a triangular relation between temporal, semiotic, and di alogical elements.
He suggests a merger of theories locating identity in each of these domains, arguing
(naively, I should add) that "this theoretical whole [is] greater than the sum of its
parts" (p. 216). Rejecting the semiotic theory of Eco (e.g., Eco, 1976), he writes,
"for Eco the self is a sign in the same way that ordinary words are signs. But
obviously we are not . . . otherwise these words or others like them, would also be
humans" (p. 217). Apart from the generally simplistic treatment of the (S aussurian)
semiotic approaches employed or implied in European thought (e.g., Wittgenstein
affect this individual is via the coming to b e of a "knowledge cloud" (which comes
to be as a synthesis of the individual thought and the social conventions, perhaps)
which the individual then analyses, and from which s/he then "derives" a certain
sense of identity, and based on which s/he develops a sense of "value and emotional
significance" regarding her/his membership in that group. As Levin (1992) describes
it, the American academic psychology "tends to be tough-minded. It has little
tolerance for abstract, the speculative, or the psychoanalyti c" (p. 126). The fact is
that even those of this group who select less main-stream approaches to self and
identity, like Cooley (e.g., 1902) or Mead (e.g., 1934) who ascribe great importance
to semiological notions tend to do so within certain boundaries. Meads dialogical
self, for example, appears in the first glance to be located in the semiotic realm. A
closer look, however, shows that semiotics remains external to Meads self, a
mediator between the subject and the surrounding s ociety. Unlike that of
Wittgensteins, this subject is not a semiotic entity, even though it develops via
semiotic means (see Mead 1934, for example). Cooleys subject seems also to look
into the mirror to become who/what it become s, just like Lacans does. Once again,
however, a closer look reveals that these two mirrors dont reflect the same thing:
while Lacans mirror brings into being the self, Cooleys mirror simply allows an
already-inquisitive self to ha ve a look at itself, to reflect upon itself. Even to the
semiotically-inclined North American theories of self and identity, a claim like "the
limit of my language means the limits of my world" (Wittgenstein, 1922, p. 117)
may appear too extre me. It is tempting to follow the significance and implications
of this perspective and the general social/political role of such conceptualization as a
product of the capitalist economy. It is not this papers intention, however, to enter a
detailed discussion of either perspective, and instead of a more in-depth discussion
of the psychological perspective I now consider some of the views challenging the
American psychological perspective.
consumption rates have further provided fertile grounds for rapid political and social
mushrooming of marginally-based efforts in decentralisation of power, politically,
socially, and inevitably, philosophically and psychologically. As I discussed
earlier, the gradual dislocation o f the center (or what is claimed to mean that) in
various domains has been well represented within the human sciences occupied with
the conception of the individual and the self. The dislocation of the centre from the
self to the society, to the language, and eventually to nowhere has progressively
created the most essential challenge to the old "bounded universe" (Geertz, 1979)
which has been the western individual. A very interesting question which springs out
of this discussion is why withi n the human and social sciences psychology should
decide to ignore these challenges, and has managed to remain mostly nonpermeable against these developments, faithful to the western tradition. Though
again outside the limits of this paper, I find most convincing the arguments
advocated by the critical theorists who have "located the current North American
conception [of the individual, as psychologys subject] in the heartland of advanced
capitalist ideology" (Sampson, 1989b, p. 2). It is worth mentioning before I move
on, that as I suggested earlier the west, specifically North America has been the main
source not only of colonialism, but also of developments that have unfolded the
transformation from modernity to the postmodern condit ion. An important
postmodern object, the Internet, for example, is not only a western phenomenon,
but in fact a direct product of capitalist self-protection tactics (consider the case of
ARPANET for example). It is ever ironic that while weste rn technology, backed by
its complementary psychologies, contributes immensely to the development of the
posthuman, it remains itself extremely resistant to considering the possibility of such
transformation.
One may use Derridas description of the subject as "a system of relations" to refer
to the most outstanding perspective raised to challenge western psychological idea
of the individual. This "system of relations" does not have a center, and d evoid of
any stable solid core, it is a process rather than a beginning or an end (Sampson,
1989b). Not only does this decentered self not function as the center of the society, it
may not even be viewed as having a center: a process rather th an an essence.
"Selfhood by this figuration", says Battaglia (1995), "is a chronically unstable
productivity brought situationally --not invariably-- to some form of imaginary
order, to some purpose, as realised in the course of culturally patterned inter actions"
(p. 2).
It is worth mentioning that instead of seeing an epistemological difference between
the views I have mentioned above, some have suggested a semiotic difference.
Ewing (1990), argues for a general misunderstanding between the anthropological
and psy chological views: while cultural anthropologists have argued that selves
are "culturally shaped and infinitely variable," Kohut, has claimed that "every
normally functioning, healthy adult has a bounded, cohesive self". Ewing in fact
goes on t o suggest that even though these disciplines may think that their
understandings of the self are in conflict, "they are, in fact, not talking about the
same thing." She explains "semiotically constituted concepts of self" as the notion
with which the _ 5;anthropological researchers are more often concerned, while
what the psychological/ psychoanalytical literature refer to is often a, "pre-reflective
self-experience". It is, according to her, this differential reference that initiates the
psycho-/ anthropological debate over the nature of the self. Clearly the first premise
of this argument is a dichotomization of self experience at the semiotic versus the
pre-reflective levels. What such dichotomization would imply is that the pre-
reflective self is not semiotically conceived, an argument that seems similar to that
of North American semiological social psychologists, as I discussed earlier. While it
might again be beyond the scope of this paper to enter a detailed discussion of this
suggestion, I do not find Ewings (1990) distinction convincing. These differences
arise not at a semiotic level as she proposes, but rather from two fundamentally
different interpretations of the universe and what constitutes reality within this
unive rse, and of what is or is not out there to be known.
Incidentally, Ewing (1990) does express in the same article a criticism of what she
calls the anthropological assumption of a "single model of self or person", which
"can be described in terms of a few key concepts and symbols", an assumption deriv
ed from the understanding of cultures as coherent systems. Without intending any
detailed discussion, this is an argument which I tend to interpret, in an indirect way,
as again a criticism of the perception which has been traditionally attributed to the
psychological conception of its subject, at a social/cultural level. And this criticism
does not appear to be attributing the difference between the two perceptions of
culture to semiotic miscommunication.
A collective illusion
An important argument within Ewings (1990) article is her suggestion of a
semiotically-constructed illusion of wholeness, a cohesive self which, though may
not be described as anything more than a reifi ed idea, nonetheless bears important
implications for any work, specifically any cross-culturally oriented study of self
and identity. Such wholes, she argues, "are fleeting, [but] they are experienced as
timeless." (p. 263). I find this argument importan t since I tend to locate the notion
of collective identity within this very illusory realm. It is possible to raise the
argument that, given the existence of such illusory context, it is logically sound to
explore the construction of this illusion, and to study the various representations of
such construction in the individuals behaviour and interactions. It is, in other words,
exactly within this semiotic realm that I would locate the sense of identity, and it is
in reference to this illusory ;collectiveness (to which Fernandez (1986) refers as a
"conviction of wholeness") that I suggest a persons perception of his/her
collectivity to be understood.
What I am suggesting is that what --and perhaps the only thing that-- individuals
sharing a culture actually share is the "conviction", or rather, the illusion that they
share a common system of values and perspectives. In o ther words, not only do I
consider the perception of oneself as a stable, coherent, and continuous source of
action an "illusion" as Ewing (1990) suggests, but further, what is normally referred
to as "culture" I regard as an imagined space where persons who are the members of
that specific collectivity believe to share sets of values and symbols. These sets of
values, beliefs, and symbols may indeed be empirically found to be incoherent and
diverse, despite the sincere conviction of each member of the gr oup that what s/he
shares with others is a set of similar perspectives. This semiotically constructed
collective illusion (or illusion of collectivity) gives birth to a world, in a
phenomenological sense, within each individual, wh erein every member of the
culture including one-self is represented and shares a set of values as the group.
Discrepant relationship between value system and self-categorization, for example,
can be explained with this model . If it is not the empirical similarity of values or
behaviour schema that rigidly establishes a persons sense of collective identity, then
it would be possible to have discrepancies between the group a person might appear
to belong to, and the group that person actually believes to belong to. As I will argue
later, this model also accommodates the fact that an individual could have multiple
collective identities without experiencing internal discrepancy as a coherent
psychological agent .
Ewing (1990) argues for a system of self-representation utilised, along with the
representations of others, towards the constitution of a "symbolic whole". Even
though she does not enter into further details regarding the representations of others
and considers the role of such representation only with regard to the processes which
constitute the "illusion of an ongoing experience" of the self as an individual, I
would like to extend her arguments in discussing the semiotic experience which
constit utes identification with a group, or collective identity. Fernandez (1986) and
Ewing (1990) present interesting arguments for an illusory sense of " wholeness"
with respect to the individual sense of the self (Ewing), and "religious culture"
(Fernandez). I find both their arguments similarly applicable to the "whole"
generally referred to --and experienced-- as "culture". As per Ewing, I agree that
such ambiguity-based semiotic devices and processes as metonymy, analogy, and
metaphor (which are also sugge sted by Fernandez, and Ewing [1990] tries to
capture in psychoanalytic terms) can not only explain the conviction of wholeness
within a religious context, but may also be further employed to describe "the
processes people use to organise and to interpret their sense of self", since they use
"the same semiotic processes to constitute experience in all situations" in doing so
(p. 265). In extending Ewings arguments I propose that culture, conceived and
experienced by the members of a specific group as a commonly shared space, is also
a semiotically-constructed psychological experience (of the individual member), and
that such semiotic devices and processes as described by Fernandez and Ewing can
be considered fundamental for the existence and maintena nce of this space and the
individuals sense of identification with and within this imagined whole.
Conclusion
The advantages of a semiotic model
A semiotic understanding of both self and identity offers a way of establishing
notions of self and identity outside temporality, so that the question of selfidentification can be conceived free from the que stion of stability over time. As
mentioned earlier, the semiotic model is also able to accommodate the self/others
categorisation discrepancy, i.e., the discrepancy between an individuals own belief
of what culture s/he belongs to and th e others perception of her/his social and
cultural patterns of behaviour and value system. A next advantage of this model of
interpretation would be that the fact of "multiple-belonging" or the individuals
compartmentalisation of his/her simul taneous identifications with groups which
may stand in differential positions to one another can be explained in a manner very
similar to what Ewing (1990) utilises to explain the phenomenon she calls "shifting
selves" (p. 268), to which I referred earlie r in discussing multiplicity and
fragmentation. In this fashion contradictions (collective or personal) can be
contained within the psychic structure, without necessarily causing the whole to
deconstruct itself in the atomistic search of the Whole (for a psychoanalytic
articulation of this concept see also Ewings [1990] suggestion of the term
"contextual unconscious"), thus making possible a sense of identity in the absence of
wholeness or temporal permanence. To use the well-known thread-and-beads
analogy then, this models notion of the differential cultural contextuality of the self
A concept-to-work-with
At this point I would like to propose the conditional use of such concepts as
collective identity and collective self-esteem as defined above, i.e., as semioticallyconceived phenomena which are psychologically experienc ed, and at times
cognitively perceived (hence the psychological self-concept as a quantifiable
construct). The state of conditionality arises on two grounds, philosophical, and
political. Philosophically, the legitimacy of using such construct s would be
contingent on the basic understanding of such constructs as mere violence, imposed
out of a perceived need for an epistemological model, and nothing more than that. In
this case, for example, it would be important to note that even though the s
uggestion of a collective identity which exists only as a semiotic construct
experienced by another illusory entity called the individual is by definition not
grounded in an essentialist interpretation, nonetheless all this does not deprive the
model of political implications, nor of an inherent quality of violence. It is for this
reason then that the awareness of such models being nothing more than just that
becomes important.
I would further like to address the political and practical need for a system of
representation based on a structured interpretation of the set of relationalities
constituting the world, the individual, and the society. Even though impo sition of
structurality is generally known by postmodernism ( take Lyotard or Rorty, for
example) as a betrayal of the tenets of the philosophies of difference, and even
though it may indeed be so at a philosophical level, I would like to argue again (see
above) that given the already imposed sense of structure to which we are born, I
cannot possibly imagine any political resistance without reification of certain
concepts such as collectivity and solidarity, nor can I imagine a study of increa
singly serious global developments without some conceptualization of identity at
both individual and collective levels. What may appear to be a sincere loyalty to the
cause of philosophy, may lead to a cruel deprivation of the marginalised (ironically
eno ugh, for whose sake most such theories claim to thrive) of the one and only
means of empowerment they can have in the face of an overwhelmingly progressed
system of impositions, i.e. a sense of collectivity and solidarity.
In short, I emphasise that it is important to remember that any model of
understanding is by definition already a systematised violence, and specifically, any
model which approaches the idea of structure away from a decenterisation and a
system of differences takes on the challenge and the risk of succumbing to the
"terroristic" demands of the status quo, as Rorty would suggest. I would like to also
emphasise, however, that the constructs I have suggested as objects-to-work-with are
understo od and located within a semiotic and illusory field of fragments in
motion, which is indeed always already decentered, given the non-essentialist
model of the individual and identity in which these notions are introduced; and that
it is also important in any effort in dealing with the marginalised to not render the
very subjects of that effort powerless, which I believe to be problematic with many
major philosophical and scientific claims that locate themselves within the domains
BIBLIOGRAPHY
lund, A. (1997). The quest for identity: modern strangers and new/old ethnicites in
Europe. In H. R. Wicker (Ed.) Rethinking nationalism & ethnicity: the struggle for
meaning and order in Europe. (pp. 91-109). New York: Berg.
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: reflections on the origins and spread
of nationalism. London: Verso.
Anderson, R., Hughes, J. and Sharrock, W. (1986). Philosophy and the human
sciences. London: Routledge.
Klapp, O. E. (1969). Collective search for identity. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and
Winston Inc.
Klein, R. M., & Doane, B. K. (Eds.) (1994). Psychological Concepts and
Dissociative Diesorders. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Klukhohn, C.; & Mowrer, O. H. (1944). Culture and personality: a conceptual
scheme. American anthropology. 46, 1-29.
Kohut, H. (1977). The Restoration of the Self. New York: International Universities
Press.
Kohut, H. & Wolf, E. S. (1978). The disorders of the self and their treatment: an
outline. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 59, 413-425.
Lawrence, P. (1988). In another country. In A. Bryman (Ed.) Doing Research in
Organisations. London: Routledge.
Lecky, P. (1945). Self-consistency: A Theory of Personality. New York: Island.
Lerner, D. (1959). The passing of traditional society. New York: Free Press.
Levin, C. (1996). Jean Baudrillard: a study in cultural metaphysics. London:
Prentice Hall.
Levin, J. D. (1992). Theories of the self. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Lifton, R. J. (1993). The protean self: Human resilience in an age of fragmentation.
New York: Basic Books.
Lutz, C. (1988). Unnatural emotions: everyday sentiments of a Micronesian Atoll
and their challenge to western theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Lyotard, J. F. (1991) The inhuman: Reflections on time. Trans. G. Bennington & R.
Bowlby. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Markus, H., and Herzog, A. R. (1991). The role of the self-concept in aging. Annual
review of gerontology and geriatrics. 11, 110-143.
Markus, H., and Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: a social psychological
perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.
Marsella, A. J.; DeVos, G.; & Hsu, F. (1985). Culture and self. New York: Tavistock
Publications.
Marx, K. (1844). The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. New York:
International Publishers (1964).
May, T. (1997). Social Research: Issues, Methods, and process. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person? Journal of
Personality, 63, 363-396.
McAdams, D. P. (1997). The case for unity in the (post)modern self: a modest
proposal. In R. D. Ashmore & L. Jussim (Eds.), Self and Identity: Fundamental
Issues. (pp. 46-78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social
behaviourist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murray, E. W. (1993). Whats the western concept of the self? On forgetting David
Hume. Ethos. 21 (1), 3-23.
Obeyesekere, G. (1981). Medusas hair: an essay on personal symbols and religious
experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pefanis, J. (1991). Heterology and the Postmodern: Bataille, Baudrillard, and
Lyotard. London: Duke University Press.
Porter, J. R., & Washington, R. E. (1993). Minority identity and self-esteem. Annual
review of sociology, 19, 139-161.
Rogers, T. B. (1981). A model of the self as an aspect of humaninformation
processing system. In N. Cantor and J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition,
and social interaction (pp. 193-214). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rogers, T. B, Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding
of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677-688.
Roseman, M. (1990). Head, heart, odor, and shadow: the structure of the self, the
emotional world, and ritual performance among Senoi Temiar. Ethos, 18, 227-250.
Rosenberg, S. (1997). Multiplicity of Selves. In R. D. Ashmore & L. Jussim (Eds.),
Self and Identity: Fundamental issues. (pp. 23-45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Russel, B. (1921). The Analysis of Mind. London: Allen & Unwin.
Sampson, E. E. (1989a). The challenge of social change for psychology:
Globalization and psychologys theory of the person. American Psychologist, 44,
914-921.
Sampson, E. E. (1989b). The deconstruction of the self. In J. Shotter and K. J.
Gergen (Eds.), Texts of Identity (pp. 1-19). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Shedler, J., Mayman, M., & Manis, M. (1993). The illusion of mental health.
American Psychologist, 48(11), 1117-1131.
Shweder, R. & Bourne, E. (1984). Does the concept of the person vary crossculturally? In R. Shweder and R. Levine (Eds.) Culture Theory: Essays on Mind,
Self, and Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, M. B. (1994). Selfhood at risk: postmodern perils and the perils of
postmodernism. American Psychologist, 49, 405- 411.
Spanos, N. P. (1994). Multiple identity enactments and multiple personality disorder:
a socio-cognitive perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 143-165.
Swann, W. J., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with
the self. In J. Suls and A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological Perspectives on the
Self (Vol. 2, pp. 33-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: studies in social psychology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, S. E. & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: a social psychological
perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: computers and the human spirit. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: identity in the age of the internet. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Weinberger, D. A., Schwartz, G.E., & Davidson, R. J. (1979). Low anxious, highanxious, and repressive coping styles: psychometric patterns and behavioral and
physiological responses to stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88(4), 369-380.
Whittaker, E. (1993). The birth of the anthropological self and its career. Ethos, 20,
191-219.
Wicker, H. R. (1997). Rethinking nationalism & ethnicity: the struggle for meaning
and order in Europe. New York: Berg.
Wiley, N. (1994). The semiotic self. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. (Trans. D. F. Pears and B. F.
McGuiness). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.