>The world in which we live has countless groups which have separate sense of being, of distinctiveness. This is largely derived from what we call is culture. It is through culture that one arrives at the copcept of shared history and a sense of belonging on its basis.
The nature of collective Identity a concept deeply embedded in classical sociology: Marx’s class conciousness or Weber’s Verstehen. It addresses the “we-ness” (a term coined by Karen Cerulo in “Identity Construction:New issues New Directions” Annual Review of sociology Vol 23 (1997))of a group with a special focus on the similarities or shared attributes around which people coalesce.
However, when an idividual is reviewed history, culture and background are not the only wasy of seening oneself and the groups to which they identify. As Amartya Sen points out it is quite possible that we may simultaneously belong to multiple groups (see Identity and Violence, Illusion of destiny chapter 2) One can be an European with a British Citizenship, a french with Italian ancestry,a Canadian resident, an author, a painter, a non believer in religion etc. Belonging to each of the above group can be very important depending on the context. Secondly, importance of one identity at any given time doesnot obliterate the importance of the others.
As individuals we all belong to different groups in one way or the another and each of these groups award an individual a potential identity. It is up to us to decide as to how much importance and what relevance are these groups to us. Singular identities are important but they entirely depend on a social context and in any one particular identity is given preference over another at a given time it is merely because circumstances demand so.
In a society there are millions of potetially viable identities which can be assessed both in terms of acceptablity and importance and it is entirely upto the individual to decide upon the the relative significance of his different affiliations. These choices are carefully made and as Sen points out how Gandhi prioratised his identity as an indian over being a barrister. Having said that one really cannot make choices that will in no way feasable, hence there are constraints. It is through this that we can persuade others to take us to be different from what they insist on us to be.
Sometimes understanding identity is also a process of self discovery, to know who we are and where we belong. Communities in turn help individuals to discover who they are and the kind of relation they share amongst themselves along with the attachments formed purely on the basis of their identity.
The question here arised is that whether we have an option to chose over alternative identities or as Sen puts it; a combination of them. Sen has beautifully used the example of GORA a novel by Tagore to explain this point. How Gora’s discovery of him being a white boy and not the hindu boy he had grown up as underminds the conservatism championed by him and through the passage of time that Gora realises his true indentity a human being who is at home in India…
scribblingrants 