Page 1 of 13

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 11, No. 10

Publication Date: October 25, 2024

DOI:10.14738/assrj.1110.17794.

Sabaliauskiene, D. (2024). Constructing and Negotiating Identity: The Evolution of Identity as a Power Structure and its Ethnic,

Cultural, and Situational Dimensions. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(10). 341-353.

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

Constructing and Negotiating Identity: The Evolution of Identity

as a Power Structure and its Ethnic, Cultural, and Situational

Dimensions

Dalia Sabaliauskiene

Institute of Asian and Transcultural Studies, Vilnius University, Lithuania

ABSTRACT

This article explores the multi-faceted nature of identity through a theoretical lens,

examining its evolution, power dynamics, and situational contexts. The concept of

identity has undergone significant development, shifting from a static notion of self

to a fluid and context-dependent construct. The discussion begins by tracing the

historical development of the identity concept, highlighting its transformation into

a critical socio-political tool. The role of identity as a power construct is then

analyzed, emphasising how dominant groups shape and maintain social structures

through identity narratives. The article further explores the situational and

contextual dimensions of identity, asserting that identity is not only shaped by

external categories but is also actively negotiated in situational contexts. A detailed

examination of categorisations of identity follows, focusing on how labels such as

ethnicity and cultural dimension of identity intersect to form collective identities

within ethnic groups. By synthesising these perspectives, the article aims to provide

a comprehensive framework for understanding identity as both a personal and

social construct influenced by historical, cultural, and political forces. This

theoretical exploration contributes to ongoing discussions on the dynamic and

layered nature of identity in contemporary society.

Keywords: identity Conceptualisation, Power and Identity, Contextual identity, Cultural

Dimension of Identity, Ethnic Groups.

INTRODUCTION

Identity has long been a focal point in social sciences and humanities, functioning as a

conceptual framework to decode the complexities of individual and collective behaviors.

Traditionally, identity was approached as a static and inherent attribute, tied closely to

unchanging traits such as ethnicity or nationality. However, with the evolution of theoretical

paradigms, contemporary scholarship increasingly views identity as a dynamic, multi- dimensional construct, shaped by socio-political contexts, cultural influences, and situational

factors. This theoretical shift necessitates a closer examination of the mechanisms through

which identities are constructed, maintained, and renegotiated in varying social contexts.

A term of “identity” is widespread and is used in a multitude of ways across disciplines, topics,

and contexts. The term generally is attributed to both - individuals and groups, and can be used

to refer to the religious, political, private, cultural, or ethnic realms. Identity is considered a

source of cohesion and violence as well [1]. It is a key term in anthropology and relates, on the

one hand, to categories of the individual or sameness with oneself and, on the other, to

collective distinctions of otherness. It is fluid and transcends boundaries but, to a certain

Page 2 of 13

342

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 10, October-2024

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

degree, has to be stable in order for others to identify one as theirs [2, p.p. 3091-3103). Thus,

identity is a dialectic between similarity and difference, which considered to be main models in

the identity construction process.

An individual has a variety of identities, such as ethnic, religious, national or gender, and usually

one dominates over the others but this domination is not static and can vary. A British

sociologist Anthony Giddens and Philip W. Sutton defines identity as “the distinctive aspects of

a person which relate to who they are and what is meaningful to them. The main sources are

gender, sexual orientation, nationality or ethnicity, and social class” [3, p. 1002]. So, certain

attributes have to be important to the individual in order to become part of his/her identity,

which is the sum of personal and collective1 identities.

Grounding this study in established theoretical frameworks provides a systematic basis for

exploring the intricate nature of identity formation across different societal contexts,

particularly in the context of the dynamic interplay between tradition and modernity. This

theoretical orientation facilitates a comprehensive examination of the ways in which identities

are defined and redefined in response to evolving cultural and social influences. Additionally,

it situates these processes within broader theoretical discourses, enhancing our understanding

of identity as a socially embedded and contextually contingent construct. Such an approach

ensures that the analysis remains both theoretically robust and contextually relevant, thereby

yielding insights crucial to comprehending the complexities inherent in identity formation.

In this light, the present study explores the evolution of identity as a conceptual and power- laden structure, analysing its implications across various socio-cultural dimensions. A central

focus is given to the categorization of identity and its intersections with ethnicity and culture,

revealing how these constructs shape group dynamics and social interactions. By situating

identity within its historical, cultural, and political frameworks, this study aims to contribute to

ongoing scholarly discussions on the fluidity of identity and the mechanisms that underlie its

construction and negotiation in contemporary societies.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF IDENTITY CONCEPT

Basically, discussions of identity take two major forms: psychodynamic and sociological [4, p.p.

328-329]. A research of identity concept started from the psychodynamic tradition, which

mostly concerns with Austrian neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud’s

theory and with second author - a German-American developmental psychologist and

psychoanalyst Erik Homburger Erikson, who’s concept determined identity as located in the

core of the individual. The particular term of “identity” came to anthropology precisely from

the works of this author. This tradition is not the concern of our study, therefore will not be

further analysed.

The second form of identity discussions is sociological tradition of identity theory, which is

linked to “symbolic interactionism and emerges from the pragmatic theory of the self discussed

1 Two concepts should be distinguished here: collective identity and social identity. These two terms are often used as

synonyms, but to our point of view, collective identity is a broader concept, covering social identity term as well.

Talking in Giddens and Sutton terms, social identity covers secondary identities, while collective identity include both:

primary and secondary identities. Thus, in this study these terms are used based on this perception.

Page 3 of 13

343

Sabaliauskiene, D. (2024). Constructing and Negotiating Identity: The Evolution of Identity as a Power Structure and its Ethnic, Cultural, and

Situational Dimensions. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(10). 341-353.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1110.17794

by William James and George Herbert Mead. The self is a distinctively human capacity that

enables people to reflect on their nature and the social world through communication and

language. Both James and Mead see the self as a process with two phases: the “I”, which is

knower, inner, subjective, creative, determining, and unknowable; and the “Me”, which is the

more known, outer, determined, and social phase. Identification, here, is a process of naming,

of placing ourselves in socially constructed categories, with language holding a central position

in this process. In the later works of Erving Goffman and Peter Berger, identity is stated clearly

to be “socially bestowed, socially sustained and socially transformed” [4, p. 329].

The anthropological concept of “identity” has been built up over time and enriched by studies

on interethnic relationships, ethnic borders and ethnicity. Anthropologists have contributed to

identity research by shifting the focus of research: one of the first challenges for the researcher

wishing to carry out empirical research in this area is to identify an appropriate analytical tool

[5, p. 368]. The concept of boundaries is useful here for demonstrating how identity works. As

a Norwegian social anthropologist Fredrik Barth in his approach to ethnicity advocated, the

critical focus for investigation is "the ethnic boundary that defines the group rather than the

cultural stuff that it encloses" [6, p. 15]. This was a significant finding and his approach will be

discussed in more detail later in this paper.

Late modern social theorists have developed a particular sociological perspective on selfhood

in ‘new times ’[8, 9]. A generally held assumption of late modernity suggests that identity

matters more now because we have more choice. Postmodern XXI century implies, that “no

identity, including ethnic, can be considered essential, the palette of identities is always

arranged relevantly, situationally, historically contextually, and they should be assessed only in

that context” [10, p. 19]. The notion of “strong” or stable, inner identity has largely been

replaced with recognition that identities are beset with contradiction, fluidity, and contestation,

and can be identified as “weak”. These identity-based tensions are often conceptualised as

being products of globalisation, post-colonialism, transnationalism, and the formation of

diaspora [1]. As a category of analysis, anthropologists have tended towards a ‘soft ’or ‘weak ’

account of identity as contextually constructed or negotiated [5, p. 368]. As a result,

anthropologists increasingly have examined the “hybridity” of identities, in which the idea of

rigid group boundaries has given way to the sense of movement between multiple identities

(ibid).

Clearly, identity research beginning with a psychodynamic position with personal identity and

personality in concern, acquired an anthropological idea of weak identity as a multiple concept

in the postmodern era. Anthropologists left self-perception as personal identity analysis to

psychologists and started analyse collective identity using boundaries that define groups as a

tool and finally moving to the concept of multiple identities.

IDENTITY AS A POWER CONSTRUCT

Power has been defined in a great variety of ways by anthropologists, but to be talk of power at

all, one must be speaking of distinctions: usually between an individual and a group, as in the

power legitimised through acknowledged, often redistributive, leadership; or one group and

another group, as in colonial domination [11, p. 565]. Whereas, from an anthropological

perspective, identities are not static, it is useful to look at the process of identity construction

in order to find out how power (politics) influence this process.