Chapter 4 In dialogue with, Gee, Bourdieu, Lave and Wenger and Bernstein
4.2 Gee‘s identity framework
In Chapter 2, I introduced Gee‘s (1996) work on discourse in which a distinction was made between discourse (small letter d) and the Discourse (capital letter D). This understanding has led Gee to theorise about discursive identities, which is the subject of this section. Through this work, Gee has been instrumental in fostering an understanding of the relationship between identity and social inclusion and exclusion in higher education. Notably, has been the recognition that identity is discursive, that is, it is mediated through a discourse. In consequence, Gee has recommended
incorporating identity as an analytic lens to provide a more nuanced understanding of students‘ lived experiences in the Discourse (Gee, 2001).
Gee defines identity as ―the kind of person one is recognised as being, at a given time and place, which can change from time to time, context rendering it unstable or ambiguous‖ (Gee, 2001 p. 99). Implied in this definition is that one‘s identity is defined by others. If that is the case, then identity can never be neutral; ―it may have considerable potential to define what it means to bear it, the experience of ‗being an X‘‖ (Jenkins, 1994 p. 202). Essentially, the act of identifying becomes also an act of engagement, given ―to identify someone could be enough to decide how to treat her‖
(Jenkins, 2008 p. 6). This conception of identity, like the perspective advanced by the sociologist Jenkins, is multi-faceted and socially situated. Similarly, Gee (2001) has identified multiple facets of identity which he has termed, nature N,-Identity, institutional, I-Identity, affinity, A-Identity and discourse, D-Identity. Nature identity refers to our genetic disposition. I am a black woman, in her mid-thirties, and I have no control over that. Institutional identity relates to the organisational affiliation, for instance engineering students in a Faculty of Engineering. This identity, marks people in a certain way which can in turn affect the way they are perceived by others. A-Identity refers to membership one shares with those with whom he holds common beliefs and or activities. Gaining this membership therefore, requires one to adopt certain characteristics, which are acceptable in that discourse community. By logical extension this implies that there are gatekeepers who determine who gains acceptance into a discourse community. Thus, affinity identity has the power to change people. D-Identity, on the other hand deals with identity acquired through participation in a discourse community. From Gee‘s definition of identity and the multiple facets that he identifies, the following identity categories can be deduced.
Identity is located within discourses
Identity is embedded within power relations
There is a multiplicity of identities
Identity is dynamic, it changes according to context
The discursive understanding of identity is a critical component of Gee‘s theorisation on identity and is crucial in this study. For Gee (2001) a person chooses a
d/Discourse that reflects/indicates who he /she wants to be perceived as. This discursive process has certain characteristics. Firstly, people use language to transmit their cultural knowledge and interpret events in any discourse community.
Essentially, language becomes a tool that is used to construct identity as individuals internalise ascriptions of who they are and those around them. Therefore, we ascribe an identity to people, for instance, ‗underpreparedness‘, ‗disadvantage‘ or ‗limited proficiency‘. Secondly, these d/Discourses are embedded in power which works through a process of recognition (Gee, 2001) and is sustained by the discourse or language of the participants. Simply put, when somebody is referred to as an ‗able‘
writer, there is recognition of this ability in their interactions with them and hence, they use the d/Discourse of ability to communicate this identity. Discursive identity, therefore, is manifested through the selection and use of d/Discourses that enable those that we are affiliated with to interpret what we mean (Brown, Reveles and Kelly, 2005). Put in this way, d/Discourses have the potential to mark people in certain ways, all of which are representations that can have negative or positive effects on those that are marked.
All of Gee‘s identity domains are invested in or yield to some sort of power. Though we have no power over our N-Identities, given they are designated by nature, they can also gain force as identities through the work of institutions, d/Discourses or affinity groups. Hence, students who come from ‗other‘ backgrounds are diagnosed as underprepared‘ or ‗disadvantage‘. This becomes their N-identity which is ascribed through the work of institutions. The manner in which people identify others has a bearing on how they identify their interests (Jenkins, 1996). Consequently, it is believed that because these students come from ‗disadvantaged‘ backgrounds, they are in need of ‗language support‘. Subsequently, this N-Identity, in turn becomes an I-Identity as students take up the role ‗officially‘ of ‗underprepared‘ or ‗disadvantaged‘
students in the university. While people focus on these identities as ‗natural‘, they do so to forget or hide the fact (often for ideological reasons) that there are institutional, socio-interactional factors that create them as identities (Gee, 2001).
Gaining access to a Discourse is also mediated by power. This power is invested in the distinctive practices and experiences of the discipline. Therefore, to gain this access, one has to walk the same walk or talk the same talk as the significant others,
that is the experienced academics, in the discipline to which they seek membership (McKenna, 2010; Boughey, 2000; Gee, 1996). The process through which this power works then is participation and sharing (Gee, 2001 p. 105). The notion of participation is further explored in section 4.5.1 below.
Admittedly, Gee (2001) views a person from multiple facets. This is reflected in his distinction between primary and secondary Discourses and the hybrid or borderland Discourses. Primary Discourses being those ways of knowing in which students are socialised by their family institution, while secondary Discourses are those ways of knowing in which they are socialised by public institutions like schools and universities (Gee, 1996). This socialisation of students into certain Discourses or what Street (1993) has termed literacy practices, are a culmination of values, attitudes and the social relationships they make. In the course of acquiring primary and secondary Discourses, Gee (1996) maintains that students acquire a hybrid Discourse which is a result of interaction with other students who have primary and perhaps secondary Discourses different to theirs.
The identity categories discussed above imply that identity is not static; it can change from one context to another, mediated by the interactions than one engages in. For instance, the identity of an engineering student changes when he or she moves into the profession to become an engineer.
Work on identity has been adopted in the South African context. Most of this work has focused on the relationship between identity and language (McKinney and Norton, 2008). There also has been work which has focused on identity as a resource in the teaching and learning context (discourse) as well as the need to engage with diversity in changing contexts (Kapp and Bangeni, 2009; Archer, 2008;
Leibowitz and Witz, 1994). Some of this work has already been referred to in previous chapters. Central to this work on identity in the South African context is the understanding that South African universities are alien social spaces (Boughey, 2009) and learning to ‗be‘ in those spaces impacts on identity in negative ways and involves more than the acquisition of a set of neutral, asocial and acultural skills (McKenna, 2004b). If literacy is a Discourse, which displays social identity as actors participate in a social practice, then I am comfortable relying on Gee‘s work. This is
because this interpretation helps me understand how students‘ representations (identities) are mediated through a Discourse, warranting a discourse analysis.