Theoretical framework
2.1 Theories of Identity Construction
2.1.3 The Social Constructionist perspective
Thus, the Social Identity Theory has partially assisted my understanding of the ways in which Coloured people constructed a sense of self during the period of apartheid, and also with regard to the ways in which the Coloured adolescents in my research view themselves and others. However, I do believe that the formation of identity is dependant on social, cultural and linguistic aspects, which work in tandem with the concept of power in a social environment. Society is therefore 'something fluid and open, concerning relationships, interactions and everyday activities which continually change and shift" (Wetherell and Maybin, 1996: 228), and cannot be encapsulated by clinical conditions in a laboratory.
discrete entity, but is instead constituted through and from linguistic resources that are necessary in certain specific times and places, is characteristic of a self that is socially constructed. Within the social frameworks are to be found the specific textual and representational forms that contain the elements that constitute the identity of the self, and realized within particular social contexts and patterns.
To a large extent, I have drawn upon the social constructionist position with regard to which aspects of the subjects' lives determine the construction of identities. My decision to do this is based on the belief that the social world and all it entails - history, practices and meanings, structures, divisions, everyday talk and interactions is crucial to the development of the self Any attempt at dissecting society to determine which aspects of it determine our identities, will simply reveal a multitude of aspects which comprise and create our sense of self What I particularly agree with is the inclusion of culture and language in the creation of identities which are not fixed and immutable, but are sites of continuous struggle, being formulated and re-formulated through our interaction with others on a social, cultural and linguistic level.
Social constructionists such as Wetherell (1996), Maybin (1996), Ochs (1993), ConneIl (1987), and Potter (1994, 1996) perceive identity as being constructed in the interaction of the subject and all aspects of society. They agree that this entails the continuous creation of a spectrum of identities that are dependent on the social context in which the person participates.
Consequently, identity becomes multifaceted, with the subject consisting of a number of selves depending on the contexts; the "sum and swarm of participations in social
life"(Bruner, 1990: 122). Gergen (1991, 1994) refers to this as a self that IS continuously changing with a "fluid history" of relationships. This description IS
encapsulated in Bruner's succinct adjective - the distributed self:
Think of people's work, their children, their friendships, their writing, letters, marriages, diaries, and daily communications. These are part of them, they define who they are, and yet they exist in other mediums, distributing people well beyond the boundaries of the physical bodies.
(1990: 107)
The role of the past is also of vital importance in the social constructionist view of identity. Any account of a person's identity is invalid and incomplete without an understanding of circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past, and how these structuring principles have become real for the people today.
(Wetherell, 1996). Rutherford reiterates this definition of identity as "marking the conjuncture of our past with the social, cultural and economic relations we live within, " (1990: 19), thereby creating an individual who is a synthesis not only of existing relations but of the history of these relations.
Within social constructionism, the role of the family is vital. Itplays a crucial role in socialising the individual into acceptable practices, as well as creating a place where identity construction can be formulated. Wetherell (1996) describes the ways in which family members interact, and the way in which they see society, as another ingredient that is exigent to the creation of a sense of self. It does this by assigning people roles within its structure, and developing norms that are strongly tied to social conventions, class, economics, etc. This is closely linked to power relations within the wider parameters of society. Family members are given power because they are constructed
as powerful by other members, a practice that is made normal by society. This is of seminal importance to my findings, since many of the subjects in my research are products of dysfunctional families, where parents are divorced, unemployed, or alcoholic. In these contexts, the role of the family in socialising the children comes under scrutiny since it impacts on the way in which the child interacts and adapts to the school environment, as well as how he constructs his sense of selfhood.
An individual's view of his social identity is also created from the ways in which his family work within the social fabric, and his acceptance or rejection of these workings. An interesting example that many Coloureds will identify with is Hall's account of being described as the "coolie baby" in his family, because his complexion was darker than that of his siblings (in Wetherell, 1996: 308). In a colonised society, fairness of skin was equated with superiority and made one more acceptable. While Hall's family teased him about his dark complexion, the underlying assumption was that he did not belong; not to his family or to his country, Jamaica. The image of not belonging became entrenched as he grew older, rebelled and left home. Gee (1996) writes compellingly of how one's primary Discourse can be in conflict with secondary Discourses of society, and how the subject can develop his own counter Discourse by rejecting both primary and secondary Discourses, as exemplified in Hall's autobiographical example.
Hall (1990) refers to a culture of aspirations within the family, in which children aspire to fulfil their parents' expectations. In my study I have discovered that not all subjects responded positively to their parents' dreams for them, and this in turn caused conflict within the family.
The role of language is also of importance to social constructionists. Language constructs our world view and our selves through its use . . . the ways in which we talk or are talked about make it possible for us to be constructed in a variety of ways.
Adolescents' use of slang and rap terminology is their way of rebelling against the standard English used in schools and among adults, in an attempt to carve out their own forms of self construction. Unfortunately, in many cases this impedes the acquisition of the standard register of English, and these learners discover that they are unable to communicate with their teachers in the appropriate manner, often resulting in misunderstandings concerning their lack of respect. In this way, their use of slang and rap results in the teacher positioning that learner in a certain way - often negative - and reinforces the learner's view that he is an outsider with regard to the Discourse of adults or the school. The plurality of language in the different Discourses in which these learners participate is a site of struggle for them: in many cases they try to justify the meanings attached to their use of rap words - for instance, the reference to woman as "bitches", which they regard as gender-specific rather than derogatory -but these are often so alternative that even when they are explained to members of another discourse, the meaning is unacceptable. (See 2.1.4). Weedon further notes "that any interpetation is at best temporary, specific to the discourse within which it is produced and open to challenge"(1997: 82). This aspect of identity construction was particularly useful in interpreting the data from my interviews, where some of the participants in the groups are members of the gangs existing in the area. Thus, language plays an important role in our identity construction since it is the site where meaning is negotiated within a discourse, and where the possibilities arise for transformation.
Different Discourses in society will provide various ways III which the subjects conduct social relationships with each other. Wetherell and Maybin define society as
" something fluid and open, concerning relationships, interactions and everyday activities which continually change and shift" (1996: 228 ). Itis attributed as the place where our identities are located and defined. They go on to clarify the concept of culture as " the complexes of social activities which we summarise as culture or describe as our way oflife" (1996:228).