Developing a theoretical framework to understand teacher’s subjectivities and emotionality
2.1 Orientation of the chapter
2.2.1 Theorising notions of identities and subjectivities
Theories relating to the social construction of the self, identity and subjectivity have been intensely debated for decades and the trajectory of recent research presents diverse views (Bhaba 1987; Butler 1999; Castells 2004; Foucault 1983; Giddens, 1991; Lather 1991). This study focuses on teachers’ identity and subjectivity and considers ‘who teachers are’ and
25
‘what’ they teach about HIV and AIDS education, in the contexts they find themselves in, and ‘why’.
Notions of self, according to Hogg, Terry and White (1995), are conceptualised as multifaceted and formed from social interaction of the different roles people occupy in society. An individual may occupy many different roles, namely, mother, wife, teacher, secretary of a school governing body and tennis player, which denote his/her role identities.
‘Self’ is therefore considered as “a multifaceted social construct” emerging from multiple roles that individuals occupy in society (Hogg, Terry & White, 1995, p. 256). While construction of the self is viewed as dynamic and reflexive, identity is conceptualised as stable. Identity, for Castells (2004, p. 6), refers to the process of constructing meaning based on cultural attributes, suggesting that individuals have a ‘plurality of identities’. By this, he means that identities are origins of meaning formed by individuals themselves and are socially constructed within contexts which manifest power relationships. In contrast, identity is regarded as a special category or group that an individual belongs to, from the viewpoint of social identity theorists. Instead of foregrounding the individual, this notion of identity places greater emphasis on society, social stereotypes and norms and social identification in terms of race, gender, class; and draws attention to social identities defined in terms of nationality, ethnic group, religion, age or gender.
Socio-cultural structures and practices also influence identity formation. Hall (1992) contends that individuals shape and maintain their identities through socio-cultural practices of symbolism, such as symbols or language, and relations with others; while Woodward (1997) suggests that our identities are represented by reciprocity between the self and socio-cultural structures in society. However, for Giddens (1991) and Somers (1994), identity formation takes place through reflection on biographical narratives:
26
a person’s identity is not to be found in behaviour nor - important though this is - in the reactions of others, but in the capacity to keep a particular narrative going. The individual’s biography, if she is to maintain regular interaction with others in the day-to-day world, cannot be wholly fictive. It must continually integrate events which occur in the external world, and sort them into the on-going ‘story’ about the self.
(Giddens, 1991, p. 54)
In a similar vein, Somers (1994, p. 625) claims that people are “guided to act by their social and cultural relationships in which they are embedded and by the stories through which they constitute their identities”. An alternate view from a social theory of learning or
‘communities of practice’ perspective is that individuals are socialised into communities of practice, and with sustained participation, develop mastery of knowledge and skill, and in this process develop a new identity (Lave &Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998).
Identity, Giddens (2001) suggests, refers to how people understand who they are and what is significant in their lives. He contends that individuals develop a sense of identity and the capacity to think and act independently as they interact and socialise with others in society, and distinguishes between social identities and self-identity or personal identity. While social identities describe the characteristics individuals share with others such as mother, teacher, student, Hindu, Asian; self-identity describes how individuals, through a process of self- development and interacting with others, develop a unique and distinct sense of self.
Traditional notions of self-identity as stable and fixed, determined by the social group or class an individual belongs to, have shifted to modern notions as multifaceted and dynamic.
On the other hand, post-structuralists believe that ‘subjects’ are created through their cultural meanings and practices and interpret meaning from their identity groups, activities in society and intimate relations. Post-structuralist approaches reject notions of identity as fixed and identity formation as either an individual or a social process unrelated to the political context (Bhaba, 1987; Deleuze & Guattari, 1987; Foucault, 1983); instead, suggesting that as the historical, social, cultural and political contexts of discursive practices change, so do identities (Bhaba, 1987; Britzman, 1993). Deleuze and Guattari (1987) draw attention to this dynamic nature of identity in their notion of ‘becoming’, which suggests that identities are
27
constantly being transformed and re-defined. Hall (1990) builds on this notion of ‘becoming’
and ‘being’, asserting that identity has a past, which is constantly reconstructed and transformed and is therefore fluid and in a state of flux. He argues for the importance of recognising difference, concurring with Derrida’s notion of differance, asserting that meaning is fluid, not absolute or fixed. The core tenets of post-structuralism are the role of power in discursive practices, subject production and identity as “a dynamic process of intersubjective discourses, experiences and emotions” (Zembylas, 2003, p. 221). Language and discourse also play a crucial role in how we make sense of ourselves (Giroux, 1990; MacNaughton, 2000; Weedon, 1987). However, a major criticism of post-structuralism is that of ‘discourse determinism’, since it suggests that discourse alone is responsible for how individuals constitute their subjectivities. The preceding discussion sheds light on shifting notions of identity and self from stable and fixed to fluid and plural.
Critical approaches and post-structural thought challenge Enlightenment notions of a
‘unified, transcendent subject’, proposing notions of ‘subjectivity as fluid, dynamic and multiple’. However, an inherent tension in post-structural notions of subjectivity is the fixed notion of subject positions and the fluid manifestation of subjectivity within that position (Phillips, 2006, p. 310). This highlights the possibility of subjects being enabled and at the same time limited by discourse formations, which results in resistance.
Many social theorists use the terms ‘identity’ and ‘subjectivity’ interchangeably, however, Ritchie and Wilson (2000) distinguish between these terms theoretically:
“identity” is much more associated with a more traditional humanistic, Enlightenment notion that sees the self as rational, unified, singular, simple, autonomous and consciously self-chosen, whereas “subjectivity”
connotes the postmodern understanding of the individual as socially constructed, complicated, fragmented, contradictory, and fluid.
(Ritchie & Wilson, 2000, pp. 9-10)
Identity describes our sense of self and the subject positions we adopt while subjectivity embraces our sense of self, our thoughts, feelings and emotions and how we relate to our social world (Weedon, 1997; Woodward, 1997). MacNaughton (1998) contends that
28
subjectivity refers to the conscious and unconscious description and understanding of ourselves, formed by participating in discourses, and determines, for example, the choices teachers make regarding what to teach, what not to teach and how to teach. Teachers’
subjectivity is therefore dynamic, fluid and conflicting as they constantly constitute their sense of self and engage with discourses. Weedon’s (1997) notion of subjectivity as contradictory and in flux coheres with the notion of subjectivity adopted in this study since it encompasses broader social influences on subjectivity, as well as the pivotal role of emotions.
Debates about the structure - agency dialectic are significant to understand subject formation and subjectivity, which I elaborate upon in the following section. This discussion provides a useful backdrop or description of how teachers constitute their ‘selves’; understand who they are and how social structures influence their life experiences, actions and practices.