Identity

Category: Fields of research

What is Identity?

Identity refers to an individual's understanding and perception of themselves as a unique person with specific characteristics, qualities, and attributes. Identification is the ongoing process through which this sense of identity is formed and developed. It reflects the interaction of habits, emotions, and rational thinking that shapes human behavior and social experience. In identity research, the concepts of self and identity are often used interchangeably, and many scholars combine them into terms such as self-identity or ego identity to emphasize the connection between an individual's self-concept and their identity.

Identity can take many different forms, depending on the social, cultural, and personal aspects of a person's life. Common examples include racial identity, ethnic identity, social identity, group identity, religious identity, occupational identity, gender identity, sex-role identity, cultural identity, physical or bodily identity, as well as identities related to music, sports, education, and other areas of interest or experience.

Types of Identity

Identity is a complex concept that can be understood through three main forms: social identity, personal identity, and collective identity. Although these forms are distinct, they are closely connected and often overlap, shaping how individuals understand themselves and relate to others.

Social identity refers to the aspects of a person's identity that are based on membership in social groups or the roles they occupy in society. These include characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, political affiliation, occupation, and social class. Through these shared roles and group memberships, individuals develop a sense of belonging and define themselves in relation to others who share similar characteristics. Social identity therefore provides a social foundation for self-understanding by linking individuals to broader social categories and communities.

From a sociological perspective, social identity is rooted in both role identities (such as being a teacher, parent, or police officer) and categorical identities (such as being Serbian, female, or Muslim). These identities may be imputed, meaning they are assigned to a person by others based on perceived characteristics or expected roles, or avowed, meaning they are openly claimed by the individual. For example, a person may identify themselves as a professor or an environmental activist, while others may attribute identities to them based on appearance, occupation, or group membership. Social identity therefore develops through both self-definition and social recognition.

Personal identity focuses on the qualities that make an individual unique. It includes personality traits, personal values, beliefs, preferences, life experiences, physical characteristics, and individual goals or lifestyle choices. Unlike social identity, which emphasizes similarities with others, personal identity highlights individuality and distinctiveness. It reflects how people see themselves as unique individuals rather than simply members of social groups.

Although personal identity is independent in many respects, it remains closely connected to social identity. People's unique experiences often shape how they interpret and express their social roles. At times, individuals may reject social identities assigned to them by others, particularly when those identities conflict with their self-image or carry negative stereotypes. This process of balancing personal beliefs with social expectations contributes to the development of one's self-concept, which represents the ongoing negotiation between an individual's ideal self and the identities recognized by society.

The third type, collective identity, refers to a shared sense of belonging and common purpose among members of a group. It is based on a feeling of "we-ness" that distinguishes members of a collectivity from outsiders. While collective identity often grows from existing social identities, it does not automatically emerge from simply belonging to a social category. Instead, it is typically strengthened by shared experiences, common challenges, or collective action.

Collective identity often becomes particularly powerful during periods of conflict, competition, crisis, or social change. International sporting events, national emergencies, terrorist attacks, or social movements can all strengthen feelings of unity among members of a group. In such situations, individuals come to see themselves as part of a larger community with shared interests and goals. This shared identity promotes solidarity, cooperation, and a sense of collective agency that extends beyond individual or social identities alone.

Overall, social, personal, and collective identities are interconnected dimensions of the self. Social identity connects individuals to groups and social roles, personal identity emphasizes individuality and unique characteristics, and collective identity creates a shared sense of unity and common purpose. Together, these three forms of identity explain how people understand themselves, interact with others, and participate in social life.

Theoretical Perspectives on Identity and Identity Formation

In Mind, Self and Society (1934), George Herbert Mead argues that identity is not an inherent or isolated characteristic of the individual. Instead, it develops through social interaction between the self and others, including both specific individuals and the generalized other—the internalized representation of the shared norms, values, and expectations acquired through the process of socialization. According to Mead, identity is formed through the continuous interaction between how individuals perceive themselves, how they perceive others, and how they believe others perceive them. Consequently, identity is neither fixed nor predetermined but is continuously shaped and reshaped through the ongoing process of identification.

In Mead's theory, the most important theoretical concept is the "self". The self and the mind exist only in relation to the social group to which they belong; both are created through conscious participation in everyday social life, so both are, thus, social creations of everyday life. The self is partly based on an innate biological basis, but it is really formed only in social life, through participation in social acts, and then the self begins to identify itself as a subject. Two elements of the self are in a dialectical relationship - "I" and "me". The "I" is created by preparation for the performance of social acts, or by adapting attitudes and expressing them within social roles. "Me" represents the views and attitudes of other participants in a social act that we take on while playing a social role. „I“ is the body's response to the views of others; „me“ is organized through the attitudes of others that someone takes over. "Me" influences the manifestation of "I" in social acts.

However, each participant can accept, reject, or adjust the views of other people in the process of expressing their "I" within the social act. In addition, how we express ourselves through social acts also depends on the assumptions we make about other people's attitudes, and those assumptions affect our own attitudes. Precisely because the self must take into account all these attitudes, Mead believed that the main feature of the self is its „reflexivness“. Reflexivness represents the adoption of the experience of the individual upon himself or herself, in order to be able to take the attitude of the other toward him or her. “(Reflexiveness) is the essential condition, within the social process, for the development of mind.” (1934). Reflexivness or self-interaction is partly an internal, psychological phenomenon, but mostly is a social process through which the self arises.

The self is partly based on human biology, but it really develops only through participation in "social acts". Social acts are those in which at least two people participate, and all social acts consist of five basic components: 1) roles, 2) attitudes, 3) significant speech, 4) attitudinal assumption, and 5) social objects. In order to perform social acts, actors must take on certain social roles, and that is why those roles form the basis of individual acts. Attitudes represent readiness, that is, the competence to perform roles. This means that each specific role is inextricably linked to the specific attitudes that enable the performance of that role. Mead uses the term "significant speech" as a synonym for language. Attitudinal assumptions are assumptions about the roles and attitudes of other people, which a person makes to be able to adjust his or her behavior within a social act in which all actors participate. Social objects represent the usual attitudes that participants take to perform a social act. All these components of the social act must be realized to achieve a "congruent plan of action " to successfully complete the social act.

The sociological approach to identity is rooted in the symbolic interactionist theory of George Herbert Mead. It argues that identity develops through the ongoing interaction between the individual and society. Rather than viewing identity as a fixed personal characteristic, this perspective sees it as a dynamic process shaped by social relationships, roles, and shared meanings. Individuals influence society through their actions, while society simultaneously shapes individuals by providing expectations, norms, and opportunities for interaction.

According to this approach, people belong to many social groups and occupy multiple social roles, such as parent, student, employee, friend, or religious member. Each role carries specific expectations and meanings that influence how individuals see themselves and behave. Contemporary symbolic interactionism emphasizes that identity is shaped not only by interactions with others but also by the broader social structure, including the positions people occupy and the expectations attached to those positions.

Individuals possess multiple role identities that differ in importance, value, and prominence. Sociological research suggests that having several meaningful identities can improve psychological well-being and increase resilience to stress, particularly when these identities are voluntarily chosen rather than imposed. More recent psychological perspectives also highlight the role of self-narratives, or life stories, in constructing identity. People actively engage in behaviors that reinforce, test, and confirm their self-concepts.

Unlike social identity theory, which focuses primarily on relationships between groups and distinctions between in-groups and out-groups, the sociological approach concentrates on how identities are created, interpreted, and negotiated within social groups. Individuals seek to align their self-concepts with the expectations associated with their social roles, while also interpreting and adapting those expectations through interaction. However, both approaches pay relatively little attention to the relationship between personal identity and social identity.

Identity theory assumes that human beings are active agents capable of making choices rather than simply reacting to external forces. Although individuals have freedom to choose among different actions, these choices are influenced and constrained by social structures and interactions. Human behavior depends on how situations are interpreted, and these interpretations are based on meanings developed through interaction with others. Central to this process are individuals' self-conceptions, which strongly influence their actions. At the same time, self-concepts are themselves shaped by others' responses, leading to the symbolic interactionist principle that society shapes the self, and the self shapes social behavior.

Traditional symbolic interactionism tended to portray society as relatively unified and fluid, with shared meanings emerging naturally from interaction. In contrast, contemporary identity theory views society as consisting of durable, organized social structures and networks that resist change and shape behavior over time. Similarly, the self is no longer seen as a single, unified entity but as a collection of multiple identities linked to different social roles.

A central concept in identity theory is identity salience, which refers to the likelihood that a particular identity will be activated in different situations. Since individuals possess many identities, these identities are organized in a hierarchy according to their relative importance. The more salient an identity is, the more likely it is to guide behavior. Identity theory proposes that people choose actions that are consistent with their most salient identities.

Identity salience is influenced by commitment, a concept referring to the strength of an individual's social relationships connected to a particular role. Commitment exists because people participate in numerous social networks where relationships depend on performing certain roles. The greater the personal cost of losing these relationships, the stronger the commitment to that identity and the more salient it becomes.

Identity theory distinguishes between two forms of commitment. Interactional commitment refers to the number and variety of social relationships linked to a particular identity, while affective commitment refers to the emotional attachment individuals feel toward those relationships. Although identities and commitments influence one another, commitment is generally viewed as the more stable factor because it is rooted in enduring social relationships rather than individual cognition.

Empirical research strongly supports identity theory. Studies have shown that the salience of identities influences how people allocate their time and choose behaviors, particularly in areas such as religion, gender, education, and occupational aspirations. Researchers have also argued that emotions provide important information about the strength of individuals' commitments and the importance of their identities. Overall, identity theory explains identity as a socially constructed, organized, and dynamic system that connects individual behavior with social structure through the processes of role performance, commitment, and interaction.

Erik Erikson's theory of psychosocial development, presented in his books Childhood and Society (1950) and Identity, Youth, and Crisis (1968), argues that the ego goes through a predetermined sequence of psychosocial stages, with each stage having a separate developmental task of confronting and resolving the unique challenge or crisis. The first four stages cover development from infancy up to adolescence. It emphasizes that identity formation is a central developmental task during adolescence and early adulthood. Although younger children begin to develop aspects of identity, such as age, gender, and ethnicity, a stable and coherent sense of self typically emerges later. The crisis of building oneself's identity versus having identity confusion marks the fifth stage of adolescence. At this stage, teens are faced with problems of learning and adopting new adult roles, “fitting in with the group”, and finding out their own path in life. Positive resolution of crisis leads to the building of a stable positive identity and a sense of self based on self-knowledge. Negative resolution of crisis leads to identity or role confusion, that is, the adoption of an identity that was forced upon oneself by peers or parents, and having unexplored social roles and undefined future paths. Significant others, including family and peers, play an important role in shaping this process by helping individuals understand how they are similar to and different from others. In the sixth stage, the primary goal is building healthy relationships with friends and intimate partners; if it is achieved, people develop intimacy (ability to love), and if it is not achieved, then the result is isolation.

Erikson identified four possible identity outcomes. Identity foreclosure occurs when individuals adopt the beliefs, values, or roles of others, particularly their parents, without exploring alternatives. Identity moratorium describes a period of active exploration during which individuals experiment with different roles and beliefs but have not yet made firm commitments. Identity diffusion refers to a lack of direction, where individuals avoid exploring or committing to an identity. Finally, identity achievement represents the successful resolution of the identity crisis, resulting in a stable sense of self and commitment to personally meaningful goals, values, and career choices.

Erving Goffman, in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), presents his theoretical framework, often called the dramaturgical approach. Goffman believes that face-to-face interpersonal relationships should be the focus of research and that any such relationship can be viewed as a theatrical role. He views all people as performers who, consciously or unconsciously, perform rehearsed speeches and roles to maximize the potential to deceive other people. On the other hand, people as observers also see all aspects of other people's performances, in order to expose potential deception. Our performances will be more credible if we are "sincere", rather than „cynical“, that is, if we really believe in the role we play. Goffman believes that every person is, in fact, a mask, so theatricality is necessary for us to maintain that mask. People display their different identities through their performances.

In Stigma (1963), Goffman studies how stigmatization relationships arise in interpersonal communication. His focus is on how a stigmatized person performs "information control" to keep private information that could be harmful if found out. This control of information is essential for three aspects of our identity: personal, social, and ego. Personal identity contains our life history and makes us unique; social identity is a perception that others have of us through the groups to which we belong; the ego is that aspect of personality that relates to what we think of ourselves. Goffman introduces the term "identity politics" to explain the relationship between the stigmatized and those who are not. However, he also believes that all people are stigmatized in some way and that we can talk about the continuum rather than clear boundaries between the stigmatized and those who are not. Stigmatized people can accept the values of normal people and then belong to "normal deviants" or reject social norms when they belong to "social deviants".

The social identity approach, developed primarily by Henri Tajfel and Jonathan Turner, explains identity as an individual's awareness of belonging to particular social groups, together with the emotional value and significance attached to that membership. According to this perspective, people define themselves partly through their group memberships, such as nationality, ethnicity, gender, or occupation. Self-categorization theory further explains how individuals cognitively classify themselves and others into social groups, leading them to identify with those groups and adopt their norms and values.

Research has shown that even when groups are formed arbitrarily, people tend to favor members of their own group (in-group favoritism) while showing bias toward those outside it (out-group bias). Tajfel explained this through the accentuation effect, whereby individuals exaggerate similarities within their own group and differences between groups. This cognitive process contributes to the development of stereotypes, prejudice, and ethnocentrism.

Jonathan Turner expanded the theory by emphasizing that people have fundamental social needs that influence behavior during interactions. The strongest of these is the need for identity verification, or the desire for others to recognize and confirm the identities individuals claim for themselves. Turner identified four levels of identity that people seek to have verified. Core identity refers to one's enduring self-concept and personal characteristics. Social identity is based on membership in social categories, such as gender or ethnicity. Group identity reflects identification with organized groups, organizations, or communities. Role identity refers to the self-concept associated with specific social roles, such as teacher, parent, or manager. The stronger these identities are, the greater the need for recognition and validation from others, making identity verification a key factor in social interaction and emotional well-being.

Dimensions of Identity

Identities differ not only in type and context but also in several important dimensions that influence how they shape individuals' behavior and self-understanding. Four key dimensions are identity salience, identity commitment, pervasiveness (or comprehensiveness), and cohesiveness.

Identity salience refers to the relative importance of a particular identity compared with a person's other identities. Individuals possess multiple identities, such as being a parent, student, or employee, which are organized in a hierarchy. The more salient an identity is, the more likely it is to guide behavior across different situations. Salience depends on factors such as the individual's self-concept, support and recognition from others, and the degree of commitment to that identity.

Identity commitment describes the strength of a person's attachment to a particular identity. It reflects how strongly social relationships depend on that identity. For example, someone deeply committed to the role of a parent is likely to place that identity high in their identity hierarchy. Greater commitment generally leads to greater identity salience, while reduced commitment decreases an identity's importance.

Pervasiveness, also called comprehensiveness, refers to the extent to which an identity influences different areas of a person's life. Highly pervasive or "thick" identities shape behavior across many social settings and interactions, whereas less pervasive identities are relevant only in specific contexts.

Finally, identity cohesiveness refers to how well an individual's different identities fit together. Highly cohesive identities are compatible and mutually reinforcing, while less cohesive identities may conflict with one another. Together, these dimensions help explain why some identities are more influential than others and how they contribute to an individual's overall sense of self and patterns of social interaction.

Identity Processes

Identities are formed, maintained, and transformed through several social processes. The first group of processes involves the acquisition and change of identities, including role transition, identity consolidation, socialization, and conversion.

Role transition occurs when individuals move through different stages of life or assume new social roles, such as becoming an adult, getting married, or becoming a parent. These transitions are often marked by rites of passage, such as weddings or religious ceremonies, which symbolize changes in identity. Identity can also change when people leave important roles or occupations, such as retiring or leaving the clergy.

Identity consolidation refers to combining two or more identities into a single, meaningful identity. This may involve integrating compatible roles, such as being both a student and an athlete, or reconciling identities that seem contradictory.

Socialization is the process through which individuals learn the behaviors, values, and expectations associated with particular roles. It strengthens commitment to these roles and increases the importance of the corresponding identities.

Conversion represents a more profound identity transformation, often associated with religion, politics, or self-help movements. It involves adopting a new worldview, redefining one's life story, and replacing a former identity with a new, highly significant one.

The second group of processes is known as identity work, which includes the activities people use to create, express, negotiate, and maintain desired identities. Identity work may involve managing appearance, displaying status symbols, choosing particular social relationships, or using language to claim or reject identities. These practices help individuals reinforce identities they value and distance themselves from identities imposed by others, making identity an ongoing social and interactive process.

Influence of Modernity, Postmodernity, and Globalization on Identity

Since the Middle Ages, traditional sources of identity such as geographical origin, family background, social class, religion, gender, marriage, and occupation have gradually lost much of their influence. As societies became more modern and industrialized, identity was no longer largely determined by birth or inherited social roles. According to Baumeister (1986), twentieth-century developments—including mass consumer culture, expanded career opportunities, rapid technological change, and the commercialization of products and lifestyles—further increased individuals' freedom to define themselves. However, this greater freedom also created new challenges, as people are now expected to actively choose, construct, and continually redefine their identities rather than simply accept identities assigned by society.

Anthony Giddens developed his approach to modernity in The Consequences of Modernity (1990), Modernity and Self-Identity (1991), and The Transformation of Intimacy (1992). He believes that at the end of the seventeenth century, there was a sharp discontinuity with the traditional social order. There are three sources of dynamic change associated with the emergence of modern society. In the modern age, there is a temporal and spatial separation of social life, because interpersonal interactions cease to be limited only by the physical closeness of individuals, and social relations begin to act at a distance. Modernity is also characterized by the development of the "wholesale reflexivity" of individuals and institutions. Modernity also includes the transformation of lifestyles and intimacy into "pure relationships", because trust and closeness come from the actors themselves, and not from the wider environment as was the case in a traditional society. Giddens argues that late modernity is characterized by growing uncertainty and diversity, leading to identity crises, identity politics, and ongoing searches for self-definition. Unlike earlier periods, people today have access to multiple possible identities instead of being confined to those determined by birth. This expansion of identity choices has been shaped by major social transformations, including globalization, migration, multiculturalism, technological innovations such as the Internet, state instability, ethnic revival, and movements challenging political and social exclusion. As a result, identity has become increasingly flexible, dynamic, and subject to continuous negotiation.

Bauman, in the books Liquid Modernity (2000), Liquid Love (2003), Liquid Life (2005), and Liquid Fear (2006), introduced the paradigm of liquid modernity. Liquid modernity is a condition characterized by extreme individualization and severance of many social and personal ties. The uncertainty and instability of connections replace the number of connections, but that quantity of connections is realized, above all, through modern means of communication, and not personally. Liquid modernity is characterized by fluidity, diffusion, and networking. In the age of liquid modernity, the power of normative regulation is becoming weaker; individuals are left to doubt and fear, so they begin a "permanently searching for certainty" in their lives. The new age has no idea of a possible alternative, so society ceases to question itself and stops justifying the assumptions of its own existence and actions. Instead of interacting with close reference groups comes the age of "universal comparison", where individuals compare themselves to everyone and build their identities and themselves as individuals in a liquid moral system. The consumer society needs a multiplicity of lifestyles and choices because that means that a larger quantity and more diverse goods can be placed on the market. The new age is so liquid that the very meaning of "individualization" is constantly changing because new rules and new roles are constantly being introduced. Individuals are even forced to play a game of constant individualization. "Private" colonized "public," and the public interest is reduced to a spectacle of observing the private lives of celebrities.

Ulrich Beck introduced the notion of "Reflexive Modernization," in the book Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition, and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order (1994) and "Reflective Modernization Theory: Problems, Hypotheses, and Research Plan" (2003). Reflexive modernization is the product of a radical application of key principles of industrial society, but more as a critical mass of unintended and unexpected consequences of those principles than as an expected and planned consequence of industrialization and the logic of early modernity. Changes are taking place in many fields: the nature of capitalism is changing, new forms of work are emerging (labor flexibility), a new global order, a new nature of the state (declining power of the nation-state and welfare state), a new society, the declining importance of traditional institutions; as well as the transformation of gender roles (alternative sexual and gender identities, the disintegration of the gender division of labor), new forms of family life, new forms of individualization and everyday life. Institutional individualization requires making individual decisions and taking responsibility for those decisions, where traditions and habits were previously dominant. Instead of a single identity, reflective modernization promotes the multiplicity of identities. On a broader level, there is a loss of differences between nature and culture, knowledge and superstition, between experts and lay people.

Gender and Sexual Identity

In Gender Trouble (1990), Judith Butler argues that feminism, by embracing the concept of coherent gender identity, has influenced the strengthening of the binary gender order, although feminism has been very critical of that same binary gender order. The uncritical adoption of the norms of heterosexuality is the basis of the binary order and the dualism it produces. Sex is always gendered, and the reason for that is that every observation and interpretation of the human body takes place within a socially determined context and through gendered language. After the birth of a baby, the sex is determined, and the gendered language shapes the gender patterns of that person.

Butler believes that gender identity always grows out of performance. Performative repetition of the gender role is strictly regulated and limited by norms, and it produces a gender identity and creates the illusion of the existence of natural behavior inherent in gender. Butler believes that the construction of gender identity should be subverted and the social and imitative nature of gender itself should be revealed. This will lead to the "denaturalization" of the body and gender. She believes that within the LGBT context, gender is not necessarily derived from sex, desire, or sexuality. Gender identity performance and gendered language serve to reproduce heterosexuality.

In her book In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (1982), Carol Gilligan criticized theories of the stages of moral development of Sigmund Freud, Erik Erikson, Jean Piaget, and Lawrence Kohlberg, as too male-oriented. Gilligan, instead, believes that women's gender identity develops through personal relationships, while men's gender identity develops through separation and autonomy. This way of developing oneself and identity affects the differences in morals between women and men. These differences are most pronounced in moments when there are moral dilemmas. Women develop ethics and morals focused on caring for others and maintaining personal relationships, while men develop ethics focused on justice and individual rights issues. Both ethical approaches are key to maintaining morality in society, as they form the basis for political and social change. Gilligan also believes that patriarchy, in addition to representing a hierarchical system, forces people to focus on heterosexual love relationships, and influences them to neglect other forms of human connection. She calls her approach to the relationship between gender identities and ethics "development of voice".

Audrey Lorde's feminist approach is organized around the "theory of difference". This theory criticizes the concept of binary opposition between women and men as too simplistic. Women's identities and living conditions are influenced by many factors: class, race, gender and sexual identity, age, and health.

In the article „Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality” (1984), Gayle Rubin explores how society shapes sexuality and sexual identity. She concludes that medical and legal institutions create and maintain sexual differences and norms of deviant sexual behavior in order to achieve political goals. She calls this approach to sex "sexual essentialism." Sexual essentialism presupposes the biological determinism of sexual behavior and serves to create a hegemonic model of acceptable sexual practices. Rubin also criticizes feminist theory and practice, which have also often marginalized some sexual practices (sadomasochism, pornography, sex work, transsexuality). With her theory, but also with her activism, Rubin actively promotes sexual freedoms, the right to choose, and sexual diversity, as a way of combating totalizing aspirations towards homogeneity.

In Psychoanalysis and Contemporary American Men: Gender Identity in a Time of Uncertainty (2018), co-authored by Alan Frank and Steven Seidman, the authors integrate historical, sociological, and psychoanalytic perspectives to develop a nuanced, multidimensional understanding of American men today. Challenging reductive stereotypes, the authors argue that men, like women, are complex and layered subjects. In the context of the #MeToo movement, they express concern that while the movement’s aims are vital, it has coincided with the resurgence of negative stereotypes about men at a moment when male gender identities are being actively renegotiated. Adopting a critical, non-heteronormative perspective, Seidman and Frank address contemporary transformations in gender relations and question dominant public narratives that depict men as narrowly phallic—controlling, emotionally distant, sexist, and homophobic. As a counterpoint, they propose an alternative view of men as “guardians,” motivated by a desire to be useful, to act ethically, and to lead meaningful lives grounded in care and responsibility toward partners, children, and society more broadly.

Nency Chodorow, in The Reproduction of Mothering (1978), argues that mothers begin, over time, to treat children of different genders differently. Girls build their identity by maintaining a connection with their mothers, while boys build a sense of identity by separating from their mothers. Boys build an identity by rejecting and suppressing the feminine side and by belittling femininity in women. Maintaining masculinity requires constant self-examination and struggle with oneself, which leads to its fragility. Femininity is more stable, but it involves the self-sabotage of women. Chodorow believes that there is a universal female self that transcends racial and class differences. Women's relationships within the family are relational institutions that encompass emotional and psychological interpersonal relationships and serve to meet the needs of the domestic sphere. Women are defined, above all, through particular and affective relations in the family, while the definition of a man's gender role is based, first of all, on his role within the sphere of economic production. Chodorow believes that the task of postmodern feminism should be to deal with diversity and abandon the great narratives of gender and sexuality. Sexuality, like gender identification, is complex and individual, full of conflicts, and represents a compromise between binary alternatives: heterosexuality-homosexuality, masculinity-femininity. In practice, sexuality is much more complicated than these binary alternatives and implies a unique combination of what creates excitement or pleasure, a specific gender identity, and specific sexual preferences and fantasies.

Barbara Ehrenreich studied the identity crisis that men experienced after the Second World War in the book The Hearts of Men (1983). Men also needed an identity outside the profession, and men's magazines, such as Playboy, allowed men to build such an identity. Such magazines also had the effect of increasing men's spending.

Ethnic and Civilizational Identity

In The Clash of Civilizations (1996), Samuel Huntington hypothesizes that states are increasingly cooperating based on a common culture, which will, in the future, lead to the creation of a world in which there will be separate and conflicting civilizations. He believes that seven or eight such separate civilizations will emerge: Chinese, Japanese, Hindu, Islamic, Orthodox, Western, Latin American, and (potentially) African civilizations. Each of them has all the elements needed to build a common culture: language, history, identity, customs, institutions, and religion. This clash of cultures, that is, civilizations, will become more important than ideological, political, and economic differences or similarities.

Frederik Thomas Barth presented the relational theory of ethnicity in the book Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference (1969), which he edited. Barth wants to explain how ethnicity persists, and his answer is to emphasize the borders between ethnic groups, rather than the cultural differences or similarities that existed within those borders. For Barth, contacts between ethnic groups actually strengthen boundaries between those ethnic groups. He applied his generative model to the creation of ethnic groups – ethnicity arises through self-ascribed identity and meaning, and that identity is generated and maintained by creating strict ethnic boundaries and not by creating ethnic homogeneity. The relation between culture and ethnicity is complicated because most ethnic groups have only some unique cultural elements, while others are shared with other ethnicities. But cultural elements specific to certain ethnicities are especially used to reinforce ethnic identity and boundaries. He believes that ethnic identity has been manipulated throughout history to achieve strategic political, economic, and environmental goals.

In his book Media Culture (1995), Douglas Kellner explores how film influences the construction of ideology and identity, especially concerning issues of race, ethnicity, and sexuality. The products of media culture like radio, television, film, and others produce materials that shape people’s identities, worldview, values, and the sense of self. Media create symbols, myths, and resources that create common culture and provide a way for individuals to become part of it. Media legitimize the political power of the elites and indoctrinate the powerless to accept their place and oppression. Media serve as a form of pedagogy that shapes how people feel, think, behave, what they desire, and what they fear. Understanding this vast influence of media, what Kellner calls „critical media literacy“, can give people resources to resist media manipulations and empower them to control their cultural environment.

References:

Albrow. The Global Age: State and Society Beyond Modernity (1996);

Alexander. The Meanings of Social Life (2003);

Ang. On Not Speaking Chinese: Living between Asia and the West (2001);

Arendt. The Jew as Pariah: Jewish Identity and Politics in the Modern Age (1978);

Barth, F. (ed.). Ethnic Groups and Boundaries (1969);

Baumeister, Roy F. Identity: Cultural Change and the Struggle for Self (1986);

Baudrillard. The System of Objects (2020, in French 1968);

- The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures (2016, in French 1970);

Bauman. Intimations of Postmodernity (1992);

- Postmodernity and Its Discontents (1997);

- Globalisation: The Human Consequences (1998);

- Liquid Modernity (2000);

- Identity (2004);

Bechhofer. National Identity, Nationalism and Constitutional Change (2009);

- Understanding National Identity (2015);

Beck. World at Risk (2009);

- An Introduction to the Theory of Second Modernity and the Risk Society (2012);

- Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences, (2014);

- What Is Globalization? (2015);

- Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (1992, in German 1986);

Becker. Boys in White: Student Culture in Medical School (1961);

- Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (1963);

Bernstein. Class, Codes and Control, Vol. I. (1971);

- Class, Codes and Control, Vol. II: Applied Studies Towards a Sociology of Language (1973);

- Class, Codes and Control Vol. III: Towards a Theory of Educational Transmission (1976);

- Class, Codes and Control, Vol. IV: The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse (1990);

- Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique (1996);

Blumer, Herbert. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method (1969);

Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F. “Beyond Identity”, in Theory and Society (2000);

Burke, Peter J., and Viktor Gecas. ‘‘Self and Identity’’, in Karen Cook, Gary A. Fine, and James House,

eds., Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology (1995);

Burke, Peter J., and Jon W. Hoelter. ‘‘Identity and Sex–Race Differences in Educational and Occupational

Aspirations Formation’’, in Social Science Research (1988);

Burke, Peter J., and Donald C. Reitzes. ‘‘The Link Between Identity and Role Performance’’, in Social Psychology Quarterly (1981);

- ‘‘An Identity Theory Approach to Commitment’’, in Social Psychology Quarterly (1991);

Burke, Peter J., and Judy Tully. ‘‘The Measurement of Role/Identity’’, in Social Forces (1977);

Butler. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (1990);

- Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism (2012);

Callero, Peter L. ‘‘Role-Identity Salience’’, in Social Psychology Quarterly (1985);

- , Judith A. Howard, and Jane A. Piliavin. ‘‘Helping Behavior as Role Behavior: Disclosing Social

Structure and History in the Analysis of Pro-Social Action’’, in Social Psychology Quarterly (1987);

Castells. The Information Age: The Power of Identity (1997);

- Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age (2012);

Cerulo, Karen A. “Identity Construction: New Issues, New Directions”, in Annual Review of Sociology (1997);

Charng, Hong-Wen, June Allyn Piliavin, and Peter L. Callero. ‘‘Role-Identity and Reasoned Action in

the Prediction of Repeated Behavior’’, in Social Psychology Quarterly (1988);

Chodorow. Femininities, Masculinities, Sexualities: Freud and Beyond (1994);

- The Power of Feelings: Personal Meaning in Psychoanalysis, Gender, and Culture (1999);

- Individualizing Gender and Sexuality (2012);

Cockburn. The Space Between Us: Negotiating Gender and National Identities in Conflict (1998);

Connell. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics (1987);

- Masculinities (1995);

- Male Roles, Masculinities and Violence: A Culture of Peace Perspective (2000);

- The Men and the Boys (2001);

Cooley. Human Nature and the Social Order (1902);

Ehrenreich. The Hearts of Men (1983);

Elias. On the Process of Civilisation (Volume 3) (The Collected Works of Norbert Elias) (2012);

Cornell, Stephen and Douglas Hartman. Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a Changing World (1998);

Erikson, Erik H. Identity, Youth, and Crisis (1968);

Erikson. Childhood and Society (1950),

- Identity, Youth, and Crisis (1968);

Garfinkel. Studies in Ethnomethodology (1967);

Giddens. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (1991);

- The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies (1992);

Gilligan. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (1982);

- Women, Girls, and Psychotherapy: Reframing Resistance (1991);

Gilroy. The Empire Strikes Back: Race and Racism in Seventies Britain (1982);

- There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack: The Cultural Politics of Nation and Race (1987);

- The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness (1993);

- Small Acts: Thoughts on the Politics of Black Cultures (1993);

- Between Camps: Nations, Cultures and the Allure of Race (2000);

Goffman. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1956);

- Asylums (1961);

- Stigma; Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (1963b);

Goldthorpe. The Affluent Worker in The Class Structure, 3 vols (1968-1969);

Hall, S. and du Gay, P. (eds.). Questions of Cultural Identity (1996);

Harding. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives (1991);

- Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies (1998);

Harvey. Consiousness and the Urban Expirience (1985);

- The Condition of Postmodernity (1989);

Hewitt, John P. Dilemmas of the American Self (1997a);

- Self and Society, 7th ed. (1997b);

Hobsbawm. The Invention of Tradition (1983);

- Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality (1990);

Hochschild, Arlie R. ‘‘Emotion Work, Feeling Rules, and Social Structure’’, in American Journal of

Sociology (1979);

Hogg, Michael A., Deborah J. Terry, and Katherine M. White. “A Tale of Two Theories: A Critical Comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory”, in Social Psychology Quarterly (1995);

Hoyle, Rick H., Michael H. Kernis, Mark R. Leary, and Mark W. Baldwin. Selfhood: Identity, Esteem, Regulation (1999);

Huntington. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996);

- Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity (2004);

James, William. Principles of Psychology (1890);

Jenkins, R. (2004) Social Identity, 2nd edn.

Kellner. Media Culture (1995);

Laclau, and Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (1985);

Lash, S. and Friedman, J. (eds.). Modernity and Identity (1992);

Lee, James D. ‘‘What Kids Can ‘Become’ Scientists? The Effects of Gender, Self-Concepts, and Perceptions of Scientists’’, in Social Psychology Quarterly (1998);

Lipset. Culture and Social Character: The Work of David Riesman Reviewed (1961);

- Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives (1967);

- The Politics of Unreason: Right-Wing Extremism in America, 1790–1977 (1978);

Lorde. Coal (1976);

- The Cancer Journals (1980);

- Uses of the Erotic: Erotic as Power (1981);

- Zami (1982);

- Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde (1984).

MacKinnon, Neil J. Symbolic Interaction as Affect Control (1994);

Marcia, James E. “Identity in Adolescence”, in Adelson, Joseph (ed.). Handbook of Adolescent Psychology (1980);

Markus, Hazel. ‘‘Self-Schemas and Processing Information About the Self’’, in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1977);

Martin. A General Theory of Secularization (1978);

McCall, George, and J. S. Simmons. Identities and Interaction, rev. ed. (1978);

Mead, George H. Mind, Self and Society (1934);

Meyer. „World Society and the Nation-State“, in American Journal of Sociology (1997);

Miliband. Divided Societies: Class Struggle in Contemporary Capitalism (1989);

Millett. Sexual Politics (1969);

Offe. Reflections on America: Tocqueville, Weber and Adorno in the United States (2005);

Pakulski. The Death of Class (1996);

Plummer. Sexual Stigma (1975);

- The Making of the Modern Homosexual (1981);

- Documents of Life (1983);

- Modern Homosexualities (1992);

- Telling Sexual Stories (1995);

- Sexualities: Critical Assessments (2002);

- Inventing Intimate Citizenship (2003);

Polletta, Francesca and James M. Jasper. “Collective Identity and Social Movements”, in Annual Review of Sociology (2001);

Risman. Gender in Intimate Relations: A Microstructural Approach (1989);

- Feminist Foundations: Towards Transforming Sociology (1998);

- Gender Vertigo: American Families in Transition (1998);

Robinson, W. P. (ed.). Social Groups and Identities (1996);

Rubin. „Of Catamites and Kings: Reflections on Butch, Gender, and Boundaries”, in Joan Nestle (ed.) The Persistent Desire: A Femme-Butch Reader (1992);

Serpe, Richard T. ‘‘Stability and Change in Self: A Structural Symbolic Interactionist Explanation’’, in Social Psychology Quarterly (1987);

- , and Sheldon Stryker. ‘‘The Construction of Self and the Reconstruction of Social Relationships’’, in Edward J. Lawler and Barry Markovsky. (eds.). Advances in Group Processes, vol. 4. (1987);

Smith A. Chosen Peoples: Sacred Sources of National Identity (2003);

- Ethno-symbolism and Nationalism: A Cultural Approach (2009);

Snow, David A. and Leon Anderson. “Identity Work among the Homeless: The Verbal Construction and Avowal of Personal Identities”, in American Journal of Sociology (1987);

Sparks, Paul, and Richard Shepherd. ‘‘Self-Identity and the Theory of Planned Behavior: Assessing the

Role of Identification with ‘Green Consumerism’’’, in Social Psychology Quarterly (1992);

Stets, Jan E., and Peter J. Burke. “Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory”, in Social Psychological Quarterly (2000);

Stets, Jan E., and Peter J. Burke. “A Sociological Approach to Self and Identity”, in Mark R. Leary and June Price Tangney. (eds.). Handbook of Self and Identity (2003);

Stone, Gregory P. ‘‘Appearance and the Self’’, in Arnold M. Rose (ed.). Human Behavior and the Social

Process (1962);

Strauss. Mirrors and Masks: The Search for Identity (1959);

Stryker, Sheldon. ‘‘Identity Salience and Role Performance’’, in Journal of Marriage and the Family (1968);

- Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version (1980);

- ‘‘Identity Theory: Developments and Extensions’’, in Krysia Yardley and Terry Honess. (eds.).

Self and Society: Psychosocial Perspectives (1987a);

- , and Richard T. Serpe. ‘‘Commitment, Identity Salience, and Role Behavior: Theory and Research

Example’’, in William Ickes and Eric S. Knowles. (eds.). Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior (1982);

- , and Richard T. Serpe. ‘‘Identity Salience and Psychological Centrality: Equivalent, Overlapping,

or Complementary Concepts?’’, in Social Psychology Quarterly (1994);

- , and Ann Statham. ‘‘Symbolic Interactionism and Role Theory.’’ In Gardner Lindzey and Eliot