Identity vs Subjectivity

Block discussed the distinction between “identity” and “subjectivity” in his seminar (May 23rd, 2011 Poly U. HK). According to Block, some scholars regard the two concepts as near-synonyms (Benwell and Stokoe, 2006) or use them interchangeably (Benwell and Stokoe, 2006; Block, 2006; Pavlenko, 2005) due to the lack of consent across different traditions, while other scholars tend to view the two terms as notions emphasizing different aspects of an individual’s sense of her/himself as who s/he is or where s/he belongs to, for example, Weedon (2004) and Hall (1996) define “identity” as the temporary “fixing” of certain mode of "subjectivity"or attachment to a particular "subject position", and Gee (1999) proposes that “socially situated” identities which individuals may take on within different contexts should be different from their “core” identities which are relatively “fixed” or "permanent".

Block suggested that the distinguishing of the two terms is significant as it helps to identify the “more permanent” sense of “identity” and the relatively more “ephemeral” sense of “subjectivity”, which allows researchers to clarify their conceptual understanding of the two terms. Thus, research studies focusing on the lives of individuals may apply the concept of a temporary fixing sense of “identity”, while those about the processes of individual identity formation may adopt the more fluid and ongoing shifting sense of “subjectivity”.

My reflection:
Taking on a sociocultural perspective, we assume that human learning goes through a social, historical, and developmental process and therefore the identity formation processes of individuals should be ongoing and subject to constant transformations within different sociocultural contexts. A poststructuralist view of identity also stresses the multiple, relational, transformative nature of individuals. Accordingly, it seems that “subjectivity” is more suitable for studies which are conceptualized from the sociocultural or the poststructuralist perspectives. However, to illustrate the developmental process of individuals, narrations of their life episodes are necessary which are composed of a chain of temporary “fixings” or particular “attachments” of the individuals to some “subject positions”. In this sense, we need the term “identity” as explained in Weedon (2004). It seems that the construction of individuals’ sense of who they are is closely related to the particular context (time/space) where they exist. The multiple ongoing sense of “subjectivity” (a line) is made up of continuous temporary fixing sense of “identity” (dots).

My questions:
Should we regard the two terms as interchangeable near-synonyms in our study? If not, should we use both the two terms in our thesis to refer to the different aspects of “identity” or should we use either of the two to remain consistent?

ps:
1. Norton’s (2008) explanation of the term “subjectivity” from its root “subject” adds to our understanding of the relational nature of “identity” and also the different power relations involved.
“The use of the term “subject” is compelling because it serves as a constant reminder that a person’s identity must always be understood in relational terms: one is either subject of a set of relationships (i.e. in a position of power) or subject to a set of relationships (i.e. in a position of reduced power).” [in N. Hornberger and S. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2008]

2. Jasmine Luk (2008) also echoes Block that in the field of applied linguistics, there is still little agreement about the differences between the term “identity” and the other closely related terms such as “self”, “role”, “subject position” and “subjectivity”. Luk provides her view of the distinction among the above terms in the following ways, “In its most basic form, identity refers to our sense of self, or who we are”, “Basically, ‘self’ is associated with an individual’s feeling, whereas ‘role’ highlights the more static, formal and ritualistic aspect of identity. Subject positions/subjectivity, on the other hand, imply agency, conscious action and authorship” (p.121-122). [Luk J.C.M. “CLASSROOM DISCOURSE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF LEARNER AND TEACHER IDENTITIES” in M. Martin-Jones, A. M. de Mejia and N. H. Hornberger (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd Edition, Volume 3: Discourse and Education, 121 – 134. # 2008 Springer Science+Business Media LLC.]

Emily's reflections and questions

Dear colleagues,

I am very glad that Nicol reminded me of this blog where we can actually share ideas and discuss something we are still unsure of. Here, I would like to summarize the ideas of my presentation on last week’s conference and also to ask for your kind suggestions for the points which I am still not clear about.

I introduced a topic about EFL Pre-service Teacher Identity Formation in School-University Partnership in mainland China. Using the case of Kelly as an example, I focused on two research questions:
 What are the main factors that affect preservice teacher identities? How do they affect preservice teacher identities?
 How do/are discourses of learning to teach in school-university partnership shape/shaped by preservice teacher identities?
I attempted to address the research questions from both the sociocultural and the poststructuralist perspective. I drew on the Activity Theory (Engestrom, 2001) to conceptualize the school-university partnership context which was related to the boundary crossing of the two institutional activity systems. I also adopted Wenger’s (1998) theory of community of practice to illustrate the identity formation process of the student teachers during their learning to teacher practice in the community of practice. Informed by Baron and Tusting (2005), I also approach the research questions from the poststructuralist perspective as it is argued that it should be more enlightening to complement the theory of COP which emphasizes on the relationship between identity and practice with the theory of discourse which provides a broader angle for exploring the relationship between identity and language as well as the impact of social structure and various tensions. I borrowed Clarke’s (2009) diagram of doing “identity work” as the analytical framework which was established based on Foucault’s (1983,1985) four aspects of self formation.

After analyzing the data of Kelly according to Clarke’s framework, I had a question which I would like to ask for your suggestions here. Are the four axes of teacher identity stable aspects that last for his/her entire career life ever since they have been implanted or are they subject to changes or revisions under different conditions during the process of the teacher’s professional development? In Clarke’s article, the substance (core) of teacher identity is the key axis regarding how the other aspects are related to one’s being a teacher, in this sense, does it mean that the four axes are not paralleled but mutually affected?

Frankly speaking, I find myself still not very clear about the framework even though I tried to analyze Kelly’s data from the four axes. Therefore, I am eager to listen to more ideas from you about Clarke’s framework and about other research aspects.^-^ 

Best wishes,

Emily