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.]