Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How does society influence our identity
Influence of society on identity
Influence of society on identity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How does society influence our identity
‘Who we are’ is arguably one of the most common, simple and yet most important questions to ever be asked. Its importance is derived from the fact that the collection of answers that we might give or obtain comes together to form our identity as individual members of human society. Some of the answers to this question might be things that we have always identified ourselves with, our name, gender, race or ethnicity, others might be things that we have become associated with during the course of our lives, such as our profession, social class or even our hobbies. Some we could consider more important or central when defining who we are, while others we would possibly mention only in passing. More so, the answers themselves might change in time - some might disappear altogether, while other new ones could emerge. This essay will look at the difference between two types of identities that these answers define, as well as the relevance of this distinction in social study and social policy.
In the course of his life as part of society, an individual goes through a continuous process of interaction with other members of that society. This process of socialization stands as an essential factor for the definition of an individual’s identity through the internalization of these interactions or “the immediate apprehension or interpretation of an objective event as expressing meaning, that is, as a manifestation of another’s subjective processes which thereby becomes subjectively meaningful” (Berger and Luckmann, 1972, pp.149-150). Berger and Luckmann (1972) define two distinct stages in the process of socialization, primary and secondary socialization, the former and most important one taking place in the early childhood years of an indiv...
... middle of paper ...
...72. Sex, Gender and Society. London: Maurice Temple Smith LTD.
Olyslager, F. and Conway, L., 2007. On the Calculation of the Prevalence of
Transsexualism, WPATH 20th International Symposium [pdf]. Accessible at:
http://transgenderkenya.com/prevelance.pdf [Accessed 13 November 2011].
Shaw, K.L., 1987. Occupational Change, Employer Change, and the Transferability
of Skills, Southern Economic Journal, [online]. Acccessible at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1058765
Stoller, R., 1968. Sex and Gender: On the Development of Masculinity and
Femininity. New York: Science House.
Veale, J. F. (2008). The prevalence of transsexualism among New Zealand passport
holders, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, [online]. Available at:
http://www.jaimieveale.com/publications/prevalence.pdf [Accessed 15 November
2011].
Taylor, S. (2009) ‘Who We Think We Are? Identities in Everyday life’, in Taylor, S., Hinchliffe, S., Clarke, J. and Bromley, S. (eds), Making Social Lives, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Although the concept of identity is recurrent in our daily lives, it has interpreted in various ways.
Identity is very important in a person’s life. It can induce pride or shame, provide a community or provide a way to distinguish one’s self from others. But, where does this identity come from? It is easy to assume we are who we are because of who raised us, but this is not the entire case. Andrew Solomon, author of “Far from the Tree” introduced two different forms of identity, vertical and horizontal. He defines vertical identity as the attributes acquired and shared by the people we are raised by and horizontal identity as the attributes different from those who raised us, but are shared and acquired through a peer community. These two types of identities generally do not intersect and, depending on the circumstance, one can greatly impact
People identify themselves using not only qualities within them, but through culture and family as well. Through these few examples, it is easy to see some of the foundations that can foster an entire, complex identity. It is understandable how interesting and varied humans can be, drawing from so many directions to build who they are. Identity is not very complex at all, it comes through living day to day.
Socialization is a lifelong process of acquiring one’s personal identity; when we interact within the four agents of socialization—family, school, media, and peer groups—we internalize norms, values, behavior, and social skills. Since our values, norms, and beliefs about society are first learned with family, family is the most important and influential agent of socialization.
In his 1971 paper “Personal Identity”, Derek Parfit posits that it is possible and indeed desirable to free important questions from presuppositions about personal identity without losing all that matter. In working out how to do so, Parfit comes to the conclusion that “the question of identity has no importance” (Parfit, 1971, p. 4.2:3). In this essay, I will attempt to show that Parfit’s thesis is a valid one, with positive implications for human behaviour. The first section of the essay will examine the thesis in further detail, and the second will assess how Parfit’s claims fare in the face of criticism. Problems of personal identity generally involve questions about what makes one the person one is and what it takes for the same person to exist at separate times (Olson, 2010).
Personal identity, in the context of philosophy, does not attempt to address clichéd, qualitative questions of what makes us us. Instead, personal identity refers to numerical identity or sameness over time. For example, identical twins appear to be exactly alike, but their qualitative likeness in appearance does not make them the same person; each twin, instead, has one and only one identity – a numerical identity. As such, philosophers studying personal identity focus on questions of what has to persist for an individual to keep his or her numerical identity over time and of what the pronoun “I” refers to when an individual uses it. Over the years, theories of personal identity have been established to answer these very questions, but the
The education system and the peer group within the school system are important socialisation agents in an individual’s life. Children from an early age absorb the values, attitudes and beliefs of the society in which they participate (Ashman & Elkins, 2009).
When we think about our identity we often think about the way we look. Such features as hair color, eye color, skin tone, height and weight come to mind. Whilst these features are part of our identity, there are many more complex factors that make us who we are. Whilst psychological issues are paramount to the formation of our identity, I will be addressing the nature of our identity in relation to socio-cultural factors (Austin, 2002, p.9). During the course of this essay I will be discussing the term of Identity and some of the axes of identity, including Race, Class and Gender. It is important to understand some of the significant issues of identity so that we have more of an understanding of who and what we are, which in turn may help us to begin to better understand others.
Many philosophers and psychologist from Jean Piaget to William James have theorized what makes a person who they are, their identity. Jean Piaget believed that the identity is formed in the sensorimotor stage and the preoperational stage. This means that a child is forming his identity as late to the age of seven (Schellenberg, 29) However, identity is strongly impacted by society such as school, church, government,and other institutions. Through our interactions with different situations our personality develops (Schellenberg 34). "In most situations there is a more diversified opportunity for the development of social identities, reflecting what the individual wants to put forth to define the self as well as what others want to accept,"(Schellenberg 35). Therefore, humans, much like animals, adapt to different situations based on who they are with. Individuals are always changi...
This essay will discuss what is socialisation, and explain two agents of socialisation, which is primary socialisation and secondary socialisation and what the positives and negatives about the socialisations are and analyse. To start off what is socialisation, socialisation is where the process of learning of the culture of any society. (Browne 2006) which means that when you are born you are learning and learn your culture of living, language, beliefs, norms and values, defying what sex you are means you learn differently to each other you both are equal but have different norms and values of being a girl or a boy. This gets passed through generation to generation. Socialisation has a big part of defining who we are and what we do in our life, and help form our personalities. (Browne 2006) as we can define ourselves by where we live, sexuality, religion, gender, a student or mother/father. This helps us form an individual identity that we tell people, this can be helped from family, friends, school, work, the mass media. So primary socialisation will include being taught norms and values from early child hood years which is assisted by agents like the family or people that are close to you. Secondary socialisation is where you get taught your norms and values from agents like
The process of political socialization is not merely a quick development of ideologies, but an extended network of agents influencing us at every stage of our lives to implore us of good and proper behaviors and thought patterns to abide by. As stated in Texas politics, there is a difference in general socialization and political socialization, but both are significantly influential in our critical development patterns (3.1). General socialization begins in childhood with parents, grandparents, or caretakers. Simple verbal and nonverbal interactions taking place between those closest to us and our world around us creates ideas and beliefs and coaches us in how we should react to our environment. General socialization can be seen when children are punished for being inappropriate or impolite, or when their behaviors are reinforced by authority figures around them.
The question ‘who am I?’ raises speculations about who we are as human beings and why we behave the way we do. This is of great interest to social psychologists. One particular theory about this social identity is that it is not fixed or innate but that it is something that changes over time and is constructed through our social interactions with other people. This essay will explicate the idea of socially constructed identities and consider the evidence for and against this view with examples of research studies from both social constructionism (Phoenix, 2007) and Social Identity Theory (SIT) (Turner and Brown, 1978).
In modernity, identity is often characterised in terms of mutual recognition, as if ones identity depended on recognition from others combined with self- validation of this recognition. Identity still comes from a pre set of roles and norms. For example, a mother or a catholic, identities are still limited and fixed, though I believe the boundaries of possible new identities are continually expanding.
As humans, are we allowed to determine our own individuality? If we are, how much of an impact can we make on our own originality? The answer to the first question is yes, however, the answer to the second question is one that has changed over the years due to the advancements of our world. Identity is, in a sense, “an unfolding story…continually recast in the course of experience” (Sennett 175-176). In other words, a person develops their identity through experiences they have in their lifetimes, usually while growing. Nowadays, people have more choice over who they become than they have had in the past. Some examples of this “control” are due to advancements in science and technology, curriculum in education, culture, and what is shown in the media. Because of (but not limited to) these factors, a person has more control but also more influence on the development of their own identity.