What makes a characteristic become an identity?

“What Is Ethnic Identity and Does It Matter?” by Kanchan Chandra discusses the definition of the word “ethnic” and the classification of ethnicity based on different variables. Chandra’s article focuses on what qualifies as an ethnic identity based on previously given definitions of “ethnic” to highlight the issues with these definitions and to present her own method and suggestions for determining ethnicity. Though the article specifically points to the difficulties of assigning people to ethnic categories, it also points more broadly to the difficulties with identity categorization as a whole. I supplemented this reading with the piece by Teri L. Caraway which discusses the role of gender in political science research and the way in which incorporating different gendered questions into political science alters our perception of events, whether historical or contemporary.

In considering the reading question for this assignment, I return to my definition of “identity” from my previous blog post as requiring some degree of “relevance.” From my personal experience, part of what makes a characteristic become an identity is its elevation to relevance in social and political arenas. Chandra mentions that individuals can “activate” their membership to certain groups at specific times, and largely at their own convenience. This points to the fact that characteristics themselves, even strongly visible ones, are flexible in relation to one’s identity category. The ability for characteristics to be deployed or deemphasized in order to attain closer association with a desired identity group in varied contexts means that what transforms a characteristic into an identity is somewhat self-determined. It is certainly true that social convention assigns people to specific identity groups (often based on visible characteristics), but the level to which an individual chooses to identify with a group that shares one or more of their characteristics can be a personal choice depending on the context. That being said, I think it is often impossible to escape one’s socially assigned identity. I agree with Chandra that the “visibility” and “stickiness” of characteristics are incredibly crucial in this discussion. Characteristics that are easily changed or hidden seem less likely to become defining identities. On the other hand, characteristics that cannot be hidden, especially those that carry negative societal connotations, are more likely to become defining identities in people’s lives because of the way that they will shape and alter the person’s life experience. It is in this way that I come to the conclusion that a characteristic’s social/political relevance and influence on life experience impacts the level to which an individual will create their identity around that characteristic.

I found the reading to be a fascinating insight into the limitations of identity categorization. As Chandra notes, when we consider something like “common ancestry” we are forced to make decisions about when such common ancestry began. In this way our choices actually create identity groups and reflect preconceived notions of social divisions. From a political science perspective, I found myself thinking of the numerous ways in which identity categories are created or strengthened for political gain. For example, the “beginning” of the United States of America is often portrayed differently by politicians depending on which party they belong to and which group of voters they are seeking to mobilize. Overall, the reading question really got me thinking about why some characteristics and not others are considered central to a person’s identity and why those characteristics have been valued in such a way.