Explaining Identity: on theories of Psychoanalysis and Interactionism
People of various groups are different. They react on different ways and in different situations. People’s thoughts, behaviors, capabilities, and so on indicate identity. Identity is commonly understood as distinctive characteristics of an individual that is identified or acknowledged and a condition of being oneself of itself without reference to other. Identity is used in the fields of psychology and sociology. How do we explain identity? This paper discusses Sigmund Freud’s Psychoanalysis and Interactionism theories in relation to identity. Further, it discusses on how each theory helps in explaining identity. Lastly, it identifies key similarities and differences of the mentioned theories.
Psychoanalysis
Eckardt (2002) claims psychoanalysis is “well defined” and can connote “different things to different people” (p. 263). The term psychoanalysis can be divided into two for easier understanding. First, psyche (or psycho) is the Greek origin, means self. Modern fields of social sciences include the ideas of the soul, the self, and the mind. Second, analysis is the act of the clarification of complex subjects with the aim of providing better and clearer body of knowledge and information. In psychoanalysis, psyche is the factor that affects individual’s idea, behavior, and personality. This is the fundamental reference in understanding psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic theories.
Psychoanalysis is a psychologically-focused field of knowledge and facts that explores people’s psychological functions and behaviors (Eckardt 2002). It is commonly used in understanding the mind, explaining behaviors, and treating psychologically or emotionally-related illness (Felix and Wine 2001). There are many theories that used the principles of psychoanalysis. These theories extended for the purposes of including the complete person, his/her functions, strong points and flexibility, and the effect of several factors including interpersonal, social, and cultural on behavioral functioning (Goldstein 2001). Psychoanalysis is deemed to include understanding of the total biological, psychological, and social situation of individuals, to the nature of their cultural and other category of diversity. Understanding psychoanalysis is also related to the role it plays in providing treatment of people who suffer from various psychiatric and emotionally-related illnesses (Felix and Wine 2001). With its various versions in understanding people’s development, it is a useful tool for explaining, and potentially destroying, psychical and cultural forms and structures that support changes. Accordingly, psychoanalysis works on a principle that the unconscious surfaces into people’s consciousness by weakening one’s id or pleasure principle into actions or activities that are socially acceptable to people’s egos. This theory illuminates on the expression of a person’s most concealed anxieties and meanings and gives a perception on these anxieties and meanings as behavioral formations based on social, emotional, cultural and so on considerations. It concerns interpretation based the individual’s self and underlying functioning.
Interactionism
This theory is based on the term interaction, which denotatively means an action between two or more people, objects, etc. and have an effect. On this case, it refers on how the mind (mental) and body (physical) are interrelated (Reynolds 1990). According to Maines (1997), interactionism adds assurance on its application by projecting and configuring it as a theory of action. It is exemplified by “the interactionist merely insists that the proper study of human collectivities is the study of human activity” (p. 2). It involves communication through symbols, signs, language, and other forms of expression.
It is also related to sociology and social psychology, where there are dynamic changes or sequences of social actions among people and termed as symbolic interactionism (SI). The basic principle of SI is that people act and do things on the basis of importance of meanings of such things to them. It reflects the definition and redefinition of the self (Tibbets 2004). The importance or meanings are rooted on social interaction and adapted all the way through the process of interpretation. To quote Plummer (2003, p. 524), “symbolic interactionism has always properly highlighted the fluidity, emergence and processual aspects of social life.” The analytical focus of most interactionists is constantly on what is appropriate, the coming out, and change. However, it is argued that “interactionism has never said that there are no stable patterns of routine interactions or that selves do not become routinized, lodged, committed and stabilized” (p. 524-5). In factuality, the fundamental process and pattern merge and the task of interactionists is to record this stable process. Human life on daily basis is full of changes that are open to constant stabilizing and necessary. With this, it important implications come out. SI reflects how individuals define and redefine their identities (self) and situations over the period of time.
How Psychoanalysis Theory Explains Identity?
In reference to the definition provided for psychoanalysis theory involving the understanding of people based on functions and behaviors, it is said that its importance in explaining identity is seen on the aspect where such thoughts and behaviors result to who or what they are. Identity is reflected on the personality that is inherent to every individuals or a specific group. In literature, Marshall (2005) concludes that psychoanalysis has potential benefits in aiding the people’s understanding of culture, which include early modern culture. This is exemplified through questioning self-defeating efforts towards beliefs or certainty and undoing past affirmations in forms of threads of words. Even if psychoanalysis is inside or outside the tenets and conventions of literature or in general perspective by simply looking on this context, it further acknowledges the forms of individual functions like language revolves all the way “through reason, unreason, the body, and desire”. In return, it affects other people through links with each other and with the past but it is not always close to the ways every individual think.
On particular example, Marshall (2005) avers psychoanalysis steadily requires special attention to the concept of sexuality. Sexuality (or gender) is commonly described based on different applications and various aspects that it extends beyond psychological, sociological, cultural, economical, political, and other dimensions of individual life. The traditional assumption is that sexuality is naturally given while gender is the cultural definition built upon that identified nature of sex (Delaney 2007, p. 37). A considerable number of research studies on the different branches of the social sciences particularly that of psychology, sociology and anthropology have raised intriguing questions about the relation between sexuality and sexual orientation. It helps bring to the surface intractable assumptions about identity and power that are bound up in the discourse of sexuality and gender. The basic understanding of human sexuality or gender is based on the understanding on what is to be a man or a woman. Providing a definition of sexuality or gender is also problematic as it may raise heated arguments and points of discussions among linguists and social sciences specialists. The biological sex is determined at birth by various factors beyond control (Romaine 1999, p. 1) like heredity or genetics and other applied sciences. Yet, it is recognized that being born male or female is probably the most important feature of human lives. In psychoanalysis, it has value for its resistance to easy closure of questions about the body, identity, and sexuality (Marshall 2005).
How Interactionism Theory Explains Identity?
As based on the symbolic interaction principle, the basic principle is that people act and do things on the basis of importance of meanings of such things to them. The importance or meanings are rooted on social interaction and adapted all the way through the process of interpretation. Identity is seen on how people act based on cultural conventions. Since interactionism cater to action, it involves communication through symbols, signs, language, and other forms of expression as culturally based. Culture in relation to sexuality or gender is evidently pervasive in control. Murphie and Potts (2003, p. 2) noted that the function of culture is to establish modes of conduct, standards of performance, and ways of dealing with interpersonal and environmental relations that will reduce uncertainty, increase predictability, and thereby promote survival and growth among the members of any society. It affects behavior and interaction, thus providing explanations on how a group communicates and filters information.
For example, the ethnographic/sociolinguistic work of Eckert (1989, 1999) involving preadolescent and adolescent communities of practice shows varied ways in which gender and other aspects of identity are co-constructed. The cultural practices of people in specific culture define their identity. This simple analogy is applicable on the social construction of sexuality or gender. Historically, men are the ones who work in order for a family to sustain the basic needs to live. Women, on the other hand are responsible for child-rearing and taking care of the households. The pre-historic narrations signify that men are the hunters as women are the gatherers. In reflection to culture, men and women have their specific roles designed exclusively for their individual capabilities. Other cultural factors dictate what or how a man or woman is like. The biological composition of sexes are defined and constantly redefined, presented and further represented, valued, and communicated or passes through different roles that are derived in various culturally dependent ways. This indication of culture in social interactions identifies the natural ways on how to be a man or a woman or what constitute a male or a female. In SI, the identity of a person in terms of his/her sexuality is associated on his/her relationships with others and the way he/she projects his/her self in shaping life histories. Interactionism generally views people as social beings and the everyday interaction with elements of the environment affects who they are. To make their identities, language and cultural resources are used (e.g. gender roles).
Key Similarities and Differences of Both Theories
The similarities and differences of each theory lies on their theoretical and conceptual origins and classified in terms of application.
Psychoanalysis and Interactionism theories recognize the concept of self as fundamental consideration. An individual’s self is seen on how he/she carries his/her ways through various factors. Earlier studies (e.g. Elliot and Meltzer 1981), identify the consideration on human nature and environment, stages of socialization, personality, and social relationships are being dealt with. Both theories support the presence of meanings, which explains identity and identity formation. Interpretations of human actions are also common in these two theories. They also look on the role of change or dynamism as a causative element in shaping, maintaining, or reshaping of identity. While meanings serve as common denominators, the difference is based on how these meanings are interpreted and used in individual level. In psychoanalysis, individual’s idea, behavior, and personality affect his/her identity while interactionism caters on how the mind (mental) and body (physical) are interrelated and creates meanings that reflects identity. Among the most notable considerations in comparing the key similarities and differences of both theories is the fact that each theory complements rather than contradict each others. Provided that there are given divergences in psychoanalytic and interactionism theories but eclecticism (diversification) is necessary.
For Eckardt (2002) and other advocates of psychoanalytic theories, psychoanalysis deals on the exploration of people’s psychological function and behavior as primarily identified by Freud. The concept of psyche is the factor that affects individual’s idea, behavior, and personality. With this, psychoanalysis is commonly used in understanding the individual’s mind (its processes), explaining behaviors (result of mind processes), and treating psychologically or emotionally-related illness (negative interventions in behaviors). It illuminates on the expression of a person’s most concealed anxieties and meanings and gives a perception as behavioral formations based on social, emotional, cultural and so on considerations. Understanding the total biological, psychological, and social situation of individuals, to the nature of their cultural and other category of diversity is covered by this theory. Most psychologies acknowledge the potentialities of psychoanalytic theories and their principles in providing persuasive explanations on human growth and development. Such theories are important tools explaining, and potentially destroying, psychical, and cultural forms and structures that support changes among individuals and their environment. In psychoanalysis, the unconscious comes out into individual’s awareness by means of weakening the id or principle of pleasure. Then, it is seen on how individuals act, interact, or respond on activities that are socially acceptable and appropriate to people’s egos. All in all, the psychoanalytic theory shows the appearance of every individual’s most covered or hidden anxieties and meanings that affect or cause behavioral formations based on social, emotional, cultural and other factors.
In interactionism particularly in symbolic interactionism, individuals develop their identities through development and taking roles. This is a result of their lived experiences that occur during their interactions with others. It is always evident that interactionists naturally give meanings of actions. These meanings can be in forms of ideas, beliefs, plans, purposes or any factor attached to actions. While meanings are held closer to assimilation, the individual becomes a constant social product that undergoes constant maintenance, adjustments and reshaping. There is the acknowledgement of the theory of dynamism, constructivism, and social action as philosophical foundations (Plummer 2003; Maines 1997; Reynolds 1990). In symbolic interactionism, individuals are not just mere anatomical beings but someone who are capable to interact and shaped by a social environment comprised of social forces occurring in the immediate environment. Symbols that are manipulated by individuals create a society reflecting a distinct set of attributes based on social process. Available language and cultural resources are always causative.
Conclusion
Identity is commonly understood as distinctive characteristics of an individual that is identified or acknowledged and a condition of being oneself of itself without reference to other. Psychoanalysis deals on the exploration of people’s psychological function and behavior that provides understanding on people’s identity. Meanwhile, interactionsim refers on the interrelation of the mind (mental) and body (physical) and uses communication through symbols, signs, language, and other forms of expression. It is said that psychoanalysis theory is important in explaining identity because it is where such thoughts and behaviors that determine who or what people are. In interactionism principles, identity is seen on how people act based on cultural conventions that are rooted in social actions. Each example provided above is mainly focused on sexuality. All things considered, the similarities and differences of each theory lies on their theoretical and conceptual origins and classified in terms of application. It is apt to recognize that the identified similarities and differences of these theories are complementary rather than contradicting.
References
Delaney, CL (2007) ‘Anthropology’, Encyclopædia Britannica Online
Eckert, P (1999) Variation as social practice, Blackwell, Oxford
Eckert, P (1989) Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school, Teachers College Press, NY
Elliott, RD and Meltzer, BN (Fall 1981) 'Symbolic Interactionism and Psychoanalysis: Some Convergences, Divergences, and Complementarities', Symbolic Interaction, 4: 2, 225–244 [online] (cited July 21, 2008) Available from http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/si.1981.4.2.225?journalCode=si
Felix, AD and Wine, PR (2001) ‘From the Couch to the Street: Applications of Psychoanalysis to Work with Individuals Who Are Homeless and Mentally Ill’, Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 3: 1, 17-32
Goldstein, EG (2001) Object relations theory and self psychology in social work, The Free Press, NY
Maines, DR (1997) ‘Interactionism and practice’ Applied Behavioral Science Review, 5: 1, 1-8
Marshall, C (2005) ‘Extra-Mural Psychoanalysis’, Shakespeare Studies, 33, 53-55
Murphie, A and Potts, J (2003, Culture and Technology, Palgrave Macmillan, NY
Plummer, K (2003) ‘Queers, Bodies and Postmodern Sexualities: A Note on Revisiting the “Sexual” in Symbolic Interactionism’, Qualitative Sociology, 26: 4, 515-530
Reynolds, L (1990) Interactionism: Exposition and critique, General Hall, Dix Hills, NJ
Tibbetts, P (2004) 'Symbolic interaction theory and the cognitively disabled: A neglected dimension', The American Sociologist, 35: 4, 25-36
0 comments:
Post a Comment