“Individuals have little power to choose what features will be used to identify them – these are determined socially”. In his article, During tries to identify the concept of identity.
Identity can be a term used for an individual or a group and in this reading, it is referred to as the way in which someone is defined in terms of traits or characteristics, which effectually categorizes them into specific groups.
“Identity politics are fuelled by the desire for recognition”. In his article, During expounds on the issue of identity politics, which is defined as a form of politics based largely on identities themselves rather than ideologies. According to During, ‘identity politics’ tend to be too rigid as it “tends to work by principles of exclusion” meaning individuals are grouped into a stereotype. Identity politics usually involves a marginalised group attempting to overthrow the negative worldview they experience in a hegemonic society such as the feminist movement or the Afro-American movement for their rights. Some problems surrounding identity politics are that: it erases internal differences – meaning it does not take into consideration singularities that are unique to particular groups, thus stereotyping them; it is also limiting as it assumes the existence of an essential identity; identity politics also operates on the principle of exclusion, which could result in fragmentation and discrimination within societies when certain groups are subjugated by dominant “identities”.
Another term that During uses is “hybridity” exemplifying the fact that “groups and individuals do not have a single identity but several”. We are categorized according to the standards of our social structure, which changes through time and space. Hybridity refers to the combination and mixing of identities between different collectives. During contends that these hybrid identities arise due to the oppression of certain groups, and that these are used to lend a sense of power and recognition that is markedly distinct from the oppressors.
The reason behind the arbitrariness of meanings of identity according to During is due to the possibility of contextual influence on meaning of identity, “these terms may change its meaning depending on who is using it and in what context.” Therefore depending on the context the consequent image produced by the identity may change. This is why identity is very important as in certain context it may be used in positive or negative ways. I think this is where media comes in. The media can and has intervened in the matter of identity, the news, TV programs, computer and etc. Media can influence the society into bringing out some of the identity points which could be used into either bringing positive or negative image to an individual. This is especially widely seen during election times, media being used to control identity. The fact that most identities are not chosen but inherited or given also in a sense exemplifies the limiting nature of identities, due to a lack of choice. Thus, one’s “self-interiority” remains the only aspect of an individual where private thoughts and emotions cannot be tagged (or identities here are not applicable) – the only private sphere where one can express oneself clearly without being judged or stereotyped. In conclusion, I believe that although identities can be limiting to groups in society (by failing to take into consideration individual differences and thereby limiting individuality); they help individuals fit broadly into the blanket of society. I also feel that the notion of society can be based on the fact that different groups in society each play a different role, and this ‘grouping’ of identities allows for the functioning within society.