The Fragmented Self

This week we went through a list of questions that got us thinking about the influences of a text on the reader and to a greater extent, the influences of society in forming personal identity. The question of identity and the true self is something that has always been argued. I have spent countless hours discussing the notions of identity in cultural studies and even now, the word “identity” makes me want plant my palm onto my face and sigh. That being said, I'd like to tackle this questions as it relates with so many of my other units and since I got into quite a heated debate with an unnamed student, the least I can do is vent my concepts in this post. What is true identity? Do people adopt different identities in different discourses or are these characteristics part of the same individual identity. Furthermore, how does this effect our teaching?

So my take on identity is that we are people who are made up of many characteristics from many different sources. It is through exposure and adoption of these subject matters that puts us into these known identities. I think the simplest example I can give would be the differentiation between male and female. When a child is born with a penis, biologically speaking, this child would be classified as a male. From this moment this child is interpolated into a subject position of male. He is made to wear blue instead of pink, pants instead of a skirt. His parents tell him that boys don't cry, boys play sport, boys hang out with other and can only date girls. This is whole point of identity. The male identity comes from external influences such as parents, friends, media and society. If comes as no surprise then, that this identity did not magically happen, There is no genetic or intrinsic component of our minds that make the boys want to wear pants and the girls we skirts. Hence, Identity is made up, and it is influenced from many sources. Furthermore, what we develop is nuances from the many different contexts and discourses we are immersed in. Within a certain group, I function a particular way, and within another group I will act another way. This is still part of my identity and hence my identity is fragmented. If is evolving and not static. Therefore, one cannot say that there is a true or untrue, or real or unreal, right or wrong identity. Much in the same way, the characteristics that have been adopted from the many discourses cannot be considered right or wrong. They either simply appropriate or inappropriate.

Putting identity into a teaching context.

So how does the effect me as a teacher? As an ESL teacher, I will come across students who have adopted Australia and the English language as their secondary discourse. Hence, there will be many characteristics that these students will have adopted form their primary discourse. It may seem easy to say that certain responses are wrong, or it may be even easier to misinterpret their responses. However, given the fact that their identity has been shaped from their primary discourse in the years prior to coming Australia, a dismissal of their first language or practices would be a wrong way to approach teaching. In a classroom where students may be speaking Vietnamese or Arabic within their own groups, to say that their language is wrong in Australia or in the classroom is to dismiss their identity. An example that is very relevant to teaching in Australia is the use of Aboriginal English in the classroom,

So lets look at Aboriginal English a little closer. To anyone who is unfamiliar with ABE the initial assumption may be that this is just a form of bad English. However, it is not. It is the adopted English of the Aboriginal people and thus is a part of their culture and identity. If we look at the first purpose of language, we can see that the establishment of identity relies heavily upon language. Without seeing someone, you can hear their voice and already establish their gender, age, ethnicity and even have hints to their physical build. So it is no wonder that language and identity go together so well.

In order to fulfil the function of effective cross cultural communication, the person must diminish the function of identity. Take this for example. If I were to address myself to an international audience as a speaker, then my language would be one that is purposed for effective communication by removing Australian-isms to ensure my audience can understand me. and therefore I would play down regional lexis and syntax and other features that would otherwise be used to identify me. Conversely, if I wanted to express my identity, then I would assume as much regional variation and lexis as possible to express who I am as person. So therefore, we can see implications for language when it comes to aboriginal children.

With that being said, how can we teach language to aboriginal students in a way that helps assimilate them to society for effective cross cultural communication, whilst at the same time, preserving their traditional identity that they so deserve to protect? That one of the major challenges that we face as teachers and especially language teachers who have to find the fine line between identity and communication.

Ok. So that was quite long but I felt like I needed to express my understanding in this area. The whole idea of identity and teaching seems quite complex and usually any awareness of it goes out the window when we teach but at least its good to know where we stand and how we can eventually adopt a better approach to distinguishing between primary and secondary discourses.