Language and Identity

Perspectives of Identity

James Gee famously posits four perspectives of identity. All people have multiple identities connected to their performance in society; these performances help social actors to be recognized as a certain kind of person. The first perspective is the natural perspective (or nature-identity [N-identity]), which is a state that is developed from natural forces. The second perspective is the institutional perspective (or institution-identity [I-identity]), which is a position that is authorized by authorities within institutions. The third is the discursive perspective (or discourse-identity [D-identity]), an individual trait that is recognized in the discourse or dialogue with and of individuals. Last, there is the affinity perspective (or affinity-identity [A-identity]), which are experiences that are shared in the practice of affinity groups. These four identities are not isolated nor separate but, rather, are often interwoven in complicated ways in practice. These perspectives help researchers to investigate how different aspects of identities are formed, performed, and sustained for a given time and place and why.

Identity Development

Lucy Tse notes that ethnic minorities generally undergo four distinct stages of identity development: ethnic unawareness, ethnic ambivalence or evasion, ethnic emergence, and ethnic identity incorporation. At the stage of ethnic unawareness, there is little to no awareness of the ethnic language or language minority status. At the ethnic ambivalence or evasion stage, there is a strong affinity for the majority culture and language. Next, at the ethnic emergence stage, there begins to be a concern for and an interest in learning about the ethnic culture and language. Finally, at the ethnic identity incorporation stage, there is identity negotiation, acceptance, and membership into the ethnic group. At various points in these stages there can be in or out group evaluation, [Page 620]and oftentimes, labels are attributed to those who do or do not “belong” (for example, “FOB,” “banana,” or “whitewashed”). While this model implies that the stages are linear, the process of ethnic identity formation is dynamic and constantly evolving over time, and individuals within a group will have different perceptions of their own group and other ethnic groups, which may also be different from what others think of them.

It is pivotal to discuss how problematic the lumped category of Asian Americans is and the negative ramifications that stem from mistaking a very diverse group of people as a monolithic category. At various points in identity (dis)engagement, people of Asian American heritage can choose to identify with a larger, pan-Asian or pan-Asian American identity, while at other times, they can choose to solely identify with specific cultural heritage identities, and at other times, none at all.

...