Interesting observations, Ini-- But now I have a question:
You write: But I didn't think the social situatedness of identity
formation is really part of their framework. Isn't the construction of
identity a joint process in a situation?
Why are co-construction and social situatedness in conflict with each
other? Aren't they mutually defining?
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:41:19 +0100, I.Haket@ppsw.rug.nl
> Well, an interesting article again.
> I agree with Bhatia & Ram that cultural identity is an ongoing dynamic
> process. It 's a good thing they have overcome Berry's static view. They
> sketch a fascinating picture of the many contradicting experiences,
> incompatible voices that play a part in the life of the hyphenized.
> I have got a problem too. B & R claim, that they conceive of identity
> formation as socially situated. But I didn't think the social situatedness
> of identity formation is really part of their framework. Isn't the
> construction of identity a joint process in a situation. For instance: a
> Indian-American girl constructs her sexual identity more "American" when
> dating an American friend than in relation to her parents. Which voices
> contribute to this process of identity formation? Could it be that B & R
> construct voices too exclusive in the head of a person? Weren't there in
> Bahktin theory always three voices in a situation: the voice of the speaker
> (with her conflicting voices), the listener and the social- cultural-ethical
> voice (how are you expected to behave in this situation)? The result of
> this three voices together is a unique experience on the boundary.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST