>But there is a semiotic sense in which definition is
always and necessarily cast in terms of oppositions (e.g.,
Greimas squares). It is in this way that signs can be said to
be determined through their relations with other signs rather
than to exist as independent or absolute entities.
Negations and oppositions are I believe central dynamics in the formation
of identities, especially where categories of race, gender, and sexual
orientation are concerned. In my dissertation research a few years ago, I
looked at what kids had to say about themselves when these categories were
foregrounded--that is, when they had an opportunity to identify themselves
as "gay/lesbian/bisexual" or as "African American." When asked to state
what they want others to know about who they _are_, nearly half of the
responses to the question were stated in the negative, that is, in terms of
what they did _not_ want people to think of them.
I think none of us particularly likes to fit into a category neatly, and so
this kind of negation cuts across categories. But the "big categories"
here are important as well, because often they are defining identities
within many of the communities of practice in which we participate, and to
step totally outside them to make sense of who one is in relation to others
or to assign meaning to our actions as agents of that action means to make
oneself potentially un-recognizable to others. But maybe the failure of
recognition is part of what we are discussing here in the first place?
Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Penuel, PhD
Research Social Scientist
Center for Technology in Learning
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Avenue, Mailstop BS116
Menlo Park, CA 94025
tel: 650-859-5001
fax: 650-859-4605
Check out our websites at:
http://www.cilt.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------