2.1.2 Classifications of identity
Because identity is multiple and multilayered (Omoniyi, 2006),classifying identity is one of the important tasks for the researchers. This section will review some of the previous classifications of identity, which may have some implications for the taxonomy of identity in this study.
Tracy (2002) distinguishes four kinds of identities, namely master identity,interactional identity, personal identity and relational identity. Master identities refer to “those aspects of personhood that are presumed to be relatively stable and unchanging: gender, ethnicity, age, national and regional origins” (Tracy, 2002, p. 18). Interactional identities refer to the “specific roles that people take on in a communicative context with regard to specific other people” (ibid.), for example, one person is a teacher in one context, but he may be a husband and a father in another context. Interactional identities are therefore situation specific and relationship specific. Personal identities mainly refer to personality, attitudes and character. This type of identity may include “those aspects of personhood that reference ways people talk and routinely conduct themselves with others (hotheaded, honest and forthright,reasonable, fair, a gossiper, a brown-noser)” (ibid., p. 19). Relational identities refer to “the kind of relationship that a person enacts with a particular conversational partner in a specific situation” and they are“negotiated from moment to moment and are highly variable. They are what people monitor most to see if a relationship is improving or disintegrating”(ibid.). For example, two people in an employee-employer relationship may be expected to enact an unequal relationship at work, but the relational identities enacted between the two may become equal on some occasions after work.
Tracy’s classification of identity covers various properties of who we are in a social and communicative network. In her view (ibid., pp. 17-18),identities are stable features of persons, which exist prior to any particular situation and at the same time they are dynamic and situated accomplishments, which are enacted through talk and which change from one occasion to another. In effect, identities are social categories and at the same time they are personal and unique.
Zimmerman (1998) distinguishes three different types of identity, namely discourse identity, situated identity and transferable identity. Discourse identity relates to the sequential development of the talk as participants engage as “current speaker,” “listener,” “questioner,” “answerer” and “repair initiator,” etc. and is “integral to the moment-by-moment organization of the interaction” (Zimmerman, 1998, p. 90). Situated identity is relevant to particular types of situations, which are “effectively brought into being and sustained by participants engaging in activities and respecting agendas that display an orientation to, and an alignment of, particular identity sets” (ibid.).For example, the situated identities relevant to the classroom situation would be teacher and student. Transferable identities are those which do not depend on the local context such as gender, ethnic or national identities, and they“travel with individuals across situations and are potentially relevant in and for any situation and in and for any spate of interaction” (ibid.). For example,an individual might make relevant in the talk the fact that he is a middle-aged male, or the fact that he is a university teacher, or perhaps that he is an academic visitor from China.
Bucholtz and Hall (2005), taking a socio-cultural linguistic approach to identity, put forward five principles as an analytical framework of identity. Of these, the positioning principle relates to the classification of identity and says that identity can be constructed at various levels, including the macro-level demographic categories; the local, ethnographically specific cultural positions; and the temporary and interactionally specific stances and participant roles (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, p. 592).
These categories are in some sense similar to Tracy’s (2002). The first two relate, to some extent, to Tracy’s master identities, while the last one relates, in some way, to the other three types of identities proposed by Tracy(2002). However, all of these classifications of identity fail to highlight the socio-psychological aspects of identity.
Simon (2004), taking a socio-psychological approach to identity, puts forward the Self-aspect Model of Identity, which involves the categorization of different aspects of an individual. According to Simon (2004), self-aspects include such elements as: psychological characteristics or traits (e.g.extroverted); physical features (e.g. black hair); roles (e.g. teacher); abilities(e.g. bilingual); tastes (e.g. preference for Chinese food); attitudes (e.g.disliking the dishonesty); behaviours (e.g. he overworks); explicit group or category membership (e.g. the members of the committee in a thesis defence).
Some of these aspects are similar to the contents of personal identities proposed by Tracy (2002) and are also relevant to the contents of personal identities as examined by Ho (2010a, 2010b), who describes the construction of personal identities through the request e-mail discourse by a group of professional English language teachers of a public education institution in Hong Kong. The request discourse is analyzed at the clause level with respect to transitivity, mood and modality. The results show that the teachers construct two categories of personal identities before their peers and superiors in their workplace, namely the identity of a responsible,hardworking member, and of a member with authority and power. Some aspects of the transitivity of clauses are found to construct the identity of responsible, hardworking member such as the use of the active and passive voice, the inclusion of Agent in clauses and the use of particular material actional process. Mood and modality are used to construct the identity of a member with authority and power. In another study (Ho, 2010b), leader identities constructed through request e-mail discourse are analyzed at both clause level and discourse level. At the clause level, the lexico-grammar is analyzed by drawing upon the Systemic Functional Grammar and then the leaders’ management of the relationship with their subordinates is analyzed with reference to the rapport management and the relational work. At the discourse level, the way the authors support their request is analyzed.Different personal identities of a leader are found to be constructed, including an accountable leader, a rational leader, an authoritative leader, an understanding, considerate and polite leader, and a capable leader. These identities are constructed by the leaders to demonstrate to their subordinates their legitimate position power, ability and strength, commitment to the job,being rational, and being understanding, considerate and polite. He also points out that these identities are relevant to two contexts. One is the immediate context in which the leaders exercise their position power,demonstrate their ability and strength and have a sense of mission. The other is the wider social and cultural context in which the leaders “need to mobilize their civil servant subordinates who, given the existing civil service performance management and dismissal practice, might choose not to obey to act as requested” (Ho, 2010b, p. 2260).
So far a brief review has been given to some of the previous classifications of identity, which have contributed considerably to the exploration of identity and also provide a theoretical basis for classifying identities in the present study.For example, identities in this study will be classified into two categories in general: default identities and deviational identities. The default identity can be further divided into several subcategories, in terms of the discussions on the leader identity by Ho (2010a, 2010b), Tracy’s (2002) personal identity and Simon’s (2004) Self-aspect Model of Identity.