In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

4 Who am I? Prescribing Women’s Identities The discourse of identity has focused on characteristics that all human beings share in common with certain other human beings, and the way in which individuals are unique (Kluckhohn and Murray, cited in Mennel 1994), leading to discussions on personal and collective identities. The three traditions that are represented in the discourse of identity – essentialism, social constructionism and deconstructionism – have their strengths and weaknesses, and they make an attempt to define personal and collective identities difficult. Even then, defining collective identity is easier than defining personal identity. Mennel (1994) refers to collective identity as: a higher level conscious awareness by members of a group, some degree of reflection and articulation, some positive or negative emotional feelings towards the characteristics {which Wiley (1994) refers to as "long term abiding qualities, which, despite their importance, may not be part of human nature as such" (p. 130)} which members of a group perceive themselves as sharing and in which they perceive themselves as differing from other groups (p. 177). With respect to personal identity, the position that is becoming widespread, noted by Mejiuni (2005), is that although self-definition and assertion of individuality are essential to empowerment, the self here, is, self in relation, and so the masculinist psychological model of selfhood is rejected. It is therefore thought that it may be worthwhile to avoid a sharp split between personal identity and collective identity. Calhoun (1994) had indicated that a useful framework for the understanding of identity, and that is less problematic for theory and practice, is to draw from both essentialist and social constructionist approaches, and to the dualism, add the deconstruction and claiming of identities for persons and groups. Also essential to the discourse of identity are the questions of the multiplicity of identities and the pressure that individuals face about favouring particular identities, and the negotiation/renegotiation and transformation of identities. 80 Women and Power: Education, Religion and Identity Identities become political and problematic when certain characteristics are attributed socially and institutionally to individuals and groups, and such define their rights and duties, and affect their quality of life (Wiley 1994). Once identity becomes political, subjectivity (the self-conscious perspective of the person or subject or the ‘I’) is possible only through the individual’s agency. Calhoun (1994) made the point when he said, ‘it is not just that others fail to see us for who we are sure we really are, or repress us because of who they think we are’, we are constantly confronted with discussions of ‘who it is possible or appropriate or valuable to be’ (p. 20). This inevitably affects the way individuals see themselves, with the attendant doubts and tensions. In reckoning women’s identities and the implications of the identities for empowering and disempowering women, we return to the question of the self, that is, self-definition, self-recognition and recognition or non-recognition by others. Rogers (1998) had indicated that feminist theories ‘postulate a dialectical selfhood, comprising close connections with other people as well as strong senses of who one is, what one needs and values and where one wants to apply her energy and devote her attention (p. 366)’. This position of feminist theories, presented by Rogers, is an appropriate response to the problem that Calhoun (1994) had observed and raised as follows: ‘there are too many challenges to the efforts of persons to attain stable self recognition or coherent subjectivity’ (p. 20). Also, given women’s positioning in different social contexts and within different matrices of domination at different points in their lives, in reality, women have an identity that is a set of identities, and as such comprise inconsistencies and paradoxes that can result in resistances and creativity (Rogers 1998). Clearly, also, women do not retain an identity (or set of identities) throughout their lives, and so when they are confronted with new experiences and new realities, they may ‘do a rethink of the principles they hold dear, they may transform their thinking and perhaps turn it into action; they may form new alliances, and they may not take an either/or position. They may look for a third space, where they may at times feel confused, or feel comfortable and thrive, or they may feel challenged’ (Mejiuni 2005:296). Realistically, then, in our analyses and discussions of women’s identities in this work, we need to return to Calhoun’s suggestion about drawing from the traditions that are represented in the...

Share