WHAT IS …..?

The issue of identity has always been a matter of some concern. It harks back to the primary question ‘ ti estin?’ – the ‘what’ question, usually followed by the ‘why’ question. Establishing an ‘I’ and the loss of ‘I’ is fundamental. It is, by the very nature of being, something that emerges from ‘we’. The ‘I’ then is developed as part of the ‘we’ and as it matures it identifies itself as an individual within the ‘we’, and either as a shaper of the ‘we’, or a follower.

There is a paper by Jane E. Dutton; Janet M. Dukerich and Celia V. Harquail entitled Organizational Images and Member Identification, published in Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, No.2 (Jun.,1994) 239-263.

The same model can or course be applied to any group be it family, town, city, county, country, ethnic group or religious affiliation; yet each member seeks to be viewed by other members as a distinct individual, whilst still maintaining to be a member. To be regarded as an individual the member seeks to make a mark, to create a distinguishing feature. That distinguishing feature, the sign, is what demonstrates an identity. Just as individuals seek to create a distinct identity, so do the various groups surrounding the individual. Towns, cities, counties, countries, organisations of all sorts seek to establish that individual characteristic separating them from the rest, all the while remaining within the overall group. That mark must of course be perceived as a singular identifying mark by the rest of the group. Individuals and groups can have multiple affiliations and accordingly their mark or sign will attempt to encompass the joint and several affiliations.

So how does an American Muslim, born in the United States, of immigrant parents, born in Britain, of immigrant parents, born in Egypt but brought up in France, identify him/herself? American? British? African? French? or perhaps European? How will their mark manifest itself?

RELATED THEORIES AND THE PERCEPTION OF IDENTITY

Marcuse

Items of additional research in seeking out matters related to writing identity. Identity is, inter alia, as others see us. How is what is written perceived? To that end we have ‘reception theory’, which is, according to Professor Harold Marcuse (American professor of modern and contemporary German history - teaching at the University of California,, Santa Barbara) "the history of the meanings that have been imputed to historical events. It traces the different ways in which participants, observers, historians and other retrospective interpreters have attempted to make sense of events both as they unfolded and over time since then, to make those events meaningful for the present in which they lived and live."

Hall

This is an extension of reader/response literary theory and the Encoding/Decoding model of communication as developed by theorist Stuart Hall. Titled 'Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse’ Hall's essay offers a theoretical approach of how media messages are produced, disseminated, and interpreted. His model claims that TV and other media audiences are presented with messages that are decoded, or interpreted in different ways depending on an individual's cultural background, economic standing, and personal experiences. In contrast to other media theories that disempower audiences, Hall advanced the idea that audience members can play an active role in decoding messages as they rely on their own social contexts, and might be capable of changing messages themselves through collective action.

For example, since advertisements can have multiple layers of meaning, they can be decoded in various ways and can mean something different to different people. Hall claims that the decoding subject can assume three different positions: Dominant/hegemonic position, negotiated position, and oppositional position.

Hall advances a four-stage model of communication that takes into account the production, circulation, use and reproduction of media messages. In contrast to the traditional linear approach of the sender and receiver, he perceives each of these steps as both autonomous and interdependent. "Each stage will affect the message (or ”product”) being conveyed as a result of its ’discursive form’ (e.g. practices, instruments, relations). This implies that, for example, the sender of information can never be sure that it will be perceived by the target audience in the way that was intended, because of this chain of discourse." Each of these steps helps defines the one that follows, while remaining clearly distinct. These four stages are:

1. Production- Where the encoding of a message takes place. By drawing upon society's dominant ideologies, the creator of the message is feeding off of society's beliefs, and values.

2. Circulation- How individuals perceive things: visual vs. written. How things are circulated influences how audience members will receive the message and put it use.

3. Use (distribution or consumption)- This is the decoding/interpreting of a message which requires active recipients. This is a complex process of understanding for the audience.

4. Reproduction- This is the stage after audience members have interpreted the message in their own way based off of their experiences and beliefs. What is done with the message after it has been interpreted is where this stage comes in. At this point, you will see whether individuals take action after they have been exposed to a specific message.

The encoding of a message is the production of the message. It is a system of coded meanings, and in order to create that, the sender needs to understand how the world is comprehensible to the members of the audience. The decoding of a message is how an audience member is able to understand, and interpret the message.

Much of this material is more than applicable to the close reading of signs of identity as I perceive them.  Of this there is more to come.
Here is the first of four lectures in Youtube featuring Stuart Hall.

A VIEW FROM STRASBOURG

Presently in Strasbourg. An interesting city. The signs round and about are in the French style, yet I have no feeling that I am in France. There is something about the place that has a feeling of no particular place at all. It is European. One cannot help but appreciate the variety of languages, being spoken by one and all, indicates that the city is very specifically located in Europe.

Mozart spent some time here and Jean Arp was born here in 1886. Arp grew up speaking both French and German. Indeed probably most of Strasbourg’s citizens grew up bilingual; yet the city does not have an atmosphere either French or German. The recently completed new Museum of Modern Art has a room dedicated to Jean Arp. It is not surprising that Arp was a founding member of Dada. 

The European Parliament, situated at the junction of the River Lil and the Canal de la Marne et du Rhin, is surprisingly a very moving building. There is a feeling about the place that makes one marvel at its very achievement. The European Court of Human Rights just across the junction is equally impressive. Outside the Court, along the quay, are a few tents of petitioners and protesters. All very civilised.

As much as I am in favour of European Union, as solid as the buildings appear to be and despite the 55 years since the Treaty of Rome, there is still a feeling of fragility in the air. That should not be. There can be no argument that it was and is the right thing to do. Strengthening the Union, any union, can only be a good thing.

I think I prefer the French name for the Court - Le Palais des Droits de l’Homme.  The word droit in French signifies a number of literal translations: 

The Palace of the rights of man.

The Palace of the laws of man.

The Palace of the duty of man.

The Palace of the debts of man.

The Palace of the name of man. 

The combined signification of all those words - the unification of interpretants, the representamen - in a single sign droit is as powerful a performance one can get in the writing of a simple word.

How dada is that?