.jpg) |
| Mark Bracher contemplating about identity structures, clearly. |
Oh, am I ever enjoying Bracher's book titled
Radical Pedagogy: Identity, Generativity, and Social Transformation!! Despite the fact that- as mentioned in class- the book may not present as "radical" as it could be, I find many of the concepts within it to be extremely refreshing and eye-opening. One of those being the idea that as one's identity develops, one's "center of gravity" increases in "complexity and flexibility of structure that can integrate a greater diversity of components into a coherent whole" (Bracher, 2006, p. 62). According to Robert Kegan (seen on the right), there are five increasingly complex structures of identity that become more secure and resilient. This, my friends, I found fascinating. In order to better understand these structures, I found well-known individuals that I felt were good examples of each. LET'S BEGIN.
 |
| Lindsay Lohan in her natural environment |
Firstly there's the 'Impulsive' identity structure. As summarized by Kegan, you might find a person with an impulsive identity structure saying "
I am my momentary impulses. I experience any thwarting of them as a threat to my very being, and I will fight that thwarting force." These individuals are not able to truly listen to the "teacher" or other people, and may be linked to social problems as they truly identify with their impulses (I
am my impulses). This reminded me of good ol'
Lindsay Lohan. Ah yes, the celebrity who keeps on making poor, impulsive choices despite the fact that virtually everyone around her has been telling her to clean up her act. Apparently, despite being arrested several times and going to jail and rehab as a result, she has yet to learn her lesson, unable to listen to the "teachers" around her.
 |
| Stephen Harper throwing snowballs to illustrate his disapproval of others' projects |
The second identity structure is the 'Imperial' structure. An individual with this identity might think (subconsciously, of course)
"I am my current ongoing need, intention, or project and am able to sacrifice my impulses, which I now have rather than am, for the purpose of enacting my need, intention, or project. I will fight anyone or anything that opposes my current need, intention, or project". This description reminded me of our very own PM,
Stephen Harper. Yeah, yeah. I know we all have different opinions, but I believe that to a certain extent, politicians prioritize their own "projects" over others because they so identify with their own goals and will sacrifice the desires of others to attain that. For example, Harper pushes for crime bills that are much stricter, which is something that many Canadians disagree with. Regardless of the existence of this group of people who disapprove of Harper's new laws, he continues to pursue his own wishes in order to produce accomplishments as a Prime Minister, perhaps without even realizing of the larger context of the issues at hand. Bracher states that these people may be oblivious to human suffering that may result from their work. I'll leave that for you to decide..
 |
| Whitney Houston looking for true love |
The third identity structure is called the 'Interpersonal' structure. They may have thoughts similar to
"I am my relationship with another person and am willing to sacrifice everything else, including my impulses and ongoing needs, to sustain this relationship and the other person who is essential to it. I will fight anything that threatens the relationship". Unlike the previous identity structure, these individuals take into account other people, aware of the value of interpersonal relationships and subjectivity of ones own needs. However, these people may also run into issues by valuing these relationships more than anything else, which may cause them to make poor decisions for themselves. I felt that someone with this identity structure might be
Whitney Houston. Although she had so much to live for, it seemed as if her preoccupation with acquiring true love and being loved unconditionally by all those around her took its toll, causing her (according to media sources, whoever they are..) to become depressed; she simply ignored her own essential needs for that of another person. According to Bracher, this depression might be provoked by a certain loss, which may, for this lady, have been the loss of her relationship with Bobby Brown. Though these individuals can work to develop an identity structure that isn't so reliant on interpersonal relationships, unfortunately for Whitney, she was never given the chance to do so.
 |
| The Westboro Baptist church demonstrating their firm beliefs |
The fourth identity structure is called the 'Institutional' or 'Systemic' structure. This would represent someone who may think
"I am the system in which each of my multiple interpersonal relationships, my projects, and my impulses has a place, but none of which by itself constitutes who I am. I will sacrifice everything not for a particular relationship, project, or impulse, but rather for the system or institution that I am or that I have identified with, and I will fight anything that opposes it". In other words, these people tend to identify more so with their ideals/ideologies rather than their relationships, and would prioritize them accordingly. This was an easy example to find: the
Westboro Baptist Church members. It is pretty clear to me that these individuals value fighting for their beliefs and have sacrificed many interpersonal relationships (or potential ones, at least) to do so. They realize that although they might not get immediate gratification for their actions (such as when they protest at the funeral of an LGBT solider), they follow through with them in the hopes of gratification in the future (going to heaven, for example) at the expense of the emotions of others (those attending the funeral of the LGBT solider). They are their beliefs, and that is that.
 |
| The Dalai Lama exemplifying his value malleability |
Finally, there's the 'Interindividual' structure- my personal favourite. Why? Well, those who have this identity structure might be caught thinking "
I am a self that contains multitudes. When I operate in the interindividual mode, I care about all other individuals, no matter what their group or interpersonal identity may be. In this structure, I can no longer attack other groups or systems or the individuals who constitute them, because I experience every individual as sharing and constituting the being that I am, just as the interpersonal structure I experience a specific individual as sharing and constituting my being". Clearly, people who have this identity structure are able to be accepting of others regardless of values, projects, or impulses. Individuals with this identity structure are also said to have universal empathy with for all humans, and potentially non-human animals as well. With the ability to do so, they might judge all ideologies- including their own- to benefit other human beings. The current Dalai Lama comes to mind. Although he identifies with Buddhism (a religion.. of sorts), it does not become his sole identification. As eluded to in the quote in the picture (above), the Dalai Lama has no problem changing his belief system, clearly able to identify with other human beings over his own ideologies. As a Buddhist, the Dalai Lama also refrains from eating meat and harming the earth, a representation of his empathy not only for others like himself, but all organic beings. Also similar to Buddhist teachings, learning is highly valued, both for the individual and for all other people. It's actually quite amazing how similar this identity structure is to Buddhism- not convinced?
Check it out for yourself!
What an enlightening part of the book. Perhaps not surprisingly, I'm eager to read more!
Hi Maureen - I am completely with you on this one; I'm continually surprised by how much I'm enjoying Bracher's book. I liked the conceit you used here very much, encapsulating the identity structures in well-known public figures. The question that comes to my mind is one of ethics: Bracher situates the interindividual structure as the one that is the most universally accepting, but don't you think there's a chance that universal acceptance is another way of enabling actions that can cause others harm? That is, if we view everyone else as pursuing an agenda that is equal to our own, and recognize that they are as entitled to their own desires as we ourselves are, do we of necessity then render useless such concepts as morality (which, to my mind, is an autonomous version of social justice) or similar ethical concerns? And if we do take away the concept of morality, are we all returned to an impulsive identity structure only?Bear in mind this is not a point against your blog (which was well-writtent to the point that brought these ideas out), but merely a question for Bracher and perhaps another class discussion: can the interindividually-driven person fight for anything?? Thanks again, Maureen... :)
ReplyDeleteI'm so glad to hear someone else is enjoying the book as much as I am. I always feel a little like an eager beaver (oh, jeez) in class when I'm talking about the book in such a positive light when others are pointing out some of the possible deficiencies of it (which are always completely valid. Perhaps I just have a romanticized view of what we're reading?).
ReplyDeleteI like your question about whether or not the interindividual structure can actually cause others harm. Although at first glance I agree that we might be a little too accepting if we're constantly viewing others' agenda as similar to our own, I still think morality comes into play regardless. I believe that having such an identity structure- while viewing others as having the same basic desires as ourselves- maintains a solid sense of what actions do bring good, and what actions might be harmful despite having a preliminary sense of them being "acceptable". Let me try and explain. If this identity structure is, in fact, as similar to Buddhist morality as I think it is, then I believe that if someone with it were to encounter another person acting in a way that might be harmful to others, they would first understand that this person has his/her own right to pursue what they think is "best", while keeping in mind that it might not actually bring true happiness (or be truly moral). And in the end, I believe the person with the interindividual identity structure would, while still allowing the person to have the agency they're entitled to as a human being, try and provide opportunities for the other person to make decisions that might lead to more benefit and less harm.
The Dalai Lama was asked a question relating to whether or not it is "OK" to interfere with the actions of others if it means potentially doing something that, on paper, seems to be in opposition of some of the principles of Buddhism (this one being non-action/non-violence). I think this relates to what we're discussing because interfering with another person's actions might be perceived as "impulsive" while still being true to the interindividual identity structure. Here's the example the Dalai Lama gave in response:
"A man goes to a river that is extremely difficult and dangerous to cross and is going to swim across it. Two people are watching nearby and they both know that if this person goes in the river, he will drown in the current. One looks on placidly and does nothing - he thinks he must be nonviolent and that this means he must not interfere. The second person shouts out to the swimmer and tells him not to go into the water. The current is dangerous. The swimmer says, "I don't care. I'm going in anyway." They argue and finally, in order to stop the swimmer from killing himself, the person on shore hits him and knocks him unconscious. In that situation, the person who just sits by and is willing to watch the man go in the water and drown is the one who commits an act of violence. The nonviolent person is the one who actually stops the man from killing himself, even if he had to resort to a forceful method"
I hope this helps!! Perhaps we can discuss it further in class to really clear it up. Thanks for your post, I really enjoyed contemplating everything you brought up.
Mau
Hi Maureen and Stephanie,
ReplyDeleteGreat way of presenting Bracher's identity structures Maureen. I was really compelled reading your blog to find out who you would choose for each identity! And, I'm really enjoying reading this thread of responses. I wasn't thinking of morality so much when I read about about the interindividual identity, but I did wonder how realistic it is that we unenlightened humans could ever attain this level of being in the world. Certainly the first person who came to my mind that emulates this was the Dalai Lama. I read his biography many years ago and was very struck at that time by his forgiveness for those who had caused him and his people so much harm. At the time of reading that, I was struck by how far I was from that ability to forgive and let go of my own convictions of right or wrong. Reading Bracher elicits some of the same questions for me. Can I forgive, can I be empathetic to people so different from myself who use harm of others as their way of dealing with their own hurt? I'm still not sure I can totally embrace the complexity of this approach, but I certainly see the value and necessity to do so.
The most interesting part of reading the blogs every week is finding out how the class relates the theories in the text books to currents events and personal stories. My understanding of specific topics discussed, in the books we read, is enhanced when dissected in a personalized blog. I found the connections you made in this blog to be relevant and on task. One of the criticisms that arose in class was that Bracher’s book was dated and his examples were no longer appropriate. The political, celebrity, and popular cultural examples you wrote about made exploring the five identity structure relatable and even more appealing.
ReplyDeleteHi Maureen,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this post and how you used humour and socially relevant figures to portray your points (it’s kind-of sad that we all who Lindsay Lohan is, isn’t it?). The thing that I enjoyed most about reading Bracher was that it made me think about what motivates individuals and what has motivated my behaviour throughout the years. Like you illustrated in your post, the ideas Bracher puts forth can be a bit obscure but then when you think about them for a moment you can extrapolate them into real life situations. Like you, I thought all of the different concepts Bracher puts forth about identity were so interesting! I love seeing how everyone makes the concepts their own and how they understand them from their own perspective. Thank you for sharing your ideas and for your wonderful insight on how different types of people have their needs met through identity structures!