The social construction of identity

An analysis of how we construct our identity through family and society. After an endless night, it is finally dawn. Marc opens his little eyes and jumps out of bed. He starts running excitedly to the living room, with his eyes wide open, thinking that this year Santa Claus was going to bring him lots of presents and goodies, since he had done all his homework. However, when he arrived he was surprised to see coal next to a letter, "next year help mom and dad".

Mine or yours?

One of the worst moments of childhood is the disappointment experienced by Marc. However, this feeling does not come from having received coal. The discomfort comes from the fact that Marc, who thought he had behaved well, is being told that, in the eyes of others, he has behaved badly. So, is Marc a good or a bad person? Is Marc a good child or a bad child, and are his own eyes right or the eyes of others?

The duality of identity

This duality reflects that there is a part of us that we are not aware of and only from the outside, is communicated to us. Insofar as our conception of ourselves may differ from that of others, we are presented with a duality in the perspective of identity.e are presented with a duality in the perspective of identity.. In this sense, there may well be a perception of one's own identity, but there are aspects of it that we can only access through others. Mead (1968) was one of the first theorists to differentiate a more personal identity from a more social identity ("me" and "I"), as two parts that coexist within the person and feed back on each other. Although he was trying to identify two elements, he was really pointing to a process; a continuous relationship of the person with the environment that shapes and of the person shaping the environment.

We could say in a few words that, just as we are aware that we have two eyes or a nose because we can touch them, it is only in the mirror that we see ourselves clearly. Following this line, society is that reflection, thanks to which we can discern the way we are..

Required reading: "Personal and social identity".

What is mine?

If you think that you are only you, I am going to start by trying to disprove you and, for the moment, tell you that you are less you than you think. you are less you than you think. Identity is usually defined as a unitary set of traits that remain stable and allow for self-identification. self-identificationa firm core to hold on to.

Why we are the way we are and self-identification

Let's imagine Marc growing up and how he becomes a goth feeling misunderstood; and then a skater without getting involved in anything; and then a romantic looking for commitment; and then a bachelor with a crazy life; and then a businessman; and then... Where is that stability? However, the person is able to perceive it, the person is able to perceive it and to understand himself in each of the contexts.. That is, each of us can understand ourselves in each of our stages. In terms of Bruner (1991), identity is situated -in a space-time- and distributed -it is decomposed in several facets-. Not only is one able to understand oneself in each of its facets in one's life, but one is also understood by others; Marc's parents have understood him in each episode of his growth.

Self-concept and its relation to identity

This fact opens the door to the theory of mental models (Johnson-Laird, 1983). Although it is now in doubt what we are, it is true that we have an idea of ourselves in our head, a self-concept. Moreover, this self-concept serves as a mentalhis self-concept serves as a mental model for our behavioral repertoire: we can imagine how we would act in different situations or in front of different people.We can imagine how we would act in different situations or in front of different people. Thanks to this, we can maintain an internal coherence of what we think of ourselves and not fall into cognitive dissonance. This is how, in each interaction, we evoke to the outside part of who we are, since in this process we only evoke the features of our self-concept related to our environment, to our here and now -in a discotheque we would certainly not show the same part of ourselves as we would in front of an exam-.

Continuing with another metaphor, let us think for a moment in the case of an old painter, in a chair, with a canvas before him, behind a lush meadow. No matter how many hours you spend sitting and trying to recreate the landscape around you, you will never be able to accurately represent every detail that reality shows you, you will never be able to accurately represent every detail that reality shows you.. There will always be a small leaf or some shade of color that will only exist in reality. It is because of this fact that, when you paint, you are recreating reality, not creating it.

What is yours?

This is how, although we may believe ourselves to be much, what we are to the other, may be less. Just at this point I propose to change it, to tell you that you can be different from what you imagine..

Let's go back to our previous metaphors. For example, to Marc's experience, in which the question of whether it is "good" or "bad" is determined by whether you value doing your homework or helping your parents more. Or more simply, to the case of the painter, that after finishing the painting, everyone will have his own impression of it.

The emission and interpretation of intentions

In this line, it is shown how in the interaction, our interlocutor develops a process of inferences. This process is based on interpreting the semantics and pragmatics of the message, what and how it is said. From this, he/she does not interpret the message, but the intentionality of the sender, with what intention we are addressing him/her. Several studies show that communication features such as accent, formalism or others, create different people's biases about their status, competence, anxiety, etc. (Ryan, Cananza and Moffie, 1977; Bradac and Wisegarver, 1984; Bradar, Bowers and Courtright, 1979; Howeler, 1972).

Based on these cues, the receiver interprets our intention and thereby creates his or her own mental model of us.. Because just as we imagine how we would act in different situations, we also elaborate a prefixed image of the other person that allows us to predict what he or she might do or say, think or feel; what we can expect from that person. It is one of the basic heuristics to process information with greater agility: if I can foresee, I can give an answer sooner.

That is the same purpose in the role of the receiver: to give an answer. In every relationship we have, the other person elaborates his or her feedback. feedbackfeedback, their feedback, based on their interpretation of our actions. And if we have already said that our actions are somewhat different from what we would think and that the interpretation may be different from our intention, the feedback we receive may be totally different from what we expected. It can show us parts of us that we don't know or were not aware of; make us look different.

What do I decide to be?

So, as a third step in the process, I tell you that you are more than you thought you were, whether you like it or not, whether it turns out good or bad. We continuously receive feedback from the outside, in every interaction we have with others, with the environment and with ourselves. And that message we receive is not ignored, because we also exercise the same process they did with us: now we are the receiver. We interpret the intention behind it and it is then that we may find that we may be treated differently than we thought we were..

The importance of feedback in identity formation

In the process of interpretation, the mental model received from the outside comes into conflict with our own, i.e. how we are seen and how we see ourselves. Possibly, in the feedback received, new, unknown information has been included, which does not correspond to the idea we have of ourselves. This information will be included and integrated into our mental model from two features: the affective charge and the recurrence (Bruner, 1991).

Returning to the painter, he may receive different opinions about his painting, but he will be shocked if all of them are only criticisms -recurrence of the same feedback- or if one of them comes from his wife, whom he loves so much -affective load-.

We arrive then, at the danger zone. These two traits modulate the influence that "how we are seen" has on us.. If it is also very contrary to our initial mental model, we enter into cognitive dissonance, into internal incoherence due to the contradiction that they imply. Much of the psychological discomfort comes because we feel that "we do not receive what we give", or that "we are not how we want to be" and the strength of these beliefs can cause much suffering and psychological disorders such as depression if they become persistent and insidious.

But it is in this same risk zone, where the person can grow, where this feedback can add and not subtract. For personal development and growth, after defining this process, the keys are in the following points:

• Self-awarenessSelf-awareness: by being aware of one's self-concept and the surrounding context, we can optimize the adaptation of what we evoke. By being aware of how we are and what surrounds us, we are able to make the decision on how to best respond to the needs of our environment.

• Self-determinationSelf-determination: we can be aware that the feedback we receive is information about how others receive us. In this way we can think how to develop ourselves better and focus and obtain our goals.

• Self-critical senseIn the same way that the information from feedback can help us to achieve our goals, it can also help us for personal growth. Knowing what to take from the feedback we receive to improve, or what areas it is showing us that we still need to strengthen. In this case, it is important to know how to recognize what needs our environment satisfies for us.

• Self-regulationSelf-regulation: the ability to be more or less flexible in each of the parts of the "being". Whether we know how to expose ourselves authentically or to put up defenses when necessary, whether we know how to make the most of what we are told or to discard it if it is too contaminated. The fact of optimizing our resources and our own management

Finally, you can be less, you can be different, and you can be more. But - and excuse me for the expression - I leave you in the most "screwed" situation of all, and that is that you can be whatever you want to be.

Bibliographical references:

• Bradac, J. J. and Wisegarver, R. (1984). Ascribed status, lexical diversity, and accent: Determinants of perceived status, soladirity and control speech style. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3, 239-256.
• Bradac, J. J. J., Bowers, J. W., & Courtright, J. A. (1979). Three language variables in communication research: Intensity, immediacy, and diversity. Human Communication Research, 5, 257-269.
• Bruner, J. (1991). Actos de significado. Más allá de la revolución cognitiva. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
• Johnson-Laird, Philip N (1983). Mental Models: Toward a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference and Consciousness. Harvard University Press.
• Howeler, M. (1972). Diversity of Word usage as a stress indicator in an interview situation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1, 243-248.
• Mead, G. H.: Espíritu, persona y sociedad, Paidós, Buenos Aires, 1968 a.C
• Ryan, E. B., Cananza, M. A. y Moffie, R. W. (1977). Reactions towards varying degrees of accentedness in the speech of Spanish-English. Language and Speech, 20, 267-273.