Communication theory of identity

Pre-surgery jitters and post-surgery blues have disrupted my writing schedule and delayed this post. I will try to return to weekly postings. In this post, I'd like to talk about communication theory of identity.

According to the National Communication Association, the communication studies discipline deals with all forms, modes, media and consequences of communication. Not surprisingly, the discipline's theorizing of identity usually focuses on the role of communication in construction and negotiation of identity. It won't be an exaggeration to say that most of communication identity theorizing falls into the area of intercultural communication. Communication theory of identity (CTI), which I use in my dissertation, is not an exception.

One of the earlier developments of CTI was presented in  African American Communication: Ethnic Identity and Cultural Interpretation, by Michel Hecht, Mary Jane Collier, and Sidney Ribeau (1993). The book attempts to articulate how African Americans define themselves and how they perceive intra- and inter-ethic communication. The study follows an interpretive approach, with researchers focusing on the group members' perceptions and interpretations of social and communicative processes. So-called "sensitizing constructs" play a central role in the study. These constructs "point out the means by which persons create ethnic culture and identity and reinforce their commonality" (p. 22). There are several types of sensitizing constructs. The first two are core symbols and prescriptions. Because people define themselves and their experiences through their beliefs and understandings as expressed in core symbols and through prescriptions, those two sensitizing constructs point the researchers toward central ontological and axiological beliefs of the ethnic culture. The authors provide several examples of core symbols identified in the previous research. For instance, Collier (1989) argued that communication among African American friends reflects the core symbol of respect for the individual, and Carbaugh (1989), in his analysis of popular TV shows, found that "self-expression" is a core symbol of mainstream U.S. identity. Hecht et al. insist that, in addition to understanding of 'what is' that comes from the engagement with core symbols, researchers also need to understand participants' notions of 'what ought to be' that are provided by prescriptions. Their next sensitizing construct is  communication as problematic. The authors conceptualize communication "as a problematic event during which persons assign meanings and jointly create identities and social reality" (p. 26). Additional sensitizing constructs are conversation, code, and community. They help to shift "our attention to how symbols, meanings, and norms occur in conversations and become codes of conduct that create shared identities" (p. 28). Using these sensitizing constructs as guiding tools, Hecht et al. explore the ethnic identity of African-American participants, link it to communication issues, and make further connections to communication competence and communication satisfaction. In the conclusion of the book, the authors return to the explications of the meaning of "identity" made from the existing literature and discussed earlier in the book and, based on them, list eight overall assumptions of the theory:

1. Identities have individual, enacted, relational, and communal properties;
2. Identities are both enduring and changing;
3. Identities are affective, cognitive, behavioral, and spiritual;
4. Identities have both content and relationship levels of interpretation;
5. Identities involve both subjective and ascribed meanings;
6. Identities are codes that are expressed in conversations and define membership in communities;
7. Identities have semantic properties that are expressed in core symbols, meanings, and labels;
8. Identities prescribe modes of appropriate and effective communication. 

The main proposition of CTI is that there are four frames of identity: personal, enacted, relational, and communal. Hecht et al. view these frames as locations of identity. "Identity is 'stored' within individuals, relationships, and groups and is communicated within and between partners and group members" (p. 164). Those four frames or levels of identities don't exist in isolation from each other, but interact and interpenetrate one another. The authors insist that frames are means of interpreting "reality" and can be considered as sensitizing constructs.

Identity as a personal frame provides an understanding of how individuals define themselves.  There are three additional assumptions that are characteristic for this frame:

1. Identities are hierarchically ordered meanings attributed to the self as an object in a social situation;
2. Identities are meanings ascribed to the self by others in the social world;
3. Identities are a source of expectations and motivations.

Identity as an enactment frame focuses on the messages that express identity and on the meanings that are created through (and by) identity enactment. This frame has two additional assumptions:

1. Identities are emergent;
2. Identities are enacted in social behaviors, social roles, and symbols.

Identity as a relationship frame has three levels. First, identity is relational because individuals' enactments of their identities (and ultimately, their identities) are shaped by their interactional partners. "The person I am with you is not the person I am with someone else" (p. 167). Second, identity is relational because people gain identity through relational roles (i.e., spouse, friend, parent, etc.) and define themselves in terms of those relationships. Third, identity is relational because a group of people involved in a relationship becomes an entity with a distinct identity (e.g., family, dating couple, etc.). "Identity as Relationship shares the assumptions of Identity as Enactment, although this time the focus is on the mutual or relational aspects" (p. 168).

1. Identities emerge in relationship to other people;
2. Identities are enacted in relationships;
3. Relationships develop identities as social entities.

Identity as a communal frame provides understanding of something which is central to the group identity and which brings its members together. The following is the assumption of Identity as Communal Frame:

1. Identities emerge out of groups and networks.

In his essay "A Research Odyssey: Toward the Development of Communication Theory of Identity," Hecht (1993) restates main assumptions and general propositions of CTI, but instead of connecting them to a specific empirical project, as Hecht, Collier, and Ribeau did in African American Communication: Ethnic Identity and Cultural Interpretation, he puts the theory into the context of the communication research development during the next 10 years.

"A Communication Theory of Identity: Development, Theoretical Perspective, and Future Directions," by Hecht, Warren, Jung, & Krieger, in Theorizing About Intercultural Communication, edited by Gudykunst (2005), presents a revised version of CTI. One of its main differences is in the wording and number of  basic assumptions of the theory, which I discussed above. Moreover, in the revised version, these assumptions are called "basic propositions." In fact, in their book, Hecht et al. also use the word "proposition," but that happens only once (on p. 168) and in the rest of the discussion the word "assumption" is consistently used. Another difference deals with new directions in CTI, such as identity gaps and negotiation of cultural identity.

The concept of "identity gaps" has been introduced to better account for the interplay, interpenetration, and divergences between the identity frames. According to Jung and Hecht (2004), although CTI is "particularly concerned with this quality of interpretation or juxtaposition of identities," that specific "part of the theory is not well articulated or understood" (p. 267). Identity gaps are discrepancies that can exist between or among any of the four identity frames. For example, "The personal-relational identity gap refers to discrepancies between how an individual views him- or herself (personal identity) and his or her perception of how others view him or her (a type of relational identity)" (Hecht et al., 2005, p. 268). Research shows that such discrepancies (or gaps) are associated with multiple undesired outcomes, such as, stress, insecurity, relational dissatisfaction, etc. (e.g., Breakwell, 1986; Deaux, 1992; Thoits, 1991). Hecht et al. argue that examining identity gaps could lead to better understanding of various aspects of identity, their connections to communication, and ultimately to a higher communication satisfaction. I agree with Hecht et al. on the importance of better understanding the interplay of different identity layers, and I appreciate them developing a specific conceptual tool to approach that issue. At the same time, as a communication scholar, I'm not so much interested in identity gaps per se, but in how individuals deal with those gaps and how the living of one's identity in its all-encompassing and self-contradictory complexity is reflected in and shaped by daily communication. This question is difficult to approach empirically. For one thing, people are not always conscious of the steps they take to manage identity gaps. Moreover, the nature and perceived intensity of identity gaps vary across situations. Identifying identity gaps among and between different identity layers is an important first step, but, to get a better insight, additional conceptual tools may be  necessary (More about it later, when I get to a discussion of the theoretical contribution of my dissertation).

My post is getting too long, and I still have a lot to say about CTI. I guess I better stop here and discuss the rest in my next post.

References:

• Breakwell, G. M. (1986). Coping with threatened identities. New York, NY: Methuen. 
• Carbaugh, D. (1989).  Talking American: Cultural discourses on Donabue. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Deaux, K. (1992). Focusing on the self: Challenges to self-definition and their consequences for mental health. InD. N. Ruble, P. R. Costanzo, & M. E. Oliveri (Eds.), The social psychology of mental health: Basic mechanisms and applications (pp. 301-323). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Hecht, M. L. (1993). A research odyssey: Toward the development of communication theory of identity. Communication Monographs, 60, 76-82.
•  Hecht, M. L., Collier, M. J., & Ribeau, S. A. (1993). African American communication: Ethnic identity and cultural interpretation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Hecht, M. L., Warren, J. R., Jung, E.,  & Krieger, J. L.  (2005). A communication theory of identity: Development, theoretical perspective, and future directions. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 257-278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Jung, E., & Hecht, M. L. (2004). Elaborating the communication theory of identity: Identity gaps and communication outcomes. Communication Quarterly, 52, 265-283.
•  Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 101-112.