Communication theory of identity (Part II)

In my previous post, I discussed the main tenets of the communication theory of identity (CTI) and some of its  more recent developments. Specifically, I looked at "identity gaps" but didn't have a chance to talk about negotiation of cultural identity, which Hecht et al. (2005) identify, in their book chapter "A Communication Theory of Identity: Development, Theoretical Perspective, and Future Directions," as another new direction of CTI. I will begin with that and then will discuss the overall strengths and weaknesses of the theory.

In  African American Communication: Ethnic Identity and Cultural Interpretation, Hecht, Collier, and Ribeau (1993) acknowledge the need for more direct examination of identity negotiation processes: "If identities are negotiated in everyday conversation and if identity negotiation is a process, then we need much more information about the negotiation process itself" (p. 173). Both Collier and Jackson accepted this challenge and constructed their own theories of identity negotiation. Collier (2005, 2009) offered the cultural identity negotiation theory, which had evolved from the cultural identity theory (Collier & Thomas, 1988; Collier, 2009). Cultural identity negotiation theory emphasizes researcher reflexivity, calls for attention to the material and social consequences of cultural identity negotiation, incorporates attention to forms of discourse that subjugate certain groups of people, focuses on social equality and justice, recognizes that research methods (i.e., interviews, analysis of public discourse, etc.) can contribute to reproduction of inequality. Arguably the most cited component of that theory is the idea that the interpretive and critical approaches can be effectively integrated for study of cultural identity negotiation. Interestingly, Collier (2009) points to African American Communication: Ethnic Identity and Cultural Interpretation as a part of the earlier development of the cultural identity theory, but despite an apparent family resemblance between CTI and the cultural identity theory, Hecht et al. (2005) don't refer to the cultural identity negotiation theory as a new development of CTI and for some reason limit their discussion to the work of Ronald Jackson.

Drawing on Ting-Toomey's (1986, 1999) identity validation model and utilizing some aspects of CTI, Jackson (2002) constructed his cultural contracts theory. This theory focuses on the notion of cultural contracts as end products of  identity negotiation during communication with others. These contracts specify the rules and conditions for mutual identity coordination. Based on his earlier work, the negotiation of cultural identity is defined as "a bargaining process in which two or more individuals consider the exchange of ideas, values, and beliefs" and which leads to "the gain, loss, or exchange of his or her ability to interpret their own reality or worldview" (Jackson, 1999, p.10). "This negotiation takes place through core symbols, meanings, and labels attributed to individual identity and through which individuals understand reality" (Hecht, Jackson, & Pitts, 2005, p. 34). Jackson (2009) lists three axioms or premises on which his theory is based (namely, (1) identities require affirmation; (2) identities are constantly being exchanged; and (3) identities are contractual) and specifies three types of cultural contracts. Ready-to-sign cultural contracts have been already established and are not negotiable. "These contracts are designed to promote assimilation or maintain one's own worldview" (p. 258). Quasi-completed cultural contracts are most common. They have some room for negotiation and relational coordination of identities. Co-created cultural contracts are fully negotiable. They aim at "mutual satisfaction, rather than obligation to the requirements of the other's culture" and are "the ideal kinds of social agreements" (p. 259). Among the limitations of the theory, Jackson acknowledges its limited insight into how an individual develops, sustains, or shifts his/her cultural contracts over time and how s/he moves from one contract to another with different people.

To me, the first two axioms of the cultural contracts theory (identities require affirmation and identities are constantly being exchanged) seem more self-evident than the third one, which proclaim that identities are contractual. Jackson implicitly justifies that latter assumption by pointing to the similarities between contractual processes of buying a home (or a car) and cultural identity negotiation. In both cases, people negotiate differences of opinion and come (or not to come) to a mutually acceptable deal. Also in both cases, there is some "small print" that contains hidden features of the agreement, which often remain unrecognized or not fully understood by the parties involved. As Jackson (2002) puts it, "the tragic reality is that most people neither understand all of the contracts they have signed nor all of the implications of having signed them" (p. 362). On the other hand, as Jackson's (1999) study shows, a conscious negotiation of cultural identity is not routinely experienced by members of either dominant or minority group, which, in turn, raises an interesting question of whether the results of a negotiation can be considered a signed contract when the parties involved are not aware that a negotiation took place. In my view, there is a significant difference between not understanding all the details and consequences of the signed contract AND not being aware of signing a contract

Overall, as Hecht et al. (2005) point out, negotiation of cultural identity is an important development of CTI, and I think that this development can benefit the theory even more if the analysis of identity negotiation processes is more tightly connected to the four frames of identity and/or integrated with the concept of identity gaps. In my future posts, I'll explain my idea on how to achieve that.

To sum up, CTI is an appealing communication theory with a considerable heuristic power. It goes beyond simply providing a list of loosely integrated theoretical propositions, which some theories (including cultural identity theory and cultural identity negotiation theory) do, and attempts to construct a coherent framework for communication analysis of multiple and shifting postmodern "saturated" identities. CTI presents a way of bringing together, under one theoretical roof, analyses of personal identities, relational roles, and group identifications, which before presented a gap in identity theorizing (Burke & Stets, 2009). Moreover, by including the enactment layer of identity, the theory moves communication to the forefront of identity theorizing and valorizes its role, which is important for a communication theory. At the same time, this conceptualizing of enactment as a separate layer, along with the personal, relational, and communal ones, is also one thing that I find somewhat problematic in CTI. In my view, this parallel fashion in which the layers are presented obscures the fact that there is no any other access to identity, including personal, relational, and communal aspect of it, but only through communication. Further, according to CTI, each of the four layers or frames of identity  represent a specific "location" of identity: identity resides in an individual as self-concept, in a relationship (for example, as a relational role), in a group as group prototypes and collective memories, and in communication "as a performance, as expressed" (Hecht et al., 2005, p. 263). Hecht et al. (1993) also insist that "frames are not only research or analytical perspectives but are also ways people have of conceptualizing their own identity" (p. 165). It's possible that performance inclined people may indeed conceptualize their identities "as a performance, as expressed," but there is currently no empirical support for the assertion that this is generally the case. What research shows is that (1) an identity provides an individual with a frame of reference in which to interpret both the social situation and his/her own communication actions, (2) this frame of reference is a subject to alteration and revision, and (3) those "revisions" can be initiated by and through interaction (Burke & Stets, 2009).

Despite my attraction to CTI, I think there is a more elegant way of bringing communication to the forefront of identity theorizing and not obscuring the relationship between communication and various layers of identity. This way follows the work of Bucholtz and Hall (2004) and Van Dijk (2009) and is based on approaching identity as a product of situated social action. Then, the locus of identity lies not in a person, communication, a relationship, or a group, but in a communicative situation. This approach has a lot of in common with CTI, but more about this later...




References:

• Bucholtz and Hall (2004). Language and identity. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 369-394). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 
• Collier, M. J. (2005). Theorizing cultural identifications: Critical updates and continuing evolution. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 235-256). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Collier, M. J. (2009). Cultural identity theory. In S. W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (Vol. 1, pp. 260-262). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural identity: An interpretive perspective. In Y. Y.. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 99-120). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• 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., Jackson, R. L., & Pitts, M. J. (2005). Culture: Intersections of intergroup and identity theories. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 21-42). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• 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.
• Jackson, R. L. (1999). The negotiation of cultural identity: Perceptions of European and African Americans. Westport, CT: Praeger.
• Jackson, R. L. (2002). Cultural contracts theory: Toward an understanding of identity negotiation. Communication Quarterly, 50, 359-367.
• Jackson, R. L. (2009). Cultural contracts theory. In S. W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (Vol. 1, pp. 257-260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
•  Ting-Toomey, S. (1986). Interpersonal ties in intergroup communication. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intergroup communication (pp. 114-126). Baltimore, MD: Edward Arnold.
• Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Van Dijk (2009). Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.