Irving T. Summary One

Gee, James Paul. “Identity as an Analytic Lens for Research in Education.” Review of Research in Education, vol. 25, 2000, pp. 99–125. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1167322

SUMMARY

Gee’s article is written as a tool to approach identity within the realm of education. As he states in his article, views on race, gender and class have their ability to shape people’s behavior based on their interactions with gatekeepers and institutions. Gee explains four ways to view identity (identity is defined in the article as acting and interacting as a certain “kind of person”) and breaks down the relationship between three components; the Process, the Power and the Source of power. The first identity mentioned is Nature-id, a state. It can be understood as a state of being given by nature in which the individual has no control over. The personal example he mentions is his birth as an identical twin. The second identity mentioned is Institution-id, a position. An identity considered a “calling” or an “imposition”. Gee’s role as a professor at a university is an example of a “calling”. Someone’s diagnosis as having ADHD by a psychologist is the example of an “imposition”. The third identity mentioned is Discourse-id, an individual trait. Gee states the example of a charismatic friend. As the term implies discourse is a two-way street and this D-id is as much of an active or passive identity based on how much one is actively recruiting or facilitating the responses of others to form the charismatic attribute.    The fourth identity mentioned is Discourse-id, experiences. Here he takes the example of someone who is a Star Trek fan who participates in “experiences” of attending shows, meeting Star Trek actors, interacting with Trekkies in chat rooms among other experiences.

Nature-identity (N-Identity)

Institution-identity (I-Identity)

Discourse-identity (D-Identity)

Affinity-identity (A-Identity)

RESPONSE

Gee takes a practical approach to identity in this article. He calls identity plainly as a ”kind of person” acting and interacting depending on the context. He elaborates more on the definition throughout most of this article. Including his discussion on how these four identities (nature, institution, discourse and affinity) can be compartmentalized or not; in most cases not. They overlap, interact, clash and influence one another based on the “core identity” of an individual. One example Gee explores is the label of “African American”. According to Gee’s, it can be understood as an N-Identity by Black nationalists along with positive attributes and ties to the African continent. In contrast, it can be understood as an N-Identity by racists along with negative attributes and ties to biology with the intent of justifying oppression. That same label can be viewed as I-Identity such as in the Jim Crow system, or D-Identity in politics and reform, or A-Identity as a business organization, Black Entertainment TV (BET) comes to mind.

I praise Gee for thoroughly breaking down the identities in a chart along with vast examples of how they overlap or shift based on individuals and contexts (modern, postmodern, new capitalism). Glee, however, does not expand with such extent the involvement of educational institutions or other institutions, as the title leads the reader to believe. Glee provides one scenario with a few examples. In the scenario students of color labelled “at risk” lack access to forming identities in a particular elementary school in an urban area.  According to this part of the article, the youth of color are “imposed” their I-Identities by certain institutions (schools, teachers, legislation, other labels) and are the victims of restraints even when the classroom is diverse and claims to be a “liberal” school.

QUOTATIONS

“A person might be recognized as being a certain kind of radical feminist, homeless person, overly macho male, “yuppie,” street gang member, community activist…The “kind of person” one is recognized as “being,” at a given time and place, can change from moment to moment in the interaction, can change from context to context, and, of course, can be ambiguous or unstable.  

“Like I-Identities, D-Identities can be placed on a continuum in terms of how active or passive one is in “recruiting” them, that is, in terms of how much such identities can be viewed as merely ascribed to a person versus an active achievement or accomplishment of that person.”

“…at root, human beings must see each other in certain ways and not others if there are to be identities of any sort. If an attribute is not recognized as defining someone as a particular “kind of person,” then, of course, it cannot serve as an identity of any sort.”

“As Zygmunt Bauman (1998) has pointed out, elites today can use their mobility to “flee” local conditions and restraints, leaving the “locals” to clean up the “messes” they leave behind, whether these messes are changed ecologies or economies…At the same time, in such a world it is imperative that we imagine new forms of discourse and dialogue — forms that remain aware, however, of the fact that, in our world, the global has utterly “infected” the local.”