Summary #4 Maria Adela Tamayo

S/R/ Identity as an Analytic Lens for Research in Education/ Maria Adela Tamayo/ August 13th, 2018/ Link posted

APA/MLA
   
    APA: Gee, J.P. (2000). Identity as an Analytic Lens for Research in Education. Review of Research in Education, 25,99, doi:10.2307/1167322

    MLA: Gee, James Paul. “ Identity as an Analytic Lens for Research in Education. Review of Research in Education ., vol.25, 2000, p.99., doi: 10.2307/167322.

Summary:
    Gee states that identity has taken on many different meanings. He wants to sketch out one application he seen common in the research. When we interact with others, we are acting as a “certain kind of person” or even several different “certain kinds of people”. He states that who we are recognized as can be changed from moment to moment and also based on context. This is identity. He states that all people have multiple identities connected to how we act. He states the terms we use to define it are not important and what’s important that it can be used as an analytic to study important issues. Gee developed 4 different perspectives on recognized as a certain kind of person. The 4 perspectives are nature-identity, institution -identity, discourse- identity and affinity- identity. He uses one single example to explain how all the perspectives are connected and not 4 separate identities.
    The first perspective is the nature, a state of who I am such as a twin. I am a twin because I was born a twin, its not something that I do to be a twin or accomplish. The source of identity is nature because I born with it. Even nature identities can only exist if they are recognized by others or myself. Nature identities must be recognized  by other identities such as institutions, discourse and affinity groups. The next identity is the institutional identities. He uses the example of being a professor. This is not given by nature or can be accomplished by yourself. To be a professor, a set of authorities have to recognize that you are a professor. The institution has to give the power and this power are the laws and rules they follow. The third perspective is discursive. He uses the example of being known for a specific characteristic such as his friend who is charismatic. That trait cant be part of her identity unless someone has said it to others. When people interact with others as that person is charismatic or treat that person like they charismatic. So the source of identity is another rational individual. The last perspective is an affinity group. He uses the example of Star Trek fans who are known as Trekkies. People look at these people as fans of Star Trek but being a Trekkie means they have experienced certain experiences. The source of identity is the “distinctive practices” of the group.
    Throughout the article Gee returns to the same example of ADHD child to explain how all the perspectives are connected. The example is that the child is Motorola active and attention wanders in class. They diagnose the child with ADHD. This would be considered the nature -identity of the child because a doctor and psychologists have diagnosed the child. When they start to treat the child this nature-identity also becomes an institution- identity. The 2 separate identities support each other.  The child that is labeled as ADHD can also be a discursive identity. In different situations the child with ADHD characteristics can be seen in different ways. In one classroom that is overcrowded and has a frustrated teacher even if that child doesn’t have an official diagnosis, they may still be labeled as having ADHD. While  in another classroom this child can be treated as gifted or needs to be challenged. Research has shown that poorer children are often labeled as ADHD while more privileged children are seen as gifted.
    School reform has tried to create a classroom that is a community where they learn as a group, where knowledge is shared. This classroom is an affinity group. Where they are proactive in looking for knowledge and are responsible to each other to learn. In order for an identity to be “recognized” we do need a system to interpret. This could be the historical and cultural views of nature, norms, traditions and rules of institutions. So one trait can be negotiated and be seen differently. In the modern world our identity is not given to us by tradition such you are priest, lady, lord or monk. But now identity  is living a life project that we have to form as an individual. He also discusses how in a classroom different groups of students are treated differently by their identities.  An African American girl in the classroom who is excited and asks questions without raising their hand is treated like a troublemaker. Not as a child that is excited to learn. Yet in another classroom the gifted children are left to do their work alone while the teacher is at the desk.

Response:

I like that he discusses that the 4 perspectives are connected. That all these separate perspectives that make up an identity are connected. It shows just how complicated identity is. We need other people in order to figure out who we are. But one trait that is seen as one type of identity feature can also be seen as another identity. This shows that all of its connected and every aspect of our identity makes us who we are.

Quotations:

A person who is recognized as “intelligent” in academic discourses may be viewed as quite dim in a variety of discourses that celebrate “street smarts”. (Luttreli, 1997)

But the importance of recognition, has been modified/ intensified by the new understanding of individual identity that emerges at the end of the 18th century we might speak of an individualized identity, one that is particular to me and that I discover myself… This new ideal of authenticity was, like the idea of dignity, also in part of a different shoot of the decline of hierarchical society. In those earlier societies, what we should now call identity was largely fixed by one's social position. (Taylor,1994, pp. 28,31)