| |
The STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ-BOLYAI issue article summary
The summary of the selected article appears at the bottom of the page. In order to get back to the contents of the issue this article belongs to you have to access the link from the title. In order to see all the articles of the archive which have as author/co-author one of the authors mentioned below, you have to access the link from the author's name. |
|
| |
Abstract: The identity and its relative balance imply, in every case, the existence of two parallel factors, of value conserving and representation. The individual becomes as he is by the acceptance of his particular characteristics, respectively, the representation of these mean the acceptance and representation of the existent - the confirmation, more precisely, the possibility of this. The question is if we can talk about, and in which sense, about parallel and respectively, overlapping identity types?
The father of the discipline, E.H. Erikson works with more identity types. Erikson speaks about self (individual) identity, cultural identity, sexual identity, social identity, collective identity, and national identity. The raw material that constitutes the identity is the ensemble of social categories, which surrounds the individual as an external coat and with which the individual is, sometimes partially, connected to. According to David Bailey and Stuart Hall, the identity is situational, and we can speak simultaneously of fractured and decentered identities. Through the identity fragmentation and multiplication, Donna Haraway introduces a new type of identity, which appears from the divide and reunification of the elements of personality. This enumeration proves that the researches concerning the identity are not part of a unitary mainstream.
In time, the research concerning the identity has known three main currents, among which there exist important conceptual differences. The first approach stands close to psychoanalysis continued mainly by D. Miller, H. Hartmann, D.J. de Levita. The second one consists of what S. Hall refers to as the interactive concept of self and sociological subject. The third approach builds on the postmodern subject. The one who formulates this concept is Stuart Hall, who states that the postmodern subject does not posses a static, essential and continuous identity. The subject can be defined historically and not biologically.
|
|
