Introduction: Theories, definitions and concepts

Identities are difficult to grasp – in more ways than one. Conceptually, ‘identity’ is probably one of the most fuzzy concepts constantly used in the social and cultural sciences. For several disciplines it is a key term, notably psychology, anthropology and cultural studies, but standard and encyclopaedic definitions are highly diverse, even within one discipline. We know that every person has ‘an identity’, but we also know that people have multiple identities. The term's root is the Latin word for ‘the same’ (idem), which highlights a contradiction found in each definition of ‘identity’. The notion of the uniqueness of each individual self seems to work against the sameness acknowledged in our sharing central attributes (e.g. gender, age, ethnicity) with other individuals and the fact that individuals forming groups is an essential part of ‘being human’.

Terms such as ‘ethnic identity’ and ‘national identity’, even when invoked as attributes of an individual, only take on meaning when they are shared with other individuals. As formulated by the French anthropologist and psychologist George Devereux, each individual belongs to a diverse range of meaningful categories (or ‘classes of attributes’) in which he or she is just one among many others. However, the unique combination of these categories is so specific that each individual is unequivocally identifiable and distinct from all others (Devereux 1978: 138). The broader the range of categories, the better an individual can respond – and find a place and position – in most diverse situations and contexts. It is this ability that makes an identity ‘functional’ (Devereux 1978: 170ff).

Identity, belonging and citizenship

Identities are difficult to grasp because of the boundedness of their ‘enactment’ to specific contexts and the different levels of enactment therein. Identities can be defined as ‘labels’ for belonging to certain categories, though these labels can be quite disconnected from actual cultural and social practices (Devereux 1978: 145; Brubaker 2004). The process of ‘labelling’ involves three different perspectives: the self-ascription of the individual, the habitus of the category (or the group itself) and the ‘outside world’ (non-group members). It can be presumed that the legitimacy of a label’s use in specific contexts is dependent on, not least, the degree of consensus across the three perspectives (Schneider 2002: 13). There are many empirical examples in which the consensus is not there.