4th Year
Identity is not a fixed concept in sociological practice; there is considerable debate over whether it is constructed through interaction (Goffman, 1956) or shaped by broader social structures (Crenshaw, 2003). Goffman conceptualises identity as a performance shaped through interaction. People present themselves differently across social groups, suggesting that there is no fixed or stable self. To summarise Goffman’s position, identity is fluid, situational, and primarily constructed. In contrast to Goffman’s understanding of identity, Crenshaw argues that identity is shaped by intersectionality, a concept coined in 1989 to explain how individuals are positioned across overlapping social categories such as race, gender, and class (Crenshaw, 2003). Crenshaw positions identity as structured and layered and is aware of power and oppression, drawing on feminist and Marxist perspectives, which shape identity through both gender and socioeconomic inequalities. Identity may be both constructed and structured but is ultimately constrained by power.
Goffman argues identity is shaped through social interaction, whilst Crenshaw portrays identity through intersectional social identities. Identity is conceptualised differently; whilst Goffman’s understanding is constructed through interaction, Crenshaw’s is structured by social forces. Goffman makes a strong argument for the construction of identity; he claims it is not a fixed experience but is constantly changing (Goffman, 1956). An individual’s perspective of life can shift constantly; there isn’t a fixed or stable self. Identity is shaped through ongoing social interactions, influenced by factors such as work, friendships, family, and daily interactions. As noted, “social identity can be understood as relating to the groups to which an individual belongs and their roles and reputation within those groups” (Olitskey, 2006). Goffman’s understanding, therefore, portrays identity as something individuals actively try to maintain, depending on how those around them respond, to elicit a positive response to their performance. However, Crenshaw argues that identity is shaped by race, gender, and class (Crenshaw, 2003); these impacts on the individual are socially imposed, including historical events such as racial segregation and women’s inability to vote, all factors that dictate an individual’s shaped or constrained identity. As explored by Gergen (1999), identity is shaped by social and political categories, especially for marginalised groups, where it is experienced as inherent and seldom freely chosen. Identity is closely tied to power inequalities, particularly within historical and cultural conditions. Crenshaw’s in-depth, historical understanding of identity formation emphasises that identity is not only performed but also positioned within societal expectations, as evident across cultures. It is not equally flexible and is heavily shaped by various power structures such as race, gender and class.
Goffman argues that identity is performed in relation to an audience; individuals therefore adjust their behaviour and self-presentation to manage how they are perceived (Goffman, 1956). Goffman’s stance acknowledges the individual’s agency over their identity, though shaped by systems of power that regulate both individual behaviour and broader social groups, as Foucault argues; identity operates at the intersection of bodily discipline and population control (Foucault, 1980). Collins extends this perspective by arguing that identity is shaped by systems of power that determine which experiences are recognised and which are marginalised, reinforcing structural inequalities (Collins, 2000). As a result, identity is negotiated, adjusted and performed to fit into society, friendships and relationships. Goffman’s stance, therefore, includes a sense of agency in the formation of identity, yet is often heavily impacted by societal expectations. To elaborate further, Goffman states that identity is performed in relation to the audience; individuals engage in impression management, adjusting their behaviour and self-presentation depending on how they wish to be perceived. Symbolic interactionist perspectives suggest that individual identity forms through social interaction, where the self emerges from social experiences and guides our behaviour (Serpe & Stryker, 2011). Going beyond intersectionality, Crenshaw portrays identity as shaped by institutions, including law, social systems, and cultural norms. Crenshaw also elaborates on how our identity is influenced by social structures such as gender, race, and class (Crenshaw, 2003). Therefore, individuals are situated within systems of power with limited agency (Crenshaw, 2003). Crenshaw’s opinion thus aligns with Marxist ideologies, in which identity is determined by class, shaping one’s opportunities, power, and experiences. Separately, Crenshaw expands on Marxist ideologies of society and the individual by stating that class is not enough, adding race and gender as intersecting structures, not purely focused on socioeconomics and class inequalities. Goffman explores how we shape our identity while maintaining a level of agency, whereas Crenshaw depicts identity as constrained by social structures and hierarchy (Crenshaw, 2003). While Goffman interprets identity as constructed or negotiated through social interaction and individual agency, Crenshaw contrasts this view, arguing that the structure of identity is embedded within systems of power, restricting our ability to shape it.
However, both perspectives are limited: Goffman and Crenshaw provide valuable insights into identity within society, but they overlook important factors. Goffman largely focuses on the performance of individual identity and the changes we make when we socialise in different contexts. This, therefore, overlooks structural issues in identity formation, including social structures, inequalities, and impacts such as culture, race, and gender. Goffman also presumes that individuals have agency (Goffman, 1956) in adapting their identities and that we have the fluidity to change when we’d like; this contrasts with social hierarchies and the opportunities afforded by socioeconomic status. Separately, Crenshaw’s limitations lie in her focus on power inequalities (Crenshaw, 2003), which limit the role of identity agency to a very narrow capacity. In comparison, Goffman assigns too much agency within his theory, whilst Crenshaw places too much emphasis on social structures. Goffman presumes identity is constructed, whilst Crenshaw argues it is structured and formed externally from the individual. Sociologists’ theories continue to contest how identity is formed. The difference between Goffman and Crenshaw lies in their understanding of identity: whether it is shaped by social interaction or by systems of power that portray agency at different levels.
Identity is debated as either constructed through interaction or structured by society; these two depend on the level of agency an individual has over their individuality. These two understandings, as explored by Goffman and Crenshaw, are contested with sociological practices. Crenshaw presents her argument through a macro-level understanding of identity; these factors are intersectional, shaped by race, gender, and class, and linked to power and inequality. Identity is shaped through both agency and structure, and reduced to perspective outlook, the roles of perception, individuality, and, ultimately, lived experience. Identity is neither equally experienced nor freely chosen; identity is performed but operates within limits set by social structures. Identity cannot be understood without power dynamics; it is shaped by both agency and structure, and although identity is flexible, its range is limited.
References
Collins, P. H. (2022). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.
Crenshaw, K. (2003). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. In L. M. Alcoff & E. Mendieta (Eds.), Identities: Race, class, gender and nationality. Blackwell, London.
Gergen, K. J. (1999). Social construction and the transformation of identity politics. End of knowing: A new developmental way of learning.
Goffman, E. (1956). Performances. In The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh University, Edinburgh.
Power, M. (2011). Foucault and sociology. Annual Review Sociology, 37, 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150133
Olitsky, S. (2006). Structure, agency, and the development of students’ identities as learners. Cultural Studies of Science Education., 1, 745–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-006-9033-x
Phoenix, A., & Pattynama, P. (2006). Intersectionality. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 187–192.
Serpe, R. T., & Stryker, S. (2011). The symbolic interactionist perspective and identity theory. In S. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_10
