4th Year
Guided Discussion Forums
Discussion 1
Question 2
- After reading the Study Guide entry for Week 1, feel free to discuss this question: How free do you think we really are to construct an identity as we please? Why? Hints: Think about cultural norms and the codes and conventions that inform how we function socially and privately. Think about government policy and bureaucratic practices that distribute and police social norms/rules
Identity, as a sociological study, is complicated by the level of agency an individual has in forming their identity. Personally, I believe our agency is limited by location, socioeconomic status, culture, and religion. Urban and rural lifestyles have conflicting values, with conformity commonly valued in rural villages. Educational options further inhibit agency in independent growth, where social exposure is limited; larger cities are exposed to more culture, creating more diversity and subcultures.
Further, socioeconomic status has determined cultural standing for thousands of years, and career opportunities and lifestyle expectations differ significantly between rural and urban environments. Marxist ideology argues that identity is shaped by socioeconomic status, with the bourgeoisie in contrast to the proletariat, where class division influences lifestyle, education, and values. This often occurs without the individual noticing, as class norms and expectations become internalised subconsciously. Marxist understanding of sociology and identity is powerful, as it brings to light capitalist cultures and their identities, particularly how class divisions shape identity.
Institutionalisation is a common feature of identity formation, whether in schooling, the workplace, government systems, or prisons; individuals are shaped and moulded into a conformist society. These institutions regulate the development of identity by determining what is legal and what is not, and by mandating reform and acceptable behaviour amongst the institutions. This creates a commonality between childhood through adulthood, conforming to social and professional expectations to simply “fit in”.
Social norms also regulate behaviour, expectations regarding gender, acceptable behaviour both publicly and privately, and clothing shape’s identity, both through rebellion and by fostering socially acceptable behaviour. These socially understood values have been shaped by rebellion, the integration of LGBTQI+ communities, sexual exploration, and fashion, which have altered the trajectory of these cultural expectations, demonstrating how social norms can evolve over time.
Identity is therefore partially constructed by individuals yet pressured by social structures. Socioeconomics, institutions, and social culture limit agency in the formation of individual identity. Therefore, the development of identity is heavily influenced by social constraints rather than being constructed by the individual.
Discussion 2
John Locke believes identity stems from a continuity of memory and consciousness rather than the physical body. This continuity arises from memories of both the present and the past, shaped over the course of the individual’s life. Therefore, identity stems from an individual’s consciousness, a result of actions taken. The different experiences an individual has gone through, therefore, shape the individual’s identity.
This theory is powerful, highlighting how actions, past and present, shape an individual’s consciousness. Locke’s view, therefore, expresses that identity is shaped over time as new memories are formed. Locke’s understanding challenges the idea that social structure permanently categorises an individual, a view argued by various sociologists. Locke, therefore, holds that people have some agency in shaping their identity via culture, social norms, and religion, which in turn impact past and present experiences and consciousness.
Locke identifies identity as internalised and experiences as shaped by social conditions. This contrasts with the view of sociologists, who argue that identity is formed by external social conditions. To contrast Locke’s theory with Marxism is to hold a powerful understanding of political and social theories.
Locke’s theory establishes that consciousness and identity form through psychological continuity, the extensive, ever-learning process of life and the development of new experiences (agency). This theory is liberal, stating that an individual has some agency in the formation of their personality and self. Further, in contrast to Marxist ideology, identity is formed through pre-ordered material conditions, whether material, economic, or class. A working-class individual’s identity is therefore preconceived and vastly different from that of the bourgeoisie, where privilege is a community. Marxist understanding of identity stems from the social and economic theory of class relations, which emphasises the collective, thereby positing a socially constructed identity rather than a developing stream of consciousness.
To conclude, Locke’s theory suggests that identity is formed through experiences, past and present, creating a stream of consciousness and shaping individual personality. This theory argues that a person has agency over their development. Marxist sociology differs in that identity is formed by social class, materiality, socioeconomics, and primarily by social structures, such as workplaces, schooling, prisons, and religion. My understanding is that social structures do contribute to identity, whilst experiences and our stream of consciousness are impactful. Therefore, I believe there is a balance between Locke’s theory of stream of consciousness and the Marxist understanding of social structure and its influence.
Discussion 3
Question – What do you think are the primary and then more secondary points made this week?
The primary topics explored in week three revolve around how different sociological understandings examine identity within social structures, individual agency, and, further, the construction of identity itself. The central subject matter this week was drawn from Marxist, symbolic interactionist, and ethnomethodological perspectives on identity.
Both sociological and political understandings of Marxism characterise society as shaped by class and structure, with behaviours of capitalist materialism, inherent inequality, and a structural divide between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The capitalist reinforcement, therefore, shapes individual identity while dismissing the idea of agency in development. This contrasts with ethnomethodology and structural symbolism, which emphasise identity development through daily interactions and symbols, guiding individual formation and separating it from wealth and materialism.
Our course content elaborates on the concept of macro and micro-level sociological theory. Marxism is a macro-level theory, focusing on large structures such as industrialisation, consumer capitalism and class. On the other hand, symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology examine the micro level, focusing on small, everyday interactions that subconsciously shape identity.
Week three had few secondary points as it was dominated by theory and terminology, primarily Marxism, symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology. These were further elaborated by scholars such as Goffman, Parsons, and Schutz. The secondary points identified this week include art and cartoons that illustrate the concepts of each theory through satire. Another secondary point includes the question regarding “unjumbling” Marxism, symbolic interactionism, and ethnomethodology to uncover the meaning of the three principles.
Discussion 4
Image: 19th-century anthropological collection
I’ve selected this image as it presents a strong idea of how race is constructed under European ideology and how it is imposed through power and subordination. The man depicted in this image presents a selection of indigenous faces, demonstrating the dehumanisation of Indigenous people under colonial power. Racism in this piece is presented through the representation and normalisation of racist behaviours, particularly the Darwinist approach to individuals who aren’t European or particularly aren’t white. The photo also reflects colonial power and the control over bodies, leading to scientific racism, particularly in biology, to justify racial hierarchy.
As explored in our weekly course content, these challenges reflect essentialist ideas that present race as fixed and biological. Contrarily, supports social constructionist views that identify that race is shaped by society. At a micro level, this reflection of dehumanisation also inherently creates a loss of identity through the representation. At a macro level, it reflects colonial power and scientific racism (particularly Darwinist), where institutions created and heavily reinforced structural racism and social hierarchy. Overall, the picture highlights how racism is instilled and enforced by social systems and biological differences.
Discussion 5
Peggy Orenstein’s “Fear of Falling: Sluts” (1994) explores the vast double standards associated with sex between boys and girls. The piece itself identifies desire, sexual education and the sexual exploration of Amy, Evie and Jennifer and their experiences with Bradley. A predominant theme of the story is how social depictions and expectations vary wildly between boys and girls, regarding intense sexual double standards, slut shaming as control and the social construction of identity.
Orenstein uses the characters Bradley, Evie, Amy, and Jennifer to show the double standards between boys and girls throughout their schooling. Whilst girls are judged and labelled as sluts and often lose their reputation, boys are rewarded and climb the social ladder. The fear of being called a slut shapes how the girls respond to Bradley’s sexual assault of all three female characters, representing how women often stay silent even after sexual assault cases. Bradley uses reputation to control the three female characters, forcing the girls not to mention the sexual assault they had experienced.
These factors demonstrate how the social construction of sexuality and female identity results in “slut shaming” whilst boys are rewarded. These ideas portray real-world applications: women staying silent out of fear of social and family repercussions, or due to power imbalances often reinforced in the media.
The quote “he could just say we were asking for it or that we wanted it and everyone would think we are sluts” (Orenstein, 1994, p. 224) demonstrates the power men have over women, particularly through using reputation as a form of control “I was too afraid to stop him” (Orenstein, 1994, p. 224).
References
Orenstein, P. (1994). Schoolgirls: Young women, self-esteem, and the confidence gap. New York: Anchor Books.
Discussion 6
Can you identify other examples of cultural consumption being used for purposes of social distinction? And how is this related to class? The following images may assist.
Consumer culture has established a clear distinction between sociodemographic and class cultures. This is evident in everyday activities, whether it’s the designer clothing an individual is wearing, the expensive dining or the housing location. Each of these examples, and there are many more, indicates an inequality within society, mainly monetarily. These social distinctions directly impact class; individuals choose to engage in such activities often to maintain the appearance of the class they wish to fit into. Consumer culture is also used to uphold one’s identity and to maintain employability or society’s perception of one.
To examine it further from a Marxist perspective, access to goods is largely unequal: rich individuals (the bourgeoisie) can afford luxury goods, whilst the poor (the proletariat) cannot, creating an upper and lower class that are either limited in or excluded from access. Consumption further reinforces social boundaries, creating a visible divide between sociodemographic groups, which reinforces the notion of “elite or ordinary” and a form of personal and societal imbalance. Class is therefore defined by consumption, and what you consume, whether it’s property, clothing, or food, distinguishes your social position.
Yet boundaries can also be blurred when individuals imitate luxury, such as renting cars, staying in Airbnb’s, or wearing counterfeit designer clothing. Ultimately, the true distinction between consumer luxury and its absence is determined by price, exclusivity, and knowledge. Further, cultural consumption not only reflects class inequality but is also reproduced in day-to-day life. This suggests that class isn’t purely economic but is also perpetuated through taste and the urge to maintain relevance through social and fashion trends.
Discussion 7
Immanuel Wallerstein’s (1930-2019) Marxist account of globalisation frames it as a 16th-century economic system that divides the world into two spheres: the core, the wealthy and powerful, and the periphery, mirroring Marx’s class division between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Therefore, individuals participate in a global community shaped by resource dynamics; for the individual, this manifests in both developed and developing countries, where both resources and labour are exploited for financial gain by more powerful countries. This account establishes that identity is formed within a global economic system dominated by consumerism, whilst exploiting marginalised labouring individuals. This theory can be argued against, as the Marxist view doesn’t account for cultural identity, individual experience, or the cosmopolitan perspective on both individuality and nation-states, and how they interact on a global scale.
Roland Robertson (1938-2022) diverges from a purely economic stance, conceptualising globalisation as a global field and arguing that it is neither inherently good nor bad but rather entails various contradictions. Cosmopolitanism, while not universally adopted, holds that individuals can identify with others beyond their nation, class, or national boundaries. This, therefore, implies that identity is fluid, self-constructed (through agency), and shaped by global networks rather than being limited within the nation-state. Individuals are part of a global community established by media and other global networks, as well as by transnational movements for humanitarianism, human rights, and equality. Regarding our week’s content, it is defined by individualisation, self-identity beyond the nation and humanisation of global ethics and rights. Identity within contemporary society is therefore influenced by both global and local aspects simultaneously.
To evaluate cosmopolitanism and globalisation, cosmopolitanism isn’t universal, whilst globalisation creates tension rather than unity. Both principles coexist with aspects such as nationalism, populism and xenophobia. Globalisation contributes to a split of identity formation; individuals who adopt cosmopolitanism argue that identity is shaped by global interconnectedness, thereby reinforcing national or local identities in response to the economic and cultural insecurities of modern society. This split in identity theory is caused by economic inequality, Immanuel Wallerstein’s Marxist account, fear of cultural loss – an extension of nationalism and political influence, and a populist narrative. While both perspectives are significant ideologies within contemporary understandings, cosmopolitanism provides a more compelling framework for understanding identity in our globalised world, despite the persistence of nationalist ideas. Cosmopolitanism offers a more convincing account of identity, as it captures its fluid, global nature despite persistent nationalism for interconnectedness and ultimately the fluidity of individuality and our experiences.
Discussion 8
Introduction
Consumption shapes identity through materialism and mass production. Consumption refers to the acquisition, use, and disposal of goods and services. As explored in our weekly readings, consumption is continuous; once an individual achieves their goal of materialism, for example, clothing, there is always another item or service to pursue. Materials during the premodern, modern, and late modern periods have shifted drastically from ascribed to achieved to managed, in chronological order. In late modern societies, consumption shapes identity, particularly through the symbols and perceived “meaning” of objects, which fit within sociodemographic or cultural contexts. Late modern society shifts emphasis away from sociodemographic identity and instead places emphasis on cultural behaviours and individual desire, further emphasising the symbolic value of the material in question. Together, consumption and identity reflect how people use possessions, brands and lifestyles to construct, perform and communicate who they are – identity is therefore performed through consumption.
Body 1
Consumerist identity has shifted rapidly over the last 300 years. In pre-modern, prior to the 1700s, identity formation was based on “ascribed” fixed personality traits; society was organised by tradition, religion, and fixed social roles; identity was ascribed at birth, with limited social mobility or agency; consumption was based solely on basic needs. Modern society, until the 1970’s, introduced industrialisation, capitalism, and mass production; increased social mobility; and an identity based on education, status, and occupation, thereby shaping a class- and status-based identity. Late modern, present time, society is defined by globalisation, media and consumer culture; identity is fluid, managed and largely self-constructed. People actively shape their identity through lifestyle, consumption, and, predominantly, self-presentation, using objects and services to “fit in” within a niche. Within pre-modern society, identity is ascribed; in modern society, it is achieved, whilst in late modern society, it is constructed as a performance, an attempt to fit into a subculture.
Body 2
This week, we identified the theoretical differences among sociologists Mike Featherstone (1987), James E. Cote (1996), and Zygmunt Bauman (1999), highlighting the distinct ways consumption shapes and is identified in modern society, whether it is managed, constructed, or performative. Mike Featherstone underlines that consumption is the formation of lifestyle and self-expression, demonstrated through taste, trends, and appearance, as evidenced by clothing choices, subcultures, social media, and interests. James E. Cote, on the other hand, argues that identity is not given but must be created; consumers must actively shape who they are, whilst society pressures individuals to figure themselves out. Identity is therefore shaped by societal values. People, as consumers, must keep up with trends; otherwise, they are excluded – economic and social pressures. However, Zygmunt Bauman argues that within consumer culture, people are judged by their ability to consume, creating ongoing pressure to keep up with modern trends and largely excluding individuals unable to participate, as evidenced by clothing trends and subcultures; particularly a result of sociodemographic. Featherstone, Cote and Bauman, therefore, link consumption to both freedom and constraint, where inequality and pressure are ever-present and increasing.
Conclusion
Consumerism has developed over the last 300 years and has become increasingly dominant. It plays a central role in shaping individual identity in late modern society, as people actively attempt to construct and express themselves through lifestyle and material culture. This apparent freedom is ultimately limited and contradictory; while it provides greater freedom, it also creates more pressure and inequality than in the past. Not all consumers can participate equally in consumer culture, reinforcing structural inequalities within late modern society.
References
Bauman, Z. (1999). The self in a consumer society. In Z. Bauman, The individualised society (pp. 185–200). Polity Press.
Côté, J. E. (1996). Sociological perspectives on identity formation: The culture–identity link and identity capital. Journal of Adolescence, 19(5), 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.1996.0040
Mike Featherstone (1987). Lifestyle and consumer culture. Theory, Culture & Society, 4(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327687004001003
Discussion 9
Consumption is the everyday use of goods, whilst consumerism turns consumption into an identity and lifestyle associated with materialism. Within our weekly content, Miller argues that consumption is both practical and symbolic. I can illustrate this through clothing. The wants and desires of materialist individuals are expressed through clothing, which is “symbolised” by the practical use of objects in modern society, and the image associated with a clothing brand. The individual has become more prevalent, creating an endless sense of material value and an endless desire for newer products and trends.
Products are thus valued for status and symbolism more than for practical use. Individuals use brands and commodities to express their culture; distinct sociodemographic groups illustrate this through their ability to access luxury products. A Rolls-Royce car symbolises wealth, attainable only by the elite, whilst clothing brands may serve the same purpose for others, thereby expressing identity through social class. Advertising and social media reinforce the constant need for through insecurity and desire, such as expensive teeth whitening products; if you don’t purchase this product and whiten your teeth, you won’t be desired by the opposite sex, creating a need for individuals to purchase said product – fear and consumption, a successful tactic to create desire within consumerism.
Ultimately, consumerism in Western society links self-worth and possessions to success, rather than practical need, as a product of sociodemographic distinction. The continuous desire for products fuels the consumerist industry, a recent yet ever-important aspect of modern society, particularly developed during the latter stages of the 20th century and perpetuated and reinforced throughout the 21st century.
Discussion 10
Week 10’s lecture introduced Oscar Wilde’s imprisonment (1895-1896), convicted of “gross indecency” for homosexual acts, as a sensationalist case that ruined his reputation. Wilde’s sexuality deeply conflicted with dominant Victorian social norms and was criminalised and condemned by society during his period. His persecution demonstrated how society had enforced heterosexuality as the social norm through both law and public shame.
Wilde’s identity became publicised because of his non-conforming sexuality through ideas of masculinity and morality. Further, Wilde’s sexual identity and his corresponding imprisonment are shaped by social attitudes and power structures rather than his private behaviour. Oscar Wilde was therefore convicted due to homosexual acts, where Victorian society strictly enforced heterosexuality through law and public shame, demonstrating social attitudes and power structures.
Transitioning to modern society, social attitudes towards homosexuality changed during the late 20th century. LGBTQ+ activism challenged traditional norms and power structures that constrained non-heterosexual identities. The decriminalisation of homosexuality was implemented between the 1970s and 1990s in Australia, reflecting the changing understandings of both sexuality and identity.
Conversion practices were used, attempting to “correct” homosexuality and were increasingly viewed as unethical and harmful throughout the 20th century, with the decline and illegality of conversion practices proving social progress. Contemporary society thus has a much greater acceptance of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgender identities with increased visibility in media, politics and the public domain, with legal protections and ultimately broader social and legal recognition in most Western societies.
Sexuality and identity are socially constructed and are shaped by historical context, moving away from rigid social norms, yet inequalities remain. Oscar Wilde provides evidence of this, an individual persecuted for alternative sexual attitudes in a historical period of systemic inequality and judgment, both political, social and legal, further illustrating the progression of modern society in becoming more accepting of the LGBTQ+ community.
Discussion 11
The historical labelling of homosexuality and psychiatric conditions as deviant has largely declined, yet other forms of deviancy have increased. Goode (2004) argues that deviance remains relevant because societies continually create norms and punish violations of those norms. Therefore, deviance is socially constructed and changes constantly, an example of which is homosexuality, which was once labelled deviant. Contemporary society increasingly accepts LGBTQ+ individuals and culture.
In contrast to prior decades, contemporary deviance is more associated with youth crime, gangs and antisocial behaviours, in Australia linked to the “eshay” cultures of the 21st century. Media firms further amplify community fears surrounding youth subcultures, perpetuating moral panic.
A consistent factor in the regulation of deviance is the use of policing, law and media representations to counter behaviours deemed wrong. As Foucault (1977) argues, these institutions are used for social control, and, not coincidentally, they also define what is “normal” and what is “deviant” behaviour. Deviance is therefore not dead; society simply changes what behaviours are labelled as deviant, a continuing and ever-present factor since the dawn of law and society.
Reference
Goode, E. (2004). Is the sociology of deviance still relevant? The American Sociologist, 35(4), 46–57
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon Books
