cote-2006-i

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

1/24

IDENTITY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNA L O F THEORY A ND RESEA RCH, 6(1), 3-25

Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum A ssociates, Inc.

Identity Studies: How Close Are We

to Developing

a

Social Science

of Identity?—An Appraisal

of

the Field

James Cote

epartment of Sociology

University of

Western

Ontario

This article presents

a

tree-tops overview

of

the field

of

Identity Studies with

an

eye

to

identifying

(a) the

com mon alities that stimulate scholars

to

organize their

work around the concept

of

identity as w ell as (b) the cleavag es that have crea ted var-

ious camps within

the

field. Given the fact that Identity Studies

is

one

of

the fastest

growing areas

in the

social sc iences,

it is

argued that there

is an

urgent need

to de-

velop a comm on taxonom y that attends to the multidimensionality represented by the

various approaches sharing

the

term

identity

After proposing

a way to

understand

these com mo nalities and cleavages as a basis

for

this taxonom y, the qu estion

of

what

is

to

be gained by

a

common purpose

in a

social science

of

identity

is

explored.

It is

further proposed that,

in

searching

for

this common purpose, scholars need

to

focus

not only

on

what they

can

recommend

to

individuals looking

for

direction

in

their

lives,

but

also

on

what practicable frameworks they

can

provide policymakers

who

are in positions to ameliorate social and econom ic conditions that underm ine the for-

mation and maintenance

of

viable ego, personal,

and

social identities.

Identity Studies is reputedly one of the fastest-growing areas in the social sciences.

In the mid-1990s, Hall (1996) referred to the discursive explosion around the con-

cept of identity (p. 1); more recently, Bauman (2001) wrote about the thriving in-

dustry of Identity Studies.

These claims are not idle exaggerations. For example, using the referencing da-

tabase PsychlNFO, the number of entries accessible with the keyword identity has

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

2/24

COTE

6,901,

and 15,106 h its, respectively. In the first 5 years of the 2000s a lone, there are

over 12,000

hits,

suggesting that another decade-spanning d oubling of interest

is

in

progress. Similarly, using the Sociological Abstracts electronic database SocAbs,

there is only one hit for the keyword (rfennfy in the 1940s and5 1 for the 1950s, but

for the 1960s, 2,844 sources are accessible; the hits jump to

9 098

for the 1970s,

15,080 for the 1980s, and 32,139 for the 1990s. There are 18,587 for the first 5

years of the 2000s. Although there is a substantial amount of overlap between

these two databases, it is clear that the number of publications using

identity

as a

keyword is now in the tens of thousands per decade.

The few publications on iden tity in the early 1900s concerned themselves

mainly with personality aberrations like multiple personalities (e.g., Sidis &

Goodhart, 1904) from the perspective of psychiatry and psychoanalysis. Based on

the previous citation analysis, however, something apparently happened in the

1950s to draw interest to the concept. Erikson's (1963, 1968) work on identity is

widely acknowledged as being groundbreaking during this time in generating in-

terest in the use of th concept in social scientific analyses by providing a reason -

ably value-neutral and interdisciplinary term (e.g., W eigert, Teitge, & Teitge,

1986, p. 29). At the same time, there w as a palpable increase in anxiety among so-

cial scientists about the rise of m ass society, with its decline in comm unity, the as-

cendance of anonymous bureaucratic control along with the technological trans-

formation of human activities, and a consequent rise in problems of personal

definition.

A volume documenting this anxiety, appropriately titled

Identity and Anxiety

Survival of th Person in Mass Society

(Stein, Vidich, & W hite, 1960), was pub-

lished in 1960 with Erikson's essay The Problem of Ego Identity as the lead, and

organizing, chapter. Selections in this landmark book w ere drawn from the various

social sciences and attempted to account for what are now seen as commonly expe-

rienced problems of social integration and personal meaning (e.g., Beck, 1992;

Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002; Gergen, 199 1, 20 01 ; Giddens, 1991).

Over the decades following the 1950s, these concerns about identity problems

rooted in mass society morphed into several approaches, based on assumptions

about the nature of society, that constitute the basis of contemporary Identity

Studies. The term mass society has been generally replaced by the concepts of

post-mod ernity and late modernity, although many of the same problematic

societal conditions remain as likely sources of identity problems. In add ition, a de-

velopmental psychology has emerged that norm alizes identity problems in inad-

equate ontogenetic development rather than problematic societal conditions. It is

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

3/24

IDENTITY STUD IES: AN APPRAISAL 5

ars are comp letely re-evaluating the nature of the life cou rse in these societies, in-

cluding the proposition that there is now a new life stage characterized by pro-

tracted identity exploration—"emerging adulthood" (Arnett, 2000). At the same

time, exactly what it means to have an "adult identity" is increasingly unclear as

the very nature of "ad ulthood" loses its meaning for m ore and m ore people. I have

discussed this topic in detail (Cote, 2000), including the emergence of alternative

adulthoods and a new phase of "youthh ood " replacing adulthood entirely for an in-

creasing proportion of the population.

The emb eddedness of problematic identity issues in an increasing portion of the

life course is now so pervasive that it is no longer unusua l for full-grown peop le to

continue to ponder issues that were once resolved early and decisively. For exam-

ple,

after being quoted in

ime

magazine with respect to the causes for the prolon-

gation of youth (Grossman, 2005), I received a number of e-mails from people in

their 20s telling me their stories. One was from a woman in her late 20s who was

enrolled in a doctoral program , but who was still living with her parents. Although

she knew that she was good at school, she was anxious that she was not well pre-

pared for "work." In spite of her advanced education, which for previous genera-

tions surely would have provided most people with a sense of a promising and ex-

citing future, this woman implied that she had little intemal sense of meaning and

direction and was fearful of her future. Indeed, she asked whether I had any sur-

veys or questionnaires for her to fill out that would "dec ide her path in life" for her

Perhaps this person just had life too easy and w as conditioned to follow oppor-

tunity structures and reward contingencies, but her sense of identity as related to

social integration and personal meaning seems to be far different from that of those

in past generations w ho were at the top of the educational ladder. Although Marga-

ret Mead was exceptional even for her gene ration, I am reminded of her biography,

which included finishing her PhD in her early 20s, conducting pioneering field

work in a remote part of the world, and publishing a best-selling book in her late

20s based on her findings (C ote, 1994; M ead, 1928). The lesson here is that a ma-

turity of identity is no longer guaranteed by educational achievements; rather, such

achievements may now be devoid of secure agentic and existential underpinnings

and merely reflect the bureaucratized opportunities created by others. Under these

conditions, identity "explorations" can be em pty and w ithout any underlying logic

and, therefore, endless (cf. C ote & Lev ine, 1992, for

study of various motivations

that academics have for pursuing their career, including as a "calling").

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

4/24

COTE

does this leave us? On the one hand, we should be encouraged because we have

likely come a long way in coming to terms w ith the puzzle of human existence. On

the other hand, it leaves us in a state of confusion about exactly what identity is

because there are so many different uses of the term (cf. Brubaker & Cooper,

2000).

Accordingly, unless efforts are made to rectify this confusion, the field may

simply becom e ano ther Tower of Babel of the social sciences. If this happens, the

success of this field could be its own undoing , and our attempts to fit the puzzle of

human existence together will be stymied.

It appears that, in recent years, identity has becom e such a rubber sheet

concept that it has been used in ways that make it synonymous with cultu re (e.g.,

as with concerns that such-and-such cultural group is losing its iden tity as a re-

sult of globalization), language (e.g., with claims that French Canadians will

lose their identity unless English-language signs remain banned from the Prov-

ince of Quebec), and simple in-group allegiances (e.g., that some high school stu-

dents will lose their identity unless they are allowed to dress in ways that reflect

their affiliation with ska teboarders, Goths , etc. ). It is not that any of these usages is

wro ng, so much as they are overextended, as I argue following (see also Stryker,

2000).

Others have argued that identity represents only certain aspects of human

self-definition. For example, those who wish to emphas ize the conflictual nature of

human interaction define identity as differance —that people define themselves

against wh at they are not (e.g., Derrida, 1982; Sokefeld, 1999). To emp hasis

only this aspect of identity is imperialistic, however, if w are to maintain any sem -

blance of cooperation in the use of languag e, given that the basic definition of iden

tity that made it appealing to social scientists in the first place was reference to

sameness over tim e as well as difference from others (e.g., Erikson , 1968). For

a thing (or unit) to be the sam e over time, by definition that thing has to be dif-

ferent from other things that are themselves the same over time. Hence, to insist

on difference over sameness as the key to identity is to ignore half of the m eaning

of the concept.

Finally, most people in the field have a tendency to use the unmodified term

identity to refer to all levels and manifestations of identity, when it would be more

accurate to use specific terms like social identity nd personal identity in specific

instances. Although the use of short forms is natural and accep table in casual con-

versations, in formal, analytic discussions, it can simply confound attempts at a

precise intersubjectivity among speakers. Thus, the consistent use of more specific

and precise terms would not only help people be clearer in their writings, but it

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

5/24

IDENTITY STUDIES: AN APPRAISAL 7

will have a social (objective) identity as defined by those interacting with the per-

son. Som e of those using the identity status paradigm employ this expression to re-

fer to an intem al, self-constructed, dynamic organization of drives, abilities, be-

liefs, and individual history (Marcia, 1980, p. 159). Although this usage is fine

where its specific meaning is made explicit and its context clearly delimited, it

only serves to add confusion to a field where more general mean ings of iden tity

are employed, as among n eo-Eriksonians. For examp le, Erikson (e.g., 1963) con-

sistently argued that the sense of sameness and continuity—ego identity—is im-

portant regardless of whether the identity structure is self-constructed, and he

pointed this out in his many cross-cu ltural stud ies. Moreover, in differentiating ego

identity from person al identity, Erikson (1968) defined

ego identity

as

the

awareness of the fact that there

is a

self-sameness and continuity

to the

ego's syn-

thesizing methods, the style of

one s

individuality, and that this style coincides with

the sameness and continuity of one's meaning for others in the immediate commu-

nity, (p. 50)

Thus, for Erikson , everyone has some subjective sense of who they are ; prob-

lems arise for the person when a subjective sense of sameness and continuity di-

minishes below a certain po int or is otherwise comprom ised (as in the first case of

this that Erikson, 1963, witnessed—nam ely, shell shock or what we now call

Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome). This issue is thus one of degree rather than

kind.

Unfortunately, the net result of the previous tendencies to use the identity con -

cept in overextended, limited, or exclusive ways is that it has become quite fuzzy

for m any people (Brubaker & Cooper, 2000), especially those outside the field or

who are new to it. For exam ple, at a recent meefing of the Society for Research on

Adolescence, there were dozens of papers presented using the keyword identity

but in listening to them , I was hard-pressed to recognize a comm on meaning of the

term or something to link the papers with what I recognize in my own work after

almost 30 years in the field. Some presentations even operationalized the term ac-

cording to basic demograph ic variables like age and sex. Th is is not a step forward

for the field.

The Identity Studies field is not alone in this dilemma. In the closely related

field of self studies, a similar problem has emerged, as discussed in an edito-

rial note in a recently launched journal that has been attempting to lend order to

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

6/24

8 COTE

lar writer means by it, but I sometimes begin to despair that it means anything at

all (Leary, 2004 , p. 1).

I do not think that the identity field has as serious a problem as the self field, in

part because the word

self has

a longer history of gen eric uses (e.g., with all of the

compound words using

self-

as a prefix or its use as a synonym

for person

and

personality .

However, it may only be a matter of time for the identity field unless

social scientists lay a firmer claim to the use of the term identity. Leary (2004) was

also doubtful that there will ever be a consensus about what the self

really

is (p.

2, italics add ed), but I am more op timistic for the identity field so long as we all ac-

know ledge that iden tity is multifaceted, and it is not simply one thing.

A field of study can end a period of confusion when a common taxonomy is

adopted (cf. Hem pel, 1965 ,196 6). Identity S tudies is at the tipping point wh ere, if

this

is

not

done,

the

field

will simply becom e another area

in

which a comm only used

term has virtually no shared, precise meaning or m eaning s, as in the case of the con-

cept of culture (e.g., Swidler, 1986). I have made recommendations for the basis of

this taxonomy elsewhere (Cote Levine,

2002;

see also efforts by Brubaker Coo-

per, 2000) based on a theory of the multidimensionality of identity, representing

manifestations of identity at three levels of analysis: the subjectivity of the individ-

ual, behavior pa tterns specific to the person , and the individu al's m embership in so-

cietal groups (see also S. Schwartz, 2005 ). Here, I add to these taxonomic recom-

mendations by giving attention to the differences among social scientists in terms of

their metatheoretical assumptions concerning social reality.

MET THEORETIC L SSUM PTIONS

Table

1

presents a cross-tabulation of the three dimensions represen ting different

metatheoretical assumptions that I postulate to be at the heart of the major cleav-

ages in the field. Of course, as with all typologies, a number of individual cases

will lie outside of the hypothesized cells to the extent that these cases com bine the

dimensions idiosyncratically. This does not mean, however, that the typology does

not provide rules of classification that apply in most case s.

I begin discussion of this table with the dimension that is most straightforward

to explain, as it involves the differing focus taken by those adopting psych ological

and sociological perspectives, the two dominant perspectives in the field. As one

would expect, psychologists tend to take an individual focus and tend to put more

emphasis on the mental traits, states, and dispositions of the person in predicting

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

7/24

IDENTITY STUD IES: AN APPRAISAL 9

TABLE 1

Identity Studies Approaches: Fundamental Assumptions Regarding

the Nature of Social Reality Social Order and Psychosocial Focus

Epistemology

Objectivist

Subjectivist

Individual Focus

Status Quo

Identity status

paradigm

Self-psychology

Life history and

narrative

approaches

(e.g.,

McAdams,

Chandler)

Critical

Contextual

Critical and

cultural

psychologies

(e.g., Cushman,

Baumeister,

Kurtines)

Postmodernism

(psychological

variant; e.g..

Gergen)

Social Focus

Status Quo

Structural

symbolic

interactionism

(e.g., Stryker,

Burke)

Symbolic

interactionism

(interpretive

approach—e.g.,

Goffman,

Weigert)

Critical

Contextual

Late-modernism

(e.g., Beck)

Critical social

psychology (e.g..

Wexler)

Postmodernism

(sociological

variant; Baum an;

Rattansi &

Phoenix)

early sytnbolic ititeractionist (SI) and pragmatic approaches in sociology (e.g.,

Hewitt, 2000). Accordingly, for them, identity is not a property of the person so

much as a property of interaction. In this way, iden tity is relational in the sense

that it is embedded in interpersonal relationships.

A number of disagreements in the field concerning what constitutes identity

(ontology), and how to study it (methodology), can be understood as stemming

from this difference in focus and, therefore, difference in emphasis. A solution

to these disagreements lies in the recognition that iden tity depends on both

sources: It needs to have some sort of storage of experiences and habituated

thoughts in mem ory (in the person), and it needs to be actualized in behav iors and

social activities (in interaction). Of course , the long-standing disciplinary disputes

between psychologists and sociologists stand in the way of an easy truce of this

dispute, but the common ground in social psychology does hold promise as a plat-

form for more cooperative relations in the future (e.g.. House , 1977). Moreover, if

we can specify a common cause for such cooperation, as I explore following, we

may witness a return to the earlier days in the social sciences before the emergence

of these rigid disciplinary disputes (cf.

Sherif

1958).

The dimension rep resenting the rows in Table 1 pertains to the rather

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

8/24

10 C6TE

psychology, it can be found in the long-standing disputes between (a) those who

emphasize the study of experience (subjectivism) and those who insist on the study

of behavior (objectivism; W ertheimer, 1972), as well as (b) the related dispute be -

tween humanism and scientism (e.g., Coan, 1979; Kasner & Houts, 1984).

Epistemological disputes are usually intractable by their very nature, but one

potential avenue of resolution of that dispute in Identity Studies might reflect the

very nature of the beast itself—namely, that "identity" can be demonstrated in

terms of both manifestations of reality. That is, some realities are more fixed

than others, just as some aspects of identity are more fixed than others. For ex-

ample, my social identity as a professor is more fixed (having a life of 20 years

already) than, say, my personal identity as a media celebrity (which had a life of

about 15 min ). Similarly, the emergent experiences and personal constructions

of my subjective (ego) identity as the President of the Society for Research on

Identity Formation (SRIF) were varied over my tenure of that position, but my

social identity associated with that position had an objective life of 2 years. No

amount of subjective reappraisal on my part will alter that objective fact. Thus,

some realities are simply more fixed (e.g., psychological traits, social facts) than

others (e.g., transitory situations, like the verbal version of this Presidential Ad-

dress delivered at the 2005 SRIF meetings). Manifestations of identity at the

level of subjective experience and interactional discourse are especially emer-

gent and transitory and should be studied as such with the appropriate (in-depth,

qualitative) methods. When the validity of these differing manifestations is ac-

knowledged, an acceptance of the application of differing methods to differing

realities should follow.

Finally, the third dimension represented in Table pertains to the fundamental

assum ptions that researchers hold toward the existing social order, whether it is ac-

cepted as

is ,

and therefore inevitable, or whether the existing social order

is

viewed

critically or as one of many potential contexts for different types of identity forma-

tion (cf. Burrell & Morgan's, 1979, distinction between the "sociology of regula-

tion" and the "sociology of radical chan ge"). The first, the status-quo approach, as-

serts implicitly or explicitly that the existing order represents universal processes,

and therefore, research stem ming from it looks to the "susta ining " influence of de-

velopment for self and social order. In contrast, the critical/contextual researcher

looks to "transformative" influences for self and social order based on either the

critical posture taken toward the existing order or the argument that identity pro-

cesses are contextual, and therefore, no one form or content can be assumed to be

an ideal (cf. Schuller, Preston, Hammond, Brassett-Grundy, & Bynner, 2004, for

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

9/24

IDENTITY STUDIES: AN APPRAISAL 1 1

The resulting eight cells formed by the cross-tabulation of these three dimen-

sions (treated as binaries for illustration purposes) allow us to locate the various

long-standing and new ap proaches in Identity Studies. For examp le, the m ost pop-

ular psychological approaches in the field (the identity status paradigm and

self-psychology) take an individual focus, adopt objectivist epistemological as-

sum ptions, and have a status-quo orientation. In contrast, if w move to the oppo-

site side of Table 1, across the three dimen sions, we locate the sociological variant

of the postmodern approach, exemplified in the work of scholars such as Bauman

(2001) and Rattansi and Phoenix (1997). This approach adopts a social focus,

holds subjectivist epistemological assumptions, and takes a critical or contextual

orientation. Accordingly, iden tity is located by those taking this approach (a) in

the interactional realm as people engage in their day-to-day social engagem ents;

(b) as a manifestation that is best understood in terms of its emergent and transitory

properties; and (c) as varying by the specific context in which the interaction takes

place, some of which can be transformative, some sustaining, and some de-

bilitating.

A recent special issue

of dentity

(Vol. 5, Issue 2 , 2005) dealt with these two in-

herently opposing ap proaches by using Rattansi and Ph oenix's (1997) work on the

nature of youth identity formation as an exemplar of the postmodern approach,

particularly with its explicit critique of the prevailing developmental paradigm

(i.e.,

the neo-Eriksonian, identity status paradigm). Leading figures from the

Erikson ian-M arcian tradition were invited to comment on the critique of the de-

velopmental paradigm , as were scholars who w ere from outside that tradition. The

result of the exchange appears to have been productive, although I am sure that

more will be w ritten about it. Hopefully, however, the mere fact of putting the is-

sues on the tab le in this way will make for future cooperative relations.

To briefly describe the other cells in Table 1, the remaining three that take an in-

dividual focus constitute marginal or minority approaches in developmental psy-

chology. Each attempts to capture elements of identity missed by the dominant

identity status and self-psychology approaches: (a) Narrative and life-history ac-

counts of people's identity formation and maintenance issues, which, by their na-

ture, require a sensitivity to the emergent expressions of th various senses of iden-

tity that can only be captured using qualitative methods (represented in the work of

scholars like Chandler, 20 01 ; M cA dam s, 1993); (b) psychological variants of the

postmodern approach, led by Gergen (1991, 20 01), which examine the contexts in

which certain societal conditions create a fragmentation of identity and an erosion

of the sense of a unified core, resulting in the emergence of certain personality

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

10/24

12 COTE

does not represent unified group of scholars, but these tendenc ies in taking a criti-

cal approach to the psychology of identity can be found in the work of scholars like

Baumeister and Muraven (1996), Cushman (1995), Kurtines (1999, 2003), and

Waterman (2004).

On the social focus side of Table 1, there is not a dom inant approach as

there is on the individual focus one, although the status-quo approach has a

longer history in the SI tradition. The two factions of the status-quo approach

represent the primary division in SI stemming from differing interpretations of

the seminal work of George Herbert Mead. The fact of this division, which dates

back at least to the 1950s (e.g., Kuhn & McPartland, 1954), testifies to the

long-standing nature of divergence on this epistemological dimension. Structural

SI adopts an explicit quantitative methodology based on the assumption that the

manifestations of identity are both observable and measurable (e.g., Stryker,

1987).

In contrast, the interpretative approach to SI, represented in the work of

scholars like Goffman (1959, 1963) and Weigert (Weigert & Gecas, 2005;

Weigert et al., 1986), adopts an explicit qualitative approach (ethnographies) de-

signed to capture the qualities of identities as they emerge through on-going

interactional processes in day-to-day naturalistic settings. Structural SI investi-

gates phenomena related to role playing, role salience and hierarchy, role con-

flict, and the like, whereas interpretive SI explores how people engage in role

making and other spontaneous forms of interaction associated with impression

management and the presentation of self

The critical approaches with a social focus tend to be more macrohistorical in

orientation, providing a critical contrast of contemporary societal conditions in

reference to past conditions, when the role-bases for identities were far different.

The late-modernist approach points to the ascriptive nature of identities in

premodem societies, where social solidarity was greater, but freedom of choice

was constricted (Furlong & Cartmel, 1997). Accordingly, the focus is on the indi-

vidualization process in late modernity, which emphasizes compulsory choice

making in the absence of normative guidance. The work of Beck (1992; Beck &

Beck-Gernsheim, 2002) exemplifies the European approach to late-modernity,

whereas that of Wexler (1983, 1992) represents a North American approach to

critical social psychology, which probiematizes identity processes in con tempo-

rary social contexts. Beck's work is best known in terms of his formulations of the

increased risks in late-modern societies, in the sense that both fortunes and misfor-

tunes are now more individualized than collectively shared. For example, the haz-

ards that people face are now more likely to be a result of their individual lifestyles

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

11/24


Finally, the sociological variant of the postmodernist approach emphasizes the

multiplicity, fluidity, and context-dependent ope ration (Rattansi & Phoenix,

1997,

p. 121) of identities, especially among the youth population. It is important

for these postm odem ists to see identity as decentered and de-essentialized in

contemporary contex ts, meaning that iden tity is not primarily a property of per-

sons,

but rather of interactional processes, which are now inherently unstable. The

key difference between the late-modernist and postmodernist approaches is with

the view of agency and the potential for individuals to direct their own develop-

ment by anchoring their ego identity, as opposed to being buffeted about by contra-

dictory societal forces. Late-modemists argue that people are capable of

agentically directing their behaviors from a stable psychological base; in fact, they

stress that it is now paramount that people do so because late-modern societies

have lost much of the normative structure that once guided people in their choices

and provided them with default op tions that made agentic functioning less cru-

cial. In rejecting the possibility of a stable psychological base, postmodemists

have removed the logical and theoretical connection to the source of individual

agency. Paradoxically, they see people at the mercy of postmodern forces in a

way that is analogous to how behaviorists (who also reject notions of individual

agency, but for different reasons) see people to be controlled by reinforcement con-

tingencies.

WHAT ISSUES CA N BE RESOLVED

BY A COMMON PURPOSE

If we are to proceed with the task of developing a social science of idendty, we

must find a common purpose to drive our efforts; otherwise, there is no incentive

for those in each of the eight areas identified in Table

to read, attempt to appreci-

ate the merits of, or find inspiration in each othe r's work.

The very fact that someone is interested in an identity-related topic suggests

that he or she has a humanistic appreciation of the social sciences. Otherwise,

they could have devoted themselves to a much less ambiguous, and more so-

cially supported, area from the mainstream of their discipline (which is likely

dominated by objectivist assumptions about the most easily discussed and mea-

sured aspects of the discipline). In spite of its popularity, as measured by the

keyword citation method discussed previously, the fact is that Identity Studies

constitutes a collection of scholars who are marginalized in some degree from

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

12/24

14 COTE

ten on these topics, making them seem more real and imp ortant), and it is

easier to secure grant money, because the assumptions and language are more

commonly shared. Therefore, those reviewing grant proposals have an easier

time understanding them. Similarly, in sociology, those areas that are most ame-

nable to easy understanding and measurement dominate in most departments

(e.g., social inequality, demography, health).

One approach is to first identify, for those we could include as part of Identity

Studies, what each perspective can contribute to a common cause and then show

what is value-added when we integrate the individual perspectives as part of a

larger whole. When some degree of unity of purpose and language is achieved,

those outside the field will then more easily understand it and, over time, more re-

spect for it will be achieved. When the field is unified in purpose and language,

textbooks will be written about it, undergraduates will be taught the basics , and the

utility of the field will slowly diffuse through the culture to become part of public

consciousness as these graduates take the ideas with them into their personal and

professional lives.

This scenario might seem pie-in-the-sky, but unless we have vision and goals,

and dream about the ultimate impact of our work, the growth of the field is n jeop-

ardy. To focus on these goals, we all need to ask ourselves why w e are doing w hat

we are doing. Are we simply following institutional reward contingencies (e.g., for

the benefits specifically derived from the next publication or more generally from

being an academ ic), or s there something larger than ourselves that is at stake? For

exam ple, at some level, identity is about potential—human po tential. If our in-

sights help more people reach their individual potential, we might also contribute

to the collective po tential of the hum an species, and clearly, there is room for im-

provement in this collective realm . To the extent that people do not reach their po-

tential in terms of their own identity formation, not only are opportunities missed

for collective advancem ent, but those who go through their lives with m ajor iden-

tity deficits likely drag the species down, pulling us all toward a common denomi-

nator that is lower than it might otherw ise be.

I can readily cite here several areas in which identity deficits reduce individual

and collective potential—namely, crime, poverty, school failure, health risks, and

talent loss. At the same time, an argument can be made that modem democracies,

which are often such in name only, can benefit collectively as greater portions of

their populations op timize their identity formation, especially in terms of po litical

awareness and participation, moral-ethical standards, and the development of

more global-universalistic outlooks. These are three concerns to which Erikson

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

13/24


WHAT CAN WE HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH W ITH

A SOCIAL SCIENCE OF IDENTITY

The first goal of social science of identity needs to be the establishmen t of con-

sensus about the importance of this area. We do not need to work on those within

the field (except for internal disputes about the relative importance of each ap-

proach) so much as to help those outside the field appreciate what we are doing.

For example, I have had numerous discussions with colleagues, and overheard a

few discussions, about identity, and it is obvious that many do not have a clear

idea about what the concept means, let alone think that it adds anything to the so-

cial scientific enterprise. For example, one colleague recently raised the question

of what the concept adds beyond what we already had with the notion of

self-concept. Another thinks that the concept of adjustment is sufficient. Why

do we need a more com plicated co ncept? W ould O ccam 's Razo r dictate against it?

These are important questions that we need to answer soon and get the answers to

our colleagues, especially those sitting of grant review and tenure-and-promodon

panels.

For the field to develop into a credible force, we also need to have more and

larger studies funded. G raduate studen ts have conducted the vast majority of stud-

ies in this area as part of their thesis work. Although these studies are generally

done under competent supervision, they are nonetheless undertaken with very lim-

ited reso urces. And, although the field should be grateful for the free labor of grad-

uate students, we also owe it to our (present and future) graduate students to at-

tempt to secure the funding to help them maximize their leam ing experiences and

potential contributions to the field. With be tter funding, studies can then m ove be-

yond college student samples of convenience to population-based surveys that use

random sampling techniques and m ultiple m ethods that can triangulate on the phe-

nomena in question. To help us do this, we need to look back to the early days of

social science for inspiration and exam ple, before the development of separate uni-

versity departments (which have contributed to disciplinary boundaries), to when

studies were carried out by teams of researchers on impo rtant issues using a variety

of qualitative and quantitative measures, especially as stimulated by the war effort

before and after the 1940s (e.g.. House, 1977). Most urgent today are properly

funded studies of high-risk populations whose identity formation potential is im-

peded by persistent social structural and economic obstacles (cf. Yoder, 2000).

Such studies need to be properly funded so that they can prov ide scientifically

sound information for policymakers to deal with the major current influences on

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

14/24

16 COTE

adulthood has becom e so prolonged and what we m ight expect in the future, not to

mention the supports that people need in making w hat is increasingly a hazardo us,

nonlinear, and perhaps never-ending passage (e.g., Arnett, 2000; Cote, 2000).

The objective of such studies needs to be the improvement ofth e life chances of

all mem bers of society. As we learned in the 20th century, it is not enough to sim-

ply improve economic opportunities. Although this is essential in any societal im-

provement, it is also crucial that everyone develop the personal resources for

developing and maintaining themselves as fully contributing citizens. Modern de-

mocracies require a level of functioning not required in previous societies, and

there is ample evidence that most people have a long way to go to reach this level of

functioning (e.g., Kegan, 1994). A primary question that we will need to answer is

just how and when to intervene to improve life chances. This question is perhaps

easier to answer for the most disadvantaged and at-risk populations, and recent

strides have been made in identifying those most in need of intervention (e .g., see

the Identity Distress Survey; Berman, Montgomery, & Kurtines, 2004). Inter-

vening in decision-m aking processes am ong the public at large, however, is a much

more problematic issue, as I discuss following.

Furthermore, rather than targeting only the individual, we need to think about

targeting institutions in terms ofthe ir effects on identity formation. This is where a

social science of identity will be most required. For example, there are new institu-

tional influences on identity formation that the old theories have not taken into ac-

count: increasing requirements for a prolonged education, the expansion of youth

culture into more aspects of the young people's lives, and the far-reaching social

and psychological impacts of media technologies. Old theories that assume that

young people spend long periods in crisis primarily over religion and politics miss

these important influences entirely (Co te, in press-a ), and the fact that identity for-

mation stretches into the 20s cannot be accom modated by theories that assume that

the identity stage is simply a psychosocial event limited to adolescence. In short,

there appear to be new institutional sources of identity, identity moratorium, and

identity crisis that have been missed by the old theories and that the newer theories

have pointed

to,

but perhaps not fully understood (cf. the debate be tween the devel-

opmental and postmodern approaches in the recent special issue

of Identity

Vol. 5,

Issue 2, 2005).

WHAT CAN WE RECOMMEND TO POLICYMAKERS AND

PEOPLE LOO KING FOR D IRECTION IN THEIR LIVES

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

15/24


groundbreaking studies that will gain the attention of policymakers. This is the

case because our colleagues are the ones sitting on the peer-review panels used by

granting agencies. Of course, there is a chicken-and-egg problem here, because if

funding agencies provided the money to conduct this research, our colleagues

would respect the area more, as more and more impressive research was funded

and published. M oreover, if we had the interest of policym akers, the money w ould

become available to carry out these studies. Before we can get to this point, how-

ever, all of us within the Identity S tudies field will need to practice what we preach

and settle our own boundary disputes and in-fighting as a field. Until we learn to

respect each other's work, we cannot expect those outside the field to respect any

of our work. In short, if we— the experts— are continually bickering over both fun-

damental and trivial issues, how can w e expect those ou tside the field to take us se-

riously as experts or to even attempt to understand our work?

Policymakers need viable frameworks if they are to apply academic concerns

to real-world problems. Accordingly, more identity research needs to move from

the pure to the applied realm. This is not to abandon pure identity research,

which is essential in testing theoretical frameworks, but very little identity re-

search has applied our theoretical assertions, so we have little idea of the practi-

cal utility of most of our ideas (cf. Ferrer-Wreder, Montgomery, & Lorente,

2003).

This move to the applied side is best done in a nonpartisan fashion (i.e.,

through joint efforts from among the various approaches in the field, as illus-

trated in Table 1) and without fear of challenging the contemporary status quo of

identity formation (i.e., as noted previously, there is evidence of suboptimal

functioning at both the individual and institutional levels). Of course, there are

political issues in implementing research that potentially generates social

change, and sensitivity to this is necessary. A model that can be consulted for

this purpose is the applied developm ental science model (Lerner, Fisher, &

Weinberg, 2000), which proposes that scholars and communities become part-

ners in the knowledge-generation process and that multiple methods be used to

triangulate on the processes under scrutiny.

The hurdles to undertaking identity research that will have practicable policy

relevance are many, especially in individualistic societies where ideas of freedom

are virtually sacred. Indeed, given that many aspects of identity formation are now

choice based, how can we propose that policies be developed that influence peo-

ple's choice making? For example, although we know that there are considerable

drawbacks to identity diffusion (as per the identity status paradigm, where

person

maintains low levels of comm itment and little choice-making activity) in terms of

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

16/24

18 COTE

Although this might seem like an intractable problem for modern democracies,

it needs to be recognized that modern democracies have developed and continue to

support institutions that directly and deliberately aifect people's choices in their

identity formation— most notably, educational sy stems . It is within the logic of in-

stitutionalized education that we perhaps have the most hope of positively affect-

ing identity formation in the area of choice making. Such efforts need to be in-

formed by a sophisticated view of choice making itself and the recent work of B.

Schwartz (2000, 2004) helps to bring to light the complex, potentially negative

aspects of unguided self-determination. Schwartz argued that people in individual-

istic societies face a tyranny of cho ice by the very nature of excessive

choice-m aking opportunities. Certainly, there are liberating potentials to a greater

freedom of choice, but ostensibly unconstrained choice can be paradoxically con-

straining, as in situations of having too many choices with too little information,

living with the consequences of poor choices, and experiencing the various

negative psychological consequences routinely associated with facing numerous

choices on a daily basis.

My recommendation for approaching this problem is to develop institutional

structures that are appropriate for individualistic soc ieties, by merit ofthe ir design

to guide people in learning how to adapt to, and m aster, choice m aking as a central

task in their lives (Cote, in press -b). Making choices is perhaps the most im portant

activity in people's lives in these societies—many of life's consequences result

from our choices— yet it is one of the least understood or prepared-for activities. I

draw on Margaret Mead's (1928) long-forgotten recommendation that individual-

istic societies should prepare their citizens with an education for choice. M ead 's

recommendadon has a surprising am ount of insight that prefigures concerns today,

such as those raised by B. Schwartz with his work on the tyranny of choice.

Mead (1928) wrote that, in comparison to modem Western societies (of the

920s),

in pre-Westernized traditional Samoan culture, young people had far less

choice as they came of age regarding the specific content oftheir future adu lt iden-

tities,

and she noted that this had the effect of eliminating much conflict from their

lives.

In particular, they did not have to choose among com peting religions or polit-

ical philosophies or from among a bewildering array of adult occupations. In con-

trast. Mead noted that there was a virtual requirement in the United States that

young people choose for themselves among the myriad of religious, political, and

occupational options. This requirement was based on the individualistic ideology

that life involves endless possibilities that must be preserved by an unconstrained

freedom of choice.

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

17/24

IDENTITY STUDIES: AN APPRAISAL 9

today is not to revert to earlier social forms, w hich have their own sets of problem s,

but to advance to new ones that can realistically help us deal with our problems.

What Mead's analysis does suggest is that we need to think of contemporary chal-

lenges in terms of a baseline found in societies where identities are ascribed rather

than based on choice and individualization, because it appears that humans do not

have an inherent capacity for make prop itious choices (Cote, 2000). Rather, it ap-

pears that we need to be taught how to do so. Unfortunately, since the time of

Mead's writing, we have not developed the educational means by which to teach

choice making on a mass scale, even as the ideology of free choice has spread

throughout societies around the world (see Cote, in press-b, for more on recom-

mendations regarding education for cho ice ).

More generally, the Identity Studies community can contribute to policy con-

cerns by investigating the wider benefit of learning and education for identity

formation (cf. Dreyer, 1994). Work in this area has already begun .in England

through the efforts of the British government in funding the Centre for the W ider

Benefits of Learning at the University of London (Preston, 2004; Schuller et al.,

2004).

The wider benefits of learning, in general, are myriad, including better

health and more involvements in community-enhancing activities. Some of these

benefits are sustaining of the person's capacities, whereas others are

transformative, enhancing the person's capabilities. The identity benefits of

learning appear to include greater satisfaction with the course of one's life and

success in one's life projects (Cote, 2002), as well as better self-understanding,

independent thought, and an enhanced sense of one's place in the world

(Schuller et al., 2004), but work in this area has jus t begun. Of course, educa-

tion varies in quality, and much m ass educafion has become perfunctory. For

example, the high school diploma in the United States has recently been called

no more than an attendance certificate (American Diplom a Project, 2004).

Thus, it is clear that there is ample room in the curriculum to experiment with

innovations that yield returns in more aspects of people's lives beyond perfunc-

tory occupational training, including their identity formafion. As Dreyer aptly

noted a decade ago.

The need for educational reform in the U.S. public schools is clearly recognized.

What remains to be seen is whether developmental psychologists, such as identity

theorists, will play a role in that reform or will retire to the world of abstract research

(p.

137)

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

18/24

20 COTE

search and theory? The print media (books, magazines, and Web sites) are the

venue most amenable to directly delivering complex information, but the visual

electronic media can be used to deliver indirect messages through the use of alle-

gory and allusion. Certainly, marketers have become very sophisticated in the use

of identity-based advertising to the point where they are arguably the most im por-

tant force transforming contemporary culture, especially youth culture (Cote,

2000), so we m ight take lessons from them. At the same time, movies and televi-

sion program s can be very infiuential in affecfing public consc iousness, especially

among the young, as in the case of the movie The Matrix (1999) and the

teen-targeting television program

uffy the ampire Slayer

(199 7-2003 ), both of

which have cult followings with millions of fans reading all sorts of identity-

related meanings into their content.

The purpose of these attempts to provide informafion to the public about iden-

tity formation would optimally be to promote agentic identity formation and to re-

duce social passivity. The developmental field has plenty to recommend in terms

of well-research con cepts like informational identity style (Berzonsky, 1989), per-

sonal expressiveness (Waterman, 1992, 2004), coconstructive problem solving

(Kurtines, 1999), and identity capital (Cote, 1997). These efforts can be directed to

helping people learn how to coun teract their own tendencies to inertia and the mere

following of reward confingencies (as in my example of the directionless doctoral

student at the beginning of this article), or what I have called default individualiza-

tion (Cote, 2000).

At the same time that personal mofivation is addressed, efforts can be d irected

at exposing the attempts to manipulate people's idenfides. Identity manipulation is

disempowering in individualistic societies, as evidenced by the widespread disen-

gagement of young people from adult society. Corporations now routinely engage

in predatoriai marketing (even of young children; Schor, 2004), branding (Quart,

2003),

and cool hunting (Heath & Potter, 2004) as part oftheir attempts to manipu-

late the spending habits of the young. Although markefing per se is not ob jection-

able,

identity-based marketing is a concern when it is directed at those who are in

their formative years of identity development (see Stein et al., I960, for early

warnings of this problem ).

Although they have tremendous potential to stimulate growth, educational in-

stitutions can be disempow ering to the extent that they encourage a passive follow-

ing of reward con tingencies based on false prom ises ofthe occupational benefits of

credentials (Cote & Allahar, 2005). Life within some of these educational institu-

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

19/24


in face-to-face interviews 56 questions related to world geography and current

events. The geography questions simply involved pointing to one country out of

four choices spread over the globe. Answering the question on Iraq correctly

merely required know ing (a) that Iraq is in the Middle East and (b) where the Mid-

dle East is on a map o fthe world. In fact, more young Am ericans could locate the

M arquesas Islands, most likely because the pop culture TV show urvivor (2002)

had just presented a series of episodes filmed there.

This illustrafion demonstrates the mass media's influence in shaping people's

mental representations of the world. Young Americans are not alone in their igno-

rance of world affairs, however. Young Canadians did only m arginally better than

Am ericans, correctly answering only 27 out ofthe 56 questions (vs. 23 out of 6 for

young A mericans). Young Sw edes performed the best out ofthe nine countries sur-

veyed, answering 40 qu estions correctly (National G eographic Education Founda-

tion, 2002). In fact,

these

results support

a

wider claim that Sweden provides

a

model

of how the adult com munity can establish

a

benign institutional guidan ce for nurtur-

ing growth-enhancing self-determination, including effective secondary and ter-

tiary educational systems (Cote & Allahar, 2005). On the one hand, findings such as

these for advanced coun tries like Can ada and the United States do not bode well

for the future development of universalistic identities as envisioned by Erikson

(1964 ). On the other hand , these finding s suggest a urgent goal that can potentially

unite the Identity Studies comm unity around a common cause.

This last educational example points to another institution that is failing

young people in terms of what could be positive influences on identity forma-

tion—the polity. Young people around the world are disengaging on mass scale

from mainstream political institutions. The causes for this are being debated

(Cote & Allahar, 2005; Gidengil, Blais, Nevitte, & Nadeau,

2003;

Kimberlee,

2002), but the result is clearly a disempowering of the young that is directly re-

lated to their identity formation. Perhaps not coincidentally, this political apathy

(identity diffusion) dovetails with the corporate manipulation and educational

corralling mentioned previously. Knowledge is power, and a lack of knowledge

disempowers; the adult community is responsible for transmitting knowledge to

the next generation, so the extent to which the adult community fails in this task,

the more it disempowers its progeny. Young people deserve to know about the

potendal misdirections in their identity formation so that they can make in-

formed choices and direct their development in positive, growth-enhancing di-

rections. If we are serious about following the ideology of individualism in a

democratic context, all individuals have a right to an equal footing in their exer-

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

20/24

2 2 COTE

KNOWLEDGMENT

This article is based on the 2005 SR IF Presidential Add ress presented on February

19, 2005 , in M iami, Florida.

R F R N S

Adam s, G. E., Cote, J. E., & M arshall, S. (2002).

Pa rent/adolescent relationships and identity develop-

ment:

A literature

review

a nd policy

statement. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Division of Childhood and

Adolescence, Health Canada.

American Diploma Project. (2004).

Ready or not: C reating a high school diploma that counts.

Wash-

ington, DC : Achieve, inc. Retrieved Decemb er 9, 20 04, from http://www.achieve.org

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the

twenties.

American Psychologist, 55.

469-480.

Bauman, Z. (2001). The individualized society. Camb ridge, England: Polity Press.

Baumeister, R. F., & Muraven, M. (1996). Identity as adaptation to social, cultural, and historical con-

text.

Journal of Adolescence, 19,

4 0 5 ^ 1 6 .

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society:

owards

a new modernity. London: Sage.

Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutional individualism and its social

and political co nsequences.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Berman, S., Montgomery, M ., & Kurtines, W. (2004). The development and validation of a new mea-

sure of identity distress.

Identity: An International Journal of Theo ry and Research, 4,

1-8.

Berzonsky, M . D. (1989). Identity style: Conceptualization and m easurement.

Journal of Adolescent

Research, 4,

267-2SI.

Brubaker, R., & Cooper, F. (2000 ). Beyond identity.

Theory Society, 29, \-47.

Burnett, M . (Executive Producer). (2002). Survivor Marqu esas [TV

Series].

United States: CBS Broad-

casting Inc.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London:

Heinemann.

Chandler, M. (2001). The time of our lives: Self-continuity in Native and non-Native youth. In W.

Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 175-221). New York: Academic.

Coan, R. W. (1979). Psycho logists: Personal and theoretical pathways. New York: Irvington.

C6t6, J. E. (1994).

Adolescent storm and stress: An evaluation of the Mead/Freeman controversy.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Inc.

C6t6,

J. E. (1996). Sociological perspectives on identity formation: The culture-identity link and iden-

tity capital.


419-430.

C6t6, J. E. (1997). An empirical test of the identity capital model.


577-597.

Cote, J. E. (2000). Arrested adulthood: The changing n ature of maturity and identity. New York: New

York University Press.

Cot^, J. E. (200 2). The role of identity capital in the transition to adulthoo d: The ind ividualization thesis

examined. Journal of Youth Studies. 5(2), 117-134.

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

21/24


C6t6, J. E,, & Allahar, A. (2005).

C ritical youth studies: A Canad ian focus.

Toronto, Ontario, Canada:

Pearson Education.

C6t6, J. E., & Levine, C. (1992). The genesis ofth e humanistic academ ic: A second test of Erikson 's

theory of ego identity formation. Youth

Society, 23,

387-410.

Cote, J. E., & Levine, C. (2002 ).

Identity orm ation,

agency,

an d

culture.

A social psychological synthe-

sis. H illsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum A ssociates, Inc.

Cushm an, P. (1995). Constructing the self constructing America. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Derrida, J. (1982).

Margins o f philosophy.

Ch icago: University of Chicago Press.

Dreyer, P. H. (1994). Designing curricular identity interventions for secondary schools. In S. L. Archer

(Ed.),

Interventionsfor adolescent identity developmen t

(pp.

121

-140).

Thousand

Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Erikson, E, H. (1963).

C hildhood and society

(2nd ed.). New York: Norton,

Erikson, E. H, (1964).

Insight and

responsibility. New York: Norton,

Erikson, E, H, (1968),

Identity:

Youth

and crisis.

New York: Norton.

Ferrer-Wreder, L,, M ontgomery, M, J,, & Lorente, C, C , (2003). Identity promo tion, adolescence. In T,

P, Gullotta & M. Bloom (Eds,),

Encyclopedia of primary prevention and health promotion

(pp,

600-606), New York: Kluwer,

Frank, T, (1997),

The conquest of

coot:

Business

culture,

counterculture, and the rise of hip consumer-

ism. Chicago: The University of C hicago Press,

Furlong, A,, & C artmel, F, (1997), Young

people and social chan ge: tndividualization a nd risk in late

modernity.

Buckingham, England: Open U niversity Press,

Gergen, K, J, (1991), Th e saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic

Books,

Gergen, K, J, (2001), Psychological science in a postmodern context,

American Psychologist, 56,

803-813,

Giddens, A, (1991),

Mod ernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age.

Stanford, CA :

Stanford University Press,

Gidengil, E,, Blais, A,, Nevitte, N,, & Nadeau, N, (2003), Turned off or tuned out? Youth participation

in politics.

Electoral

Insight 5(2), 9-14,

Goffman, E, (1959), he

presentation of self in everyday life.

Garden City, NY: Doubleday,

Goffman, E, (1963),

Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall,

Grossman , L, (200 5, January 25 ), Grow up? Not so fast.

Time,

pp , 42-53 ,

Hall, S, (1996), Introduction: Who needs identity? In S, Hall & P, Du Gay (Eds,),

Q uestions of cultural

identity (pp.

1-17 ,

London: Sage,

Heath, J,, & Potter, A, (2004),

The rebel

sell:

Why the culture can't be

jammed. Toronto, Ontario,

Canada: HarperCollins,

Hempel, C, G, (1965),

Aspects o f scientific explanation.

New York: Free Press,

Hempel, C, G, (1966),

Philosophy o f natural science.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,

Hewitt, J, P, (2000),

Self and society: A symbolic interactionist social psychology

(7th ed,), Boston:

Allyn & Bacon,

House, J, S, (1977), The three faces of social psychology,

Sociometry, 40,

161-177,

Kasner, L,, & Ho uts, A, C, (1984), A study of the value systems of behavioral scientists,

Am erican

Psychologist, 39, 840-850,

Kegan, R, (1994),

In over our heads: The mental demands of modem life.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

22/24

24 COTE

Kuhn, M. H., McPartland,

T.

S, (1954), An empirical investigation of self-attitudes,/Imen'can

Socio-

logical

Review,

19 ,

68-76,

Kurtines, W, M, (1999),

A co-constructivist perspective on hum an behavior an d development.

Unpub-

lished manuscript,

Kurtines,

W

M, (2003),

Changing lives:

Theoretical

metatheoretical, and method ological issues

in

th e

analysis of developmental

change. Unpublished manuscript,

Leary, M, (2004), What is the self? A plea for clarity. Self and Identity, 3, 1-3,

Lerner, R, M ,, Fisher, C, B,, W einberg, R, A, (2000 ), App lying develop men tal science in the 21st

century: International scholarship for our times.

International Journal of Behavioral D evelopment,

24,

24-29,

Marcia, J, E, (1980), Identity in adolescence. In J, Adelson (Ed,),

Handbook o f adolescent psychology

(pp, 159-18 7), New York: Wiley,

McAdams, D, P, (1993), The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the

self.

In R,

Ashmore L, Jussim (Eds,),

Self and

identity:

Fundamen tal issues

(pp, 46-7 8), New York: Morrow,

Mead, M, (1928),

Com ing of age

in

Sam oa: A psychological study ofprimitive youth for

estern

civili-

zation.

New York: Morrow Quill Paperbacks,

National Geographic Education Foundation, (2002), National G eographic-Roper 2002 Global Geo-

graphic Literacy Survey.

Retrieved Decem ber 28, 2004, from ww w,nationalgeographic,com/

geosurvey/download/RoperSurvey pdf: RoperASW

Niedzviecki, H, (2004),

Hello, I m

special:

How individuality became the new conformity.

Toronto,

Ontario, Canada: Penguin Canada,

Preston, J, (2004),

Identity, learning and engagement: A qualitative enquiry using the NCDS

(Wider

Benefits of Learning Research Rep, No, 13), London: Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of

Learning, Institute of Education, University of London,

Quart, A, (2003), Branded:

The buying and selling of teena gers.

New York: Perseus,

Rattansi, A,, Phoenix, A, (1997), Rethinking youth identities: Mod ernist and postmodernist frame-

works. In J, Bynner, L, Chisholm, A, Furlong (Eds,), Youth,

citizenship and social change

in

a Eu-

ropean context

(pp, 121-150), Aldershot, England: Ashgate,

Schor, J, B, (2004),

Born to buy: The comm ercialized child and the new consumer

culture. New Y ork:

Scribner,

Schuller, T , Preston, J,, Hamm ond, C , Brassett-Grundy, A,, Bynner, J, (2004),

The benefits of learn-

ing: The impact of education on hea lth, family life and social

capital.

London : RoutledgeFalmer,

Schwartz,

B,

(2000), Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom,

Am erican Psychologist, 55,

79-88 ,

Schwartz, B, (2004),

Th e paradox of choice: Why more is less.

New York: HarperCollins,

Schwartz, S, (2005), A new identity for identity research: Recommendations for expanding and refo-

cusing the identity literature.

Journal of Adolescent Research, 20,

923-308,

Sherif M, (1958), Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict,

American Journal of

So-

ciology, 63,

258-349,

Sidis, B,, Goodhart, S,

P,

(1904),

Multiple personality: An experimental investigation into the nature

of human individuality. New York: Appleton,

Sokefeld, M, (1999), Debating self identity, and culture in anthropology.

Current Anthropology, 40,

4 1 7 ^ 3 0 ,

Stein, M, R,, Vidich, A, J,, W hite, D, M, (1960 ),

Identity and

anxiety:

Survival of

the

person in mass

society.

New York: Free Press,

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

23/24


Swidler, A, (1986), Culture in action: Symbols and strategies, American Sociological Review 51

273-286,

Wachow ski, A, Wachow ski, L, (Directors), (1999), The Matrix [Motion Picture], United States,

Warner Bros,

W aterman, A, S, (1992), Identity as an aspect of optimal psyc hological functioning. In G, R, Adam s, T,

P, Gullotta, R, Montem ayor (Eds,), A dolescent identity formation (pp, 50 -72 ), Newbury Park, CA:

Sage,

Waterman, A, S, (2004), Finding someone to Be: Studies on the role of intrinsic motivation in identity

formation. Identity: An International Journal of heory and Research 4 209-228,

Weigert, A, J,. Gec as, V, (200 5), Sym bolic interactionist reflections on Erikson, identity, and

postmodernism.

Identity: An International Journa l of heory and Research 5

161-174,

Weigert, A, J,, Teitge, J, S,, Teitge, D, W, (198 6),

Society and identity:

oward

a sociological psy-

chology. Cam bridge, England: Cam bridge University Press,

Wertheimer, M, (197 2), Fundamental issues in psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart Winston,

Wexler, P (1983),

Critical social psychology

London : Routledge Kegan Paul,

Wexler, P, (1992 ), Becoming somebody: oward a social psychology of school London: Falmer,

Whedon, J, (Creator), (1997-2003), Buffy the Vampire Slayer [TV Series], United States: UPN Televi-

sion,

Yoder, A, E, (2000), Barriers to ego identity status formation: A contextual qualification of Marcia's

identity status. Journal of Adolescence 23 95-106,

8/20/2019 cote-2006-i

24/24

Documents

cote-2006-i