cote-2006-i

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 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

    IDENTITY STUDIES: AN APPRAISAL 1 3

    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

    IDENTITY STUDIES: AN APPRAISAL 1 5

    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

    IDENTITY STUDIES: AN APPRAISAL 1 7

    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

    IDENTITY STUDIES: AN APPRAISAL 2 1

    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.

     Journal of Adolescence, 19,

     419-430.

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

      Journal of Adolescence, 20,

    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

    IDENTITY STUDIES: AN APPRAISAL 2 3

    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

    IDENTITY STUDIES: AN APPRAISAL 2 5

    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