CAPS Blog #1

Identity Ascription

                Communication and culture intersect in identity formation and perception.  Identity can be self-determined through avowal or attributed to a person by others through ascription (Martin and Nakayama, 166).  Both avowal and ascription play influential roles in the development of identity.  Identity is not a static concept, but a dynamic one that changes with time and context, following the interpretive perspective of identity (Martin and Nakayma, 166).  This is especially important in intercultural communication because communicating between cultures is a highly dynamic situation in which perceptions play a leading role.  During the communication period, both parties are making observations and forming opinions about the identity of the other.  Each communicator is in the process of ascribing an identity to the other communicator.  Each communicator also enters the interaction with a pre-formed concept of their identity.  Ascribed identity is being constructed or re-evaluated during the intercultural communication.  The ascribed identity can often be in conflict with avowed identity and can lead to unsatisfactory communication or miscommunication.

                This conflict becomes more apparent during intercultural communications when visiting other countries or interacting with members of another culture.  This was one of the biggest surprises for me when I arrived overseas of a semester abroad.  I only went to Scotland, but this conflict became apparent from my first interactions with European students.  I was forced to further develop my own identity when confronted with the ascribed identity the other students attributed to me.  In this situation I was ascribed as a close-minded, ignorant, conservative Christian who practiced blind pride and apathy about broader global developments.  Parts of this identity are not entirely false, but my avowed identity was much more positive than these ascribed characteristics.  My new friends assumed I would fit their perception of an “American”, but they also changed their concept of “American” identity.  Stephen Brooks explains that this process of conflict and reassessment is expected and should occur more often as those ascribing identity are made aware of the differences between the diversity of “American” identities and the limited influences that informed their ascribed characteristics (Brooks, 14).  Huntington explains that this conflict between avowed and ascribed identities arises whenever America has undergone a unifying event, such as World War Two, the Civil Rights movement, and the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States (Huntington, xv).  This conflict will impact intercultural communications by necessity as the world becomes more globalized and interconnected.  The awareness of this identity conflict will steadily decrease as time following the unifying event increases.

                                            

                Knowing more about the conflict of avowed and ascribed identity from an international and intercultural perspective will allow me to enter into intercultural communications with a more flexible attitude toward other cultural identities.  It is important to recognize that stereotypes are perpetuated by entertainment and news media, and that these contribute to ascribed identity.  Cultural diversity does not match these stereotypes.  Intercultural communications need to be sensitive to the damage that can be caused by subscribing to stereotypes about anyone.

References:

Brooks, Stephen (2006). As others see us:  the causes and consequences of foreign perceptions of America. Broadview Press, Ltd. Introduction.

Martin, Judith N. and Nakayama, Thomas K. (2010). Intercultural Communication in Contexts.  5^th Edition. McGraw-Hill.

Huntington, Samuel P. (2004). Who are we? The challenges to America’s national identity. Simon & Schuster. Foreword.