As noted in the preface, this thesis is concerned with the politics of identity of Indonesian university students. The term ‘politics of identity’ as it is used in this study refers to the ways in which politics shapes social and political identities. Rather than such identities being ‘given’, this study suggests, following Foucault, that they are articulated and rearticulated through discourse and text as well as through particular configurations of power relations at the level of social structure (Mottier 2002).
The term identity is used in the broad sociological sense to refer to the sense of self and the feelings and ideas that individuals have about themselves (Marshall 1998, 296). As Johnson expresses it, identity is concerned with ‘who we are in relation to ourselves, to others and to social systems’ (Johnson 2000, 277). Throughout this thesis the term identity is used in the plural form since, as Foucault has pointed out, individuals have multiple identities, which reflect the various social domains which they occupy (see below).
Identity is essentially an individual category. However, it can also be used to describe the ways in which social groups define themselves and are defined by others. It is this notion of group identity, and in particular the ways in which Indonesian university students defined themselves and were defined by others as a social group, which is the primary concern in this thesis. To the extent that social groups are made up of individuals, however, group identity is not homogenous.
The notion of role is closely connected to identity.15 In this thesis the term role refers to the rights, obligations and duties that are associated with a particular social position or social status (Marshall 1998, 570-1). Roles are socially determined, that is, they are based on expectations about how people who occupy particular social positions behave, what their goals and values are, what they are like as individuals and how they relate to others associated with their role (Johnson 2000, 263-4). Like identity, the notion of role is also best thought of in a plural sense, since individuals occupy multiple roles in society (Marshall 1998, 570-1).16
Foucault provides some useful insights into the processes by which roles and identities are formed in discourse. As noted above, discourses provide particular ways of speaking and thinking about the world, including various ‘objects of knowledge’. These objects of knowledge may refer to social subjects. In Discipline and punish
(Foucault 1979a) for example, Foucault traced the ways in which ‘the criminal’ as an object of knowledge was produced. By producing ways of speaking and thinking about ‘criminals’, the discourse of crime and punishment provided the ‘raw material’ by which criminals formed their identity and the social roles associated with this identity (Marshall 1998, 294).17 Foucault’s later work made an important link between power and the production of identity in discourse. As Barker expresses it:
Power produces both objects of knowledge and the subject [individual] to which a particular knowledge/object relates. Therefore it is the exercise of power that brings about the emergence of objects of knowledge … and the possible subjects that constitute themselves around them (Barker 1998, 27).
Foucault also emphasised the fact that individuals occupy multiple and often fragmented identities. These identities are produced in the various discourses to which individuals are subject. As Philpott expresses it:
15
Marshall notes that: ‘It is sometimes assumed that our identity comes from the expectations attached to the social roles that we occupy, and which we then internalise, so that it [identity] is formed through the process of socialisation. Alternatively, it is elsewhere assumed that we construct our identities more actively out of the materials presented to us during socialisation, or in our various roles’ (1998, 296).
16
The multiple roles that individuals play often give rise to conflicts and contradictions. The ways in which people play their roles in society is thus to some extent determined by how they resolve the contradictions between the multiple roles they play (Marshall 1998, 570-1; Johnson 2000, 263-4)
17
Identities are also formed through the practices of various institutions. Thus, types of discursive activity such as describing, forming hypotheses, formulating regulations and teaching, each have their own way of positioning social subjects (Foucault 1972, 50-1).
identity is specific to the domain in which an individual is ‘governed’. There may be a diversity of codes of conduct orienting any one individual depending on the particular domain in which they are being ‘governed’ (Philpott 2000, 149).
The various identities which individuals occupy do not exist in isolation: rather, they are interrelated (Marshall 1998, 294-5). Moreover, identity is not a static phenomenon, but one which is constantly changing. As Hall notes, identity is ‘formed and transformed continuously in relation to the ways we are represented or addressed in the cultural systems which surround us’ (Hall 1992, 276 cited in Thompson, 1996, 65).
The extent to which the identities produced in discourse are ‘taken up’ by individuals depends in part on the ways in which individuals interpret texts. Since identities are constructed in discourse and reflected in the representational choices made in text, whether text interpreters produce (fully or partially) compliant or resistant readings of texts will have an effect on readers’ acceptance or rejection of these roles and identities.