The shaping of identity does not occur in a vacuum and necessitated a process of negotiation between the individuals and the society in which they live. This process resides and develops at the core of both identities; the individual and the communal (Erikson, 1968; Erikson, 1970), which are not independent of each other, but have an intangible link between them (Alsweel, n.d.). The
"socio" part of identity, must be accounted for in that communality within which an individual finds himself. The establishment and maintenance of that strength depends on the support of parental as well as communal models (Erikson, 1970). By establishing our identity, we define our sense of who we are as individuals and as members of social groups, but the identity we shape is not permanent and keeps changing over time (Frideres, 2002). “To reach the stage of having a rather stable identity involves long, ongoing, tough negotiations with others who ask to be part of this forming identity” (Elliott & Feldman, 1990:152).
Along with the individual identity, there is recognition of a group, and a collective identity that represents people’s collective knowledge, enabling their affiliation to a certain social group of society (Amara, 2005). Forming one’s identity is a process that requires a deep exploration of options and firm commitments to ideologies (Umaña-Taylor & Fine, 2004), which strives for consistency, coherence, and harmony between values, beliefs, and commitment, and enables the recognition of potential through a sense of future possibilities and alternative choices (Sandhu, et al., 2012). A successful outcome of such negotiations should be the belonging of the individual identity to the communal, with the former getting the support of the latter. In societies that live in conflict, where individual, or communal identities, are not stable, the process of shaping identities is much more complicated, and knowing one’s heritage can play a role in forming mature interpersonal relationships which helps adolescents successfully assume adult roles (Beyers & Seiffge-Krenke, 2010), or in destructive behaviour that prevents maintaining healthy relationships with others (Schwartz, et al., 2011).
Throughout human development, the person is exposed to several environmental factors that influence his development. Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) Ecological Systems Theory explains the complexity of the interaction among four levels that influence children's development: the Micro-System, which comprises any immediate relationships or organizations children interact with, such as family and school; the Meso-System, which describes how the different parts of a child's micro-system work together; the Exo-System, which comprises the other people and places that the child may not interact with, but that still have a large influence on them, such as parents' workplaces, extended family members, the neighbourhood, etc., and finally the Macro-System, which comprises elements such as the relative freedoms permitted by the national government, cultural values, the economy, wars, etc. These levels can be considered as socialization agents through school, the political situation, the media, educational attitudes, family and parents and can shape how identities grow in response to these external factors, together with the person’s internal factors (Frideres, 2002). The institutions of the community have important roles that enable children to socialize outside the family, to establish independence from adults, to develop their future adult identities, to express their own interests, and to build their own cultures with their peer groups (Amon, Shamai
& Ilatov, 2008). However, while many of these items can be passed on and taught, others, especially those dealing with the general policy of the state are hard to control. Understanding them, however, remains beneficial to the IMAs.
As individuals, we need to present ourselves in a set of social arrangements, and get into an interaction order in order to shape the organization of the self.
However, identifying the players in the identity-shaping process is not sufficient for truly understanding the specificities of individuals and societies. There is no singularity of an individual, or a group, as Pearson (2007) explains, demonstrating the problems that make understanding the nature of the individual and social identities challenging. Individuals and groups, he claims, have multi-layered identities, they identify with cultures, languages and religions, as well as with professional, recreational and other groups. This echoes with Sen’s (1999) theory of Layered Identities, which claims that in the modern world, there is a tendency to categorize people according to a system
of singular, exclusive identities which create the illusion of a singular identity.
Therefore, any theory that tries to explain the interaction between the individual and the communal identity at “universal” levels, and does not relate to the specific characteristics that define each individual and community and which can influence the shaping of these identities drastically will fail to provide a thorough picture of what makes us different from each other.
One of the approaches that explains the complexity of identity is when we consider the interaction between the two major domains under which the content of identity tends to fall: the ideological domain consisting of choices regarding career, occupation and religion (Grotevant, Thorbecke & Meyer, 1982), and the interpersonal domain comprising family, relationships, friendships, and sex roles (Balistreri, Busch-Rossnagel & Geisinger, 1995). The relative importance of identity options within these domains for an adolescent depends on what is accepted and valued in their respective culture (Phinney &
Baldelomar, 2011). Achieving a positive ethnic identity is associated with higher self-esteem and better relations with family and friends. The most positive outcome appears to be achievement of a bicultural identity that allows the adolescent to function effectively in either setting (Phinney & Kohatsu, 1997). In the case of the IMAs, labelling themselves, and being labelled by the wider communities as ‘Arabs’ only, ignores the complexity of the other individual and group identities which compete to define the role an individual plays in his community, specifically when such a definition affects the future of that individual.
Culturally speaking, there should be a growing list of shared values, traditions, and practices of the cultural group, such as identifying with their holidays, media, music, rituals, clothing, history, and heroic figures (Gentry & Campbell, 2002). However, to cherish a strong identity, certain sociological and psychological understandings have to take place. Sociologically, there should be coordination between the individuals and the group regarding certain developmental transitions, where individuals should not be left, on their own, in terms of negotiating their life courses, particularly with regard to setting and achieving goals. Psychologically, the community should provide the individuals
with those psychological resources that can facilitate the movement through, and negotiation with, various social structures and developmental contexts (Coˆ te´ & Schwartz, 2000). However, when the support is not provided, the confusion of shaping one’s identity only increases.
The development process individuals and communities pass through in the shaping of their identities does seem to follow specific patterns. However, these patterns provide only a general frame within which the interaction between the two forces takes place. There is a tendency to describe the process as being complex and complicated. Still, the levels and characteristics of these complexities and complications are specific to the circumstances under which individuals and communities live. Dealing with an ongoing process that does not end only complicates things further, and when the individual is at a critical stage of development, such as adolescence, and the community is having trouble defining itself as a community, then theories alone do not do justice to understanding a simple term as “identity development”, since each of the two words of the term assume a different meaning and connotation when applied to specific individuals and communities, such as the IMAs.