How are marked and unmarked identities socially produced

A simple definition of identity element might be no more than who we ar. People of the same nationality or age, for instance, can be said to name an identity in common. It follows that by virtue of be persistent to more than bingle assemblage, or joint identity, we all return multiple identities. Identities can connect bulk and disconnect them overly. Similarities in group identities may give rise to positive connections amidst citizenry, further every bit connections may be veto when referring to differences.An identity created by differences can be nonpareil that is detrimentally valued one which ceases to be equal and one where kind life is maintained on an imbalance. Identities can be almost(prenominal) individualistic (for example female, Southerner) and, with referring to births and connections to early(a)s (whether they be similar or ancestryive), accessible. Furthermore, accessible identities can be either situated, that is disposed(p) by what bulk be doing (shop, sniping), or relational and minded(p) by the relationships between hoi polloi.It is essential to neb this relational identity can be unequal. The concepts of mark and overlooked identities argon a pairing of unequal relational identities where the unasterisked identities taken for grant ar non noticed in seam to the marked identities, which unceasingly are. As Taylor states, the marked identities in most cases carry a negative value (Taylor, 2009, p179). This essay describes the means marked and unmarked identities are created. An example of marked and unmarked identity is found in Rabans channel People.They were the homeless living on the streets of New York they were separate by some others (everyone else) as a collection of thieves, alcoholics, the temporarily jobless (Raban cited in Taylor p176). The identity given to the drive focal point People is relational it is both detailed and negative and is the marked identity of the pairing. Ev eryone else, the other half of the relationship, is of course the unmarked identity. People with unmarked identities have a vaguely positive normal identity which is not really described (Taylor, 2009, p179).Moreover, the passage People were grouped together as creation the same, because as Taylor suggests it is leave of the nature of group identities that they are not seen as individuals with different life histories (2009, p177). The brotherly process by dint of which the difference of other people is marked and their negatively valued identity becomes established is known as Othering (Taylor, 2009, p179). From the articles both the Roma or immigrants and the thugs are the marked identities.The Roma immigrants have a racial and ethnic collective identity they are Roma, from Romania, living in Northern Ireland, some of whom are English-speaking. The attacks against them (by the thugs) are racially motivated, and in racist rhetoric a rat insistence is that immigrants should go back to where they come from. As Taylor observes, a racial and ethnic identity, like the Roma, often positions people as recent immigrants to the democracy in which they were born and grew up (2009, p182).Although the article doesnt say how long the immigrant Roma people have been living in Belfast, the mention of a baby indicates that in this community there is at least a second generation. The other marked identity is that of the thugs. They are described with labels much(prenominal)(prenominal) as, gang, neo-Nazi, racist criminals and far-right faction whose actions were illegal although unlike the Street People they may be comfortable claiming at least part of that identity.In both articles figures of authority use powerful language to castigate the behaviour of the thugs and unconditionally support the Roma. The Roma are recognised as making a contribution to the community where they were living, presumably side by side with their assailants, in a cosmopolitan district of B elfast. Despite this, however, they tarry marked their identity is further reinforced and re-created by the negative effect of the rhetoric of persecution and discrimination in both the articles.In contrast, the unmarked identity are the Western, white, Irish who are also given a situational identity by association with their cosmopolitan and affluent place of mansion house a strong embossment is given of a nice (not a licking-class) place to live. In the article the journalist makes a occurrence point of mentioning that the attacks did not happen in a working-class, Protestant neighbourhood, where by chance it would be less surprising to see this behaviour? In a modern guild it is no longer possible to divide up a community into Karl Marxs neat groups of capitalists and workers.A more labyrinthian picture exists in the contemporary UK of middle-class and working-class groups. Both name refer to characteristics such(prenominal) as affluence, education, background and even accent, furthermore terms, such as chav, posh or yummy mummy can cater further detail. In the article the description of Lisburn Road with coffee shops climb of affluent young mothers is describing a comfortable, middle-class district which confers an identity save on the unmarked.As with Rabans Street People, the Roma and the thugs have been grouped into an imagined community. Imagined refers to the importance of our root words and beliefs about the world (Taylor, 2009, p178). Typically, members of an imagined community are too numerous to be personally acquainted, however, as both the Roma and thugs were relatively itty-bitty groups it is probable that members were acquainted. The negative collective identity, again as with the Street People, was given by others. Taylor suggests that at some level the experience of being homeless in a modern society in some way constituted the Street People as a group, as the experience of persecution helped constitute the Roma as a group (2 009, p178).Finally, the figment of the Roma people here is an example of how established differences and inequalities are reinforced. The attacks by the thugs were part of a trend of growing abuses against the Roma across atomic number 63 (www. amnestry. org. uk accessed December 2010) they were challenging and contesting the right of the Roma to live in their community. In turn their persecution of the Roma was challenged by residents of the community and figures of authority in an blast to repair and improve society. Taylor, S (2009) Who do we think we are? Identities in daily life in Taylor, S. Hinchliffe, S. , Clarke, J. and Bromley, S. (eds) Making neighborly Lives, Milton Keynes, The Open University. pardon International accessed 4th December 2010 http//www. amnesty. org. uk/news_details. asp? NewID=18258 Order and predictability are important if society is to exist therefore it is inherent that social enact is maintained. Social coif can be referred to as a set of rela te social structures, social institutions and social practices which act to conserve, maintain and enforce an smashing way of relating and behaving within society.There are various scenerys and theories of how social order is created within society two such views come from Erving Goffman and Michael Foucault. The difference between theories such as those of Erving Goffman and Michael Foucault is primarily one of focus. Goffman analysed social rules governing communicative actions by individual people to develop his theories using the metaphor of a theatre. Goffman demonstrated that the most casual actions, such as posture, body and inwardness movements that people make are performances aimed toward communicating a positive core for an audience.Goffman focused on the self-importance and self-presentation he preferred to study individuals. Goffmans descriptions of individuals face-to-face interactions formed the large body of his work through this he noted that social interacti ons could be reworked by changing interactions. In contrast, Michael Foucault preferred to analyse the entire society. He examined the ways in which societies function and the principles of exclusion societies developed to define their differing forms of order throughout different historical dates.Foucault did not conduct the type of first hand and intensifier field work characteristic of the development of Goffmans theories. Foucaults theories on history and the self were more impersonal and global in focus. They centred on how societies interpreted and employ their definitions of sane and insane, innocent and criminal and insider and outsider and how with severally differing discourse social switch emerged creating a new and greater power than the last.Goffman looks at the way individuals present themselves and their activities to others using the theatre as a framework. In his hypothesis of impression management Goffman saw that through interaction with others in society a n impression of the subject is given off to others. This is automatic and inevitable. The way people perceive others is through this social interaction. This means that through messages that are given off whether intended or unintended they are the judgments by which people bequeath hold their opinion of others they come into contact with.According to Goffman impression management is fundamentally about expressive responsibility it is about self-consciously crafting an exterior appearance that will not offend the audience. In other words social interaction is an act of dramatization in which people perform in accordance with the social order or purlieu expected of them the nature of the environment and with the goal of manufacturing performances that are acceptable keeps social order constant but if these interactions are changed or reworked the result will be different disrupting the social norms within society (Silva, 2009, p. 16).In contrast to Goffmans research Foucault dismis ses the view that individuals have any power or go over society looking instead at historical establish and exploring how social order is written and talked about differently depending on what is deemed charm by the organisations which govern society at the time which he is perusing he called these discourses the way different frameworks guide what is acceptable within these periods of time whether it be the way people are talking or acting at any given point in history.So as well as looking at how these subjects act within the big society he is looking at society itself as a larger organism this allows him to explore micro as well as macro rather than Goffmans studies of only the micro or the individual. (Silva, 2009, p. 319) There are however similarities between the two in that they are both come to with the large picture of understanding how society and social order is formed, maintained, changed and rebuilt over time the differences only become visible when their method s and theories are broken down.A good way to explore both the similarities and differences in these theories is to look at the case studies by Buchanan and Monderman In these instances the focus is the relationship between business and pedestrians and how the governance of these variables act as agents in the conception of social order. Buchanan and Monderman explored how the relationship between relations and pedestrians makes and remakes social order.Traffic congestion in Britains towns and cities increased in correlation with the rise in car self-command following the conclusion of the Second World War. Buchanan was commissioned in 1961 by the UK Government to deliver the report Traffic in Towns. This report was deemed needful to avoid demand for road space being greater than that available. The tribute of the Buchanan report was that traffic and pedestrians should be segregated.Buchanans principle was to isolate areas for working, shopping and leisure, separate to corridors where traffic could move freely without disruption, regulating the movements of both traffic and pedestrians. The isolated areas were described as environmental units (Silva, 2009, p. 328). Mondermans view straightway contradicted the ideas presented by Buchanan. Monderman challenged the principle of segregation as well as other factors associated with traffic calming such as warning signs and speed humps.This school of thought of shared space takes a different approach to public spaces and highways in that segregation are almost exclusive to highways. Mondermans thesis uses psychological traffic calming to improve road safety using measures such as abolishing roadside markings and Signposting. Monderman pioneered the idea of the naked street the removal of what he viewed as unnecessary street furniture within this model which promotes the idea of social order being maintained and balanced by the interaction between drivers and pedestrians (Silva, 2009, p. 333).Monderman displays awareness and understanding of the driver of the vehicle in contrast to Buchanan, Monderman implies that the driver rather than the vehicle is the true cause of potential risk of exposure on the road. Both of these studies can be used and compared to those of Foucault and Goffman both have differing views centred on the same big issue for example Michel Foucault theorised that we behave fit in to what he refers to as discourse. In this instance discourse is what is in everyday talking, thinking and reading, but it has come down from people and institutions invested with authority.In his view we think we are free to act but in naturalism we are obeying authority figures this can applied to the report by Colin Buchanan When people drive they automatically obey road signs and physical features Foucault proposes that discourses are replaced as the need arises but that they are always cascaded down from authority figures. These figures change through time from the organisations in ch arge of social order and so on. So as we had more cars on the road we had new rules most their use.Mondermans approach had the street furniture and segregation and claimed that pedestrians going through what became known as shared spaces instinctively knew to be aware of other road users and pedestrians and negotiated their way by making eye contact with each other.Erving Goffmans theory can be compared to this as he believed that people interact with each other in daily life to make things work better so that they can make changes in social order which they can claim as their own rather controlled governing bodies. n conclusion both have many similarities such as their rely to understand social life and order, they are both rational in their ideas of authority although neither claims to have a definitive theory of social order both believe it is make up of sequences whether it be small individual pieces or discourses that creates power and organisation however they differ in thei r approaches to what components make up society one taking the individual and one taking society as a whole.One believing that the way individuals act towards one another directly affects how social order is made and remade one believing that this is only influenced by larger organisms such as government as a whole not as individual entities. Both views have merit and are not without fault but are in their own ways directly concerned with the bigger picture that is social order within society.