Identity-Bearing Signifiers and Beliefs – Can You Identify With This?

All of us have ways which we think about ourselves and how we participate in the world.  We are a good friend because we listen and keep confidences.  We are smart because we have successfully completed post-secondary education.  We are charitable because we contribute to the United Way through payroll deduction.  We are creative because we are left-handed.  And so on.  Identity is within us and surrounds us.  We talk about it in pop culture, such as in movies when a person needs to create a new identity to avoid some type of persecution, to denouncing a female pop star we see as promiscuous because we can’t identify with her.  We put our identity on display for others when we carry particular types of identification in our wallets.  A Gold Card identifies we are professionally successful, a gym membership card identifies we are fit and healthy. 

            Bracher describes the ways in which we think about ourselves, our attributes, and our beliefs as our identity-bearing signifiers.  He states

“…identity-bearing signifiers embody socially valued ideals and attributes that we strive either to enact or to avoid embodying in our behavior.  Our identity depends, first, on the integrity and status of such master signifiers and, second, on our assurance that we actually embody these signifiers” (2006, p. 18).

In other words, we determine as individuals what personal characteristics are valued by the society we live in and then focus on modeling our behavior to be viewed as representing these characteristics.  The construction of identity is more complex but this is a simplified way of explaining the concept.

            People talk about identity as if it is well understood and a self-evident notion arising from personal experiences.  In a course I completed last winter I wrote a paper on professional identity construct and the role of formal education in becoming a teacher.  In doing research I was surprised that is was difficult to find a clear definition of identity.  I did find a few definitions that captured the idea well.  In an article by Sfard and Prusak they described identity as collections of stories about persons, or more specifically, as those narratives about individuals that are reifying, endorsable, and significant (2005, p. 16). I liked this definition because of its reference to stories and narratives as I always find myself wondering what a person’s story is.  I can see now the similarity to Bracher in his description of narratives as diachronic systems of meaning (2006, p. 17).  Another definition which I quoted was in a 2008 study by Horn, Nolen, Ward and Campbell, who defined identity as the way a person understands and views himself, and is often viewed by others, at least in certain situations – a perception of self that can be fairly constantly achieved (p. 62).  Again there seems to be a tie to the work of Bracher and his description of self-perception as our identity-bearing signifiers.  In a 2008 paper by Olsen, he described identity as a continuum rather than, discrete linear parts (p. 23).  I can relate to identity in this description because our life experiences are impacting and causing changes to the way we see ourselves in different situations on an ongoing basis. 

            In terms of learning, Bracher describes ability or failure to learn as partially motivated by the need to maintain one’s identity-bearing signifiers (2006, p.18).  In post-secondary education examples of this are evident.  In the first book we reviewed this term by Tomasello, I found myself wondering if there were students in the class who might have difficulty in reading the book because of a belief in divine creation.  Would they have trouble identifying with the material because they deny evidence of evolution?  Bracher discusses this as an instance where learning can be undermined because the knowledge being discussed is divergent from a person’s core beliefs and therefore triggers resistance to consider it.  Additionally, I think of friends who have chosen to pursue a career path because they perceived the profession to be something they identified with.  In some cases they were right and excelled in their program of choice because their identity-bearing signifiers and beliefs were congruent with that of the profession.  In another instance, one friend was in the initial stages of a dentistry program when they decided that they could not deal with having to cause pain to others in the course of their work.  They just could not identify with this part of the job; they were not a person that caused others to feel pain.  Bracher (2006) describes a degree of identity destabilization as almost inevitable in university students.  The ability of students to be comfortable enough with their own identity to allow pursuit and exploration of belief-threatening information is important to development of critical thinking skills.  This doesn’t mean that core beliefs will always be changed but being open to questioning and exploring alternatives allows for new knowledge and better understanding of yourself and others.  I liken this point to the idea of being comfortable in your own skin.  If you know who you are and why you are who you are, it becomes easier to open yourself to considering new meanings.  I think this is what being a lifelong learner is all about.

References:

Bracher, M. (2006). Radical pedagogy: Identity, generativity, and social transformation, New York,  N.Y. : Palgrave MacMillan.

Horn, I.S., Nolen, S.B., Ward, C. & Campbell, S.S. (2008). Developing practices in multiple worlds: the role of identity in learning to teach. Teacher Education Quarterly, 2, 61-72.

Olsen, B. (2008). How reasons for entry into the profession illuminate teacher identity development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 2, 23-40.

Sfard, A. & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: in search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14-22.

Brokering in Communities of Practice: Challenging Territory

 I found the concept of brokering in Communities of Practice – Learning, Meaning, and Identity to be most relevant of all of the readings, theories, and concepts we have encountered thus far in this course. Wenger (1998) describes brokering in communities of practice as the translation, coordination, and alignment between perspectives. Brokering links practices through facilitating transactions between communities of practice. Practice elements of one community are introduced to another leading to learning. Wenger describes brokering as a process that provides participative connections between communities of practice. A person acting as a broker shares their experiences from another community of practice. Connections provided by brokers have the potential for new negotiation and for learning to occur.

As a manager, I link this process strongly to my work. Wenger states that the role of a manager is construed in terms of directing people but that a good part of the activities have more to do with brokering across boundaries between practices (1998, p. 109). The role of many types of managers is in coordinating people. They introduce groups to new ideas from other groups, and lead them through change. During this exchange they must convince the community that they are justifiable and have the knowledge to be trusted in this role. Wenger suggests that in order for a broker to be successful in this enterprise they need to have enough legitimacy to influence the development of a practice, mobilize attention, and address conflicting interests (1998, p.109). In some instances and depending on the manager, this can be a challenging endeavor.

Several times in my recent career a new manager was asked to introduce an idea to a community of practice I was involved in. I struggled with their role because I did not see them as legitimate to the community, even in the periphery. The manager did not have enough legitimacy because I did not see their educational background or experience as being substantive to give me confidence in their ability. This is a difficult position to be in as a manager. Wenger describes this occurrence for people in brokering roles as uprootedness. Wenger states that because communities of practice focus on their own enterprise, boundaries can lack the kind of negotiated understanding found at the core of practices about what constitutes competence. This makes recognizing the value of brokering difficult to assess (1998, p. 110).

I have always had a strong belief that being a successful manager involves collaborating with people in a workplace to create an environment which fosters teaching and learning. In many workplaces there are multiple communities of practice which come in contact with one another through various types of boundary encounters. Wenger describes these as one-on-one, immersion, and delegation. Whichever the type of encounter, the broker plays an important role.

In my current position, I am often asked to work as a project manager to advance new policies or initiatives towards making improvements in the organization. The role of project manager is an excellent example of brokering in communities of practice. Presently, I am working on a project which involves several communities of practice across two provinces. This has been very challenging and through it I have thought of my role as a mediator. It is complex work to help communities of practice negotiate understanding with one another even in the face of conflicting interests.

Wenger describes the process of brokering as complex and it is. At the outset of a project the difficulty lies in becoming recognized as legitimate. Once the project is advancing the difficulty is in staying in the periphery and not becoming so immersed in the work to be seen as a full community member. Wenger states that some people seem to thrive on being brokers. I have never really thought of myself in that way but have been doing this type of negotiating work for several years. It is isolating but gratifying at the same time. You bring a different perspective but understand the current way of thinking. You enable coordination between communities of practice, paving the way for new meanings to be created. People acting in the role of brokers can be viewed by communities of practice as those that create work and cause conflict. However, without the insertion of this person with a differing point of view, communities of practice will themselves become isolated and closed to new members. The possibility of growing through new learning and meaning is reduced threatening the survival of the community. The role of a broker can cause discomfort because of the potential for change. Conflict is common but understanding that this is, as Wenger states, an occupational hazard is giving me new insight on my own expectations.

References:

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity, New York, N.Y.:

Cambridge University Press.