The social construction of identity

After an endless night, it is finally daylight. Marc opens his eyes and jumps up, stands up on the bed. He begins to run excitedly to the living room, with his eyes wide open, thinking that this year Santa Claus was going to bring him many gifts and sweets, since he had done all and all the homework. However, when he arrived he was surprised to see charcoal next to a letter: "next year help mom and dad."

Mine or yours?

One of the worst moments of childhood is the disappointment experienced by Marc. However, that feeling does not arise from having received coal. The discomfort is given because Marc, who believed that he had behaved well, they are letting him know that, in the eyes of others, he has behaved badly. Then, Is Marc a good or a bad kid? Are your own eyes or those of others right?

The duality of identity

This duality reflects that there is a part of us that we are not aware of and only from the outside, is it communicated to us. While our conception of ourselves may differ from that of others, yes

e presents us with a duality in the perspective of identity. In this sense, there is well a perception of one's own identity, but there are aspects of it that we can only access through others. Mead (1968) was one of the first theorists to differentiate a more personal identity from a more social identity ("me" and "me"), as two parts that coexist within the person and are they provide feedback. Although he was trying to identify two elements, he was actually signaling a process; a continuous relationship of the person with the environment that forms and of the person who shapes the environment.

We could say in a few words that, in the same way that we are aware that we have two eyes or a nose because we can touch them, only in front of the mirror do we see ourselves clearly. Following this line, society is that reflection, thanks to which we can discern our way of being.

Mandatory reading: "Personal and social identity"

What is mine

If you think that you are only you, I am going to start by trying to disprove you and, for now, tell you that you are less you than you think. Identity is normally defined as a unitary set of traits that remain stable and that allow a self-identification; an iron core to hold on to.

Why we are the way we are and self-identification

Let's imagine Marc growing up and how he becomes goth feeling misunderstood; and then skater without getting involved in anything; and then a romantic man seeking compromise; and then a bachelor with a crazy life; and then a businessman; and then... Where is that stability? However, the person is able to perceive and understand it in each of the contexts. That is, each of us can understand each other in each of our stages. In terms of Bruner (1991), identity is situated –in a space-time- and distributed –it decomposes into several facets-. Not only is one capable of understanding himself in each of his facets in his life, but he is also understood by others; Marc's parents have understood him in every episode of his growth.

Self-concept and its relationship with identity

This fact opens the doors to mental model theory (Johnson-Laird, 1983). Although right now it has been questioned who we are, it is true that we have an idea of ​​ourselves in our head, a selfconcept. Besides, andThis self-concept serves as a mental model about our repertoire of behaviors: we can imagine how we would act in different situations or before different people. Thanks to this, we can maintain an internal coherence of what we think of ourselves and not fall into cognitive dissonance. This is how, in each interaction, we evoke to the outside part of who we are, since in this process we only evoke the features of our self-concept related to our environment, to our here and now - in a nightclub we would certainly not show the same part of ourselves as in front of a exam-.

Continuing with another metaphor, let's think for a moment about the case of an elderly painter, on a chair, with a canvas before him, behind a lush meadow. For many hours that he spends sitting trying to recreate the landscape that surrounds him, you will never be able to accurately represent every detail that reality shows you. There will always be a small leaf or some shade of color that will only exist in reality. It is because of this fact that, by painting, he is recreating reality, not creating it.

What is yours?

This is how, although we may believe a lot, what we are to the other may be less. Right at this point I propose to change it, to tell you that you can be different from what you imagine.

Let's go back to our previous metaphors. For example, to Marc's experience, in which thinking about whether he is "good" or "bad" is given by whether doing homework or helping parents is more valued. Or more simply, in the case of the painter, who after finishing the painting each one will have their own impression of it.

The issuance and interpretation of intentions

In this line, it is exposed how in the interaction, our interlocutor develops an inference process. This process is based on interpreting the semantics and pragmatics of the message, the what and how it is said. From this, it does not interpret the message, but the intention of the issuer, with what intention we are addressing it. Several studies show that communication features such as accent, formalism or others, create different prejudices of people about their status, competence, anxiety, etc (Ryan, Cananza and Moffie, 1977; Bradac and Wisegarver, 1984; Bradar, Bowers and Courtright, 1979; Howeler, 1972).

Based on these indications, the receiver interprets our intention and thereby creates his own mental model of us. Because in the same way that one imagines how he would act in different situations, a predetermined image of the other is also elaborated that allows us to predict what he can do or say, think or feel; what can we expect from that person. It's one of the heuristics basic to process the information with greater agility: if I can foresee, I can give an answer beforehand.

That is the same end in the role of the receiver: give an answer. In every relationship we have, the other person makes their own feedback, your feedback, based on your interpretation of our actions. And if we have already said that our actions are somewhat different from what we would think and that the interpretation may be different from our intention, the feedback we receive may be totally different from expected. It can teach us parts of ourselves that we don't know or were not aware of; make us look different.

What do I decide to be?

In this way, as a third step in the process, I tell you that you are more than you thought, whether you want it or not, whether it is good or bad. We continually receive feedback from the outside, in every interaction we have with others, with the environment and with ourselves. And that message that we receive is not ignored, because we also exercise the same process that they did with us: now we are the receiver. We interpret the intention behind it and that is when we can find that they can treat us in a different way than we thought.

The importance of feedback in shaping identity

In the process of interpretation, the mental model received from the outside comes into conflict with our own, that is, how they see us and how we see ourselves. Possibly, new, unknown information has been included in the feedback received, which does not correspond to the idea we have of ourselves. This information will be included and integrated into our mental model from two features: the affective charge and the recurrence (Bruner, 1991).

Returning to the painter, he may receive different opinions about his painting, but he will be shocked if all of them they are only critical –recurrence of the same feedback- or if one of them comes from his wife that he loves so much –load affective-.

We then arrived at the danger zone. These two traits modulate the influence that “how they see us” has on us.. If it is also very contrary to our initial mental model, we enter cognitive dissonances, internal incoherencies due to the contradiction that they suppose us. Much of the psychological discomfort is given because we feel that "we do not receive what we give", or that "we are not how we want to be" and Strength of these beliefs can lead to much suffering and psychological disorders such as depression if they become persistent and insidious.

But it is in this same risk zone, where the person can grow, where that feedback can add and not subtract. For personal development and growth, after defining this process, the keys are in the following points:

• Self-awareness: if you are aware of your self-concept and the context that surrounds you, we can optimize the adaptation of what we evoke. Being aware of how we are and what surrounds us, we are able to make the decision of how to best respond to the needs of our environment.

• Self determination: we can be aware that the feedback we receive is information about how others receive us. In this way we can think about how to develop better and focus and achieve our goals.

• Self-critical sense: in the same way that feedback information can help us achieve goals, it can also serve us for personal growth. Knowing what to collect from the feedback we receive to improve, or what areas are showing us that we still need to strengthen. In this case, it is important to know how to recognize what needs our environment satisfies us.

• Self-regulation: the ability to be more or less flexible in each of the parts of "being". Both knowing how to expose ourselves authentically and putting up defenses when we play, both knowing how to get the most out of what they tell us and how to discard it if it is very contaminated. The fact of optimizing resources and our own management

Finally, you may well be less, you may well be different, as you may also be more. But - and excuse me for the expression - I leave you in the most "screwed up" situation of all, and that is that you can be whatever you want to be.

Bibliographic references:

• Bradac, J. J. and Wisegarver, R. (1984). Ascribed status, lexical diversity, and accent: Determinants of perceived status, soladirity and control speech style. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3, 239-256.
• Bradac, J. J., Bowers, J. W. and Courtright, J. TO. (1979). Three language variables in communication research: Intensity, immediacy, and diversity. Human Communication Research, 5, 257-269.
• Bruner, J. (1991). Acts of meaning. Beyond the cognitive revolution. Madrid: Editorial Alliance.
• Johnson-Laird, Philip N (1983). Mental Models: Toward a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference and Consciousness. Harvard University Press.
• Howeler, M. (1972). Diversity of Word usage as a stress indicator in an interview situation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1, 243-248.
• Mead, G. H.: Spirit, person and society, Paidós, Buenos Aires, 1968 a. C
• Ryan, E. B., Cananza, M. TO. and Moffie, R. W. (1977). Reactions towards varying degrees of accentedness in the speech of Spanish-English. Language and Speech, 20, 267-273.