A wise philosopher once said, you can never step on the same river twice and that the only thing that does not change is change itself, and in relation to that, our self is in a constant spiral that’s open to possible changes, let it be through experiences or through human intervention, for we humans are an unstable ball of beings. To question and wonder is a nature of man and one who does not question is less of a man, that is why I have number of questions that are difficult to answer, to state one -“Who am I?” Isn’t it too broad and at the same time cliche? Because let’s face the fact, certainty is temporary and when you reach a certain answer to your identity, changes could come and make you go back to square 1.
Mokros stated that “identity is constituted by self reflection of discourse and interaction. Which means that the self is constantly under-construction by the society, molded by social interactions and environment. We are in a never-ending process of construction through interactions, and that the “self” is both from the upbringing of an individual and the society.
How does communication construct one’s identity? According to Michael Hecht and his colleagues, in their theory – Communication Theory of Identity”(CTI), “humans are inherently social beings whose lives revolve around communication”, and it speaks volumes due to the fact that the main medium to socialization is to communicate to another individual, and to the community. How do we interact? By communicating. How to get to know another individual? By communicating. In any form of interaction, communication is key. That’s why when one’s identity is being formed, interaction is needed and by interaction – communicating.
Talking about the framed or layered perspective, it is stated as ” identity as multifaceted”. Because the “self” has multiple “center” of identities, the CTI condensed it to 4 frames, that includes, personal, enacted, relational, and communal frames. The first one is personal frame talks about the self and one’s self-concept, from the word it self personal. It is the analysis of one’s self, characteristics, and such. It is also how one individual discerns the self.
Second is the enacted frame, being self explanatory, “to act out”. It is stated in the theory that it is the performance or expression of identity. Communication for example, when we exchange enacted expressions and such. As stated earlier, communication is one of the key factors that molds one’s self.
Third is the relational frame, which is broken down into 4 levels. The first level is where we define ourselves according to how others perceive us, or also known as ascribed relational identity. Second level is how an individual forms the self through the relationship with others, like friends, relatives, loved ones and others. Third, how our identities exist are shaped through other people’s identities. Lastly, an identity molded by a relationship itself.
The fourth frame is the communal. It is the identity that formed by the community, group, or the collective.
Though others may say that these frames are different, but in fact they can be interpenetrated. To be clearer, as an example, when I question myself for being religious (personal frame), I will look at my roots, my parents and family members and ask them why (relational frame) as well as observe what they do and how I’ve come to be religious (enacted frame), lastly, question my peers and social groups and observe them as well (communal frame). And all of these requires communication.
Another way for these frames to interpenetrate – dialectical tensions. It is where though these frames differ and contradict each other, they could still coexist and permeate due to the dialectical tension among them. This tension as stated in the CTI “source of the dynamic and fluid nature of identity”. And due to the issue of discrepancies of the frames, and imperfectness of communication, Identity gaps came to life.
To be able to really understand this, here is an example of mine.
When I’m ask to describe myself, I would say that I’m a religious person because I’ve spent my education years in a Catholic school, I’ve done services for the church and in the church, and I’ve joined communities or church groups that devotes ourselves to the Supreme Being and the church, however, due to my actions and vocal expressions, people perceive me as a “little ball of evil”, without thinking that this identity of mine is caused by my interactions with them too.
Therefore, no matter how much we claim that we are unique individuals and that we are not photocopies of the society, we’ll always return to the mere fact that the person we are today is influence by factors like religion, culture, environment, media, and such. We may not see the way they’ve affect us, or the changes they’ve caused us, we can’t deny that these things happened
In addition, there may be times that we feel like we are not ourselves anymore or we don’t act the way we used to, let’s just remember that the self is in a constant construction, that it adds another hollow block and cement every time and that’s okay. We are unstable beings so we should accept instability. We are a kaleidoscope, and that’s what makes us beautiful species.
Rachell Anne T. Capaning 