Globalization and religious nationalism: Self, identity, and the search for ontological security; Catarina Kinnvall

Pg 741 – (abstract) “The globalization of economics, politics, and human affairs has made individuals and groups more ontologically insecure and existentially uncertain. One main response to such insecurity is to seek reaffirmation of ones self identity by drawing closer to any collective that is perceived as being able to reduce insecurity and existential anxiety. The combination of religion and nationalism is a particularly powerful response (“identity-signifier”) in times of rapid change and uncertain futures, and is therefore more likely than other identity constructions to arise during crises of ontological insecurity.”

~ Identity-signifier – a culture or collective identity one is in that determines more of their core self/global self than other cultures they inhabit.

Pg 742 – “As individuals feel vulnerable and experience existential anxiety, it is not uncommon for them to wish to reaffirm a threatened self-identity. Any collective identity that can provide such security is a potential pole of attraction.”

~ If one begins to feel lost or threatened they want to make sure they are ok by going to back to a self-identity they feel is being threatened. Any group that does that (whether it be the original culture they were in or another culture that reminds them of it) bring the person closer. Like hippies who felt like they were no longer going to be hippies who now live in Makanda and live the hippi-ish lifestyle because it reminds them of what was threatened.

Pg 742 – “Nationalism and religion are two such causes or “identity-signifiers” that are more likely than other identity constructions to provide answers to those in need.”

~ So nationalism and religion are big parts of one’s global self.

Pg 743 – “Old patterns of behavior have become undermined as traditional power relations have become democratized. There are two basic consequences of this: (1) Old ways of getting things done are eliminated, which tends to leave behind only uncertainty; and (2) the structures that identified the community and bound it together are also being eliminated, which has a disintegrative effect.”

~ The more uncertainty there is (1) the more lost and threatened people feel and the more likely they are to try to find other cultures that remind them of what is being threatened. The more (1) is eliminated the harder it is to find real communities that are exactly like the ones that used to be, so the more people have to make their own cultures or split from cultures. Almost a developmental stage…finding something that reminds you of old possible selves because they can never be possible again. For instance, school will always be there for children, but once you graduate you must find something that reminds you of the culture of school.

Back has diagram of identity thoughts

Pg 746 – “Identity in Erikson’s work, is seen as an anxiety-controlling mechanism reinforcing a sense of trust, predictability, and control in reaction to disruptive change by reestablishing a previous identity or formulating a new one (Kinnvall, 2004).”

~ So Erickson views identity as being a way to keep the self from being overly threatened. New identities are formed to create end the threat.

Pg 746 – “For Giddens, then, like Erikson, self-identity consists of the development of a consistent feeling of biographical continuity where the individual is able to sustain a narrative about the self and answer questions about doing, acting, and being.”

~ So development of any identity comes when a person is able to create a continuous identity that does, acts, and exists in a consistent manner.

Pg 747 – “Home, in this sense, constitutes a spatial context in which daily routines of human existence are performed. It is a domain where people feel most in control of their lives because they feel free from the social pressure that is part of the contemporary world. Home, in other words, is a secure base on which identities are constructed (Dupuis & Thorns, 1998, p. 28). Homelessness is exactly the opposite, as it is characterized by impermanence and discontinuity.”

~ So an identity is “home” when it becomes part of the daily habits of a person. Other identities that are not constant are “homeless.” So the more one practices “home” identities the more at peace they will be and the more they practice “homeless” identities the more threatened they will feel because they will be ignoring certain “home” identities. Home is this sense is like the global self and homeless like possible identities.

Pg 747 – “As Sigel (1989) has noted, “There exists in humans a powerful drive to maintain the sense of one’s identity, a sense of continuity that allays fear of changing too fast or being changed against one’s will by outside forces” (p. 459).”

~ So people want to be more “home” than “homeless” they want more of a global sense of self than possible selves.

Pg 747-8 – “The fact that individuals search for one stable identity does not mean, however, that such identities exist. Rather, we need to understand identity not as fixed natural state of being, but as a process of becoming.”

~ Love this, reminds me of Dilley. Even “home” or the global self is never complete, but always becoming.

Pg 748 – “Proceeding from Bahktin’s theory of dialogism, so-called dialogical self-narratives are linguistically constituted and reconstituted through people’s relationships. Rather than representing some kinds of “core selves,” these self-narratives become “as-if selves,” through which we present ourselves “as if” we were bearers of lasting identities. In reality, however, this process only refers to individuals’ current perception of themselves as constructed in the actual dialogue (Gergen, 2000). This is what Shotter (1985) called social accountability.”

~ So social interactions deal a huge part with possible selves and the global self. The more you interact with the same people the more they become “home” and a part of your global self. When you meet or interact with new people you form more possible selves and increase a feeling of being “homeless.”

Pg 748 – “Social constructionism, like poststructuralist perspectives more generally, has been criticized for not being able to determine meaning here and now, as identity is constantly negotiated and in flux (Kinnvall 2003). Like postmodernism, it has also been accused of providing descriptions of how reality looks at the same time as it denies any essentialist assumptions of the nature of reality. Thus, reality is “really” heterogeneous, constantly changeable, and open to interpretation (Flax, 1990). In addition, a constructionist perspective finds it difficult to account for the emotional underpinnings of identity construction as manifest in the actual need to construct a comforting story about the self, about ourselves.”

~ Goes into the problems of certain views on identity, need to look at for problems in my theory. Also need to pay attention to emotional needs of identity construction and needs of identity. Why do we need identity? (Good overall thought to base theory on)

Pg 749 – “This larger process is ultimately intersubjective, implying that internalized self-notions can never be separated from self/other representations and are always responsive to new interpersonal relationship (Ogilvie & Ashmore, 1991, p. 286).”

~ Everything is intertwined and you cannot ever separate identities out completely because they interact too much with other identities.

Pg 750 – “…Self-categorization theory conceptualizes self at different levels of abstraction (personal, intergroup, and interspecies) and expresses a more marked fluidity in identity formation as individuals constantly shift back and forth between an individual and a social identity (Monroe, Hankins, & Van Vechten, 2000; Oakes et al., 1994). Individuals are said to be more likely to think of themselves as members of social groups under conditions in which that group membership maximizes the similarities between oneself and other group members at the same time as it increases the dissimilarities with other groups’ (Turner et al., 1987; see also Huddy, 2001; Kinnvall, 2003; Monroe et al., 2000).”

~ So the global self is constantly in flux over personal and social identities. People think more of their social identity when around others and more of their personal identity when by themselves.

Pg 752 – “Volkan (1997, pp. 27-29), using object relations theory, suggested the analogy of a large-scale tent in order to explore group psychology in a more comprehensive way. He invited us to think of ourselves in terms of learning to wear, from childhood on, two layers of clothing, where the first layer fits snugly (the personal identity) while the second layer (the social identity) is a loose covering that protects the individual in the way a parent, close family members, or other caregivers protect the subject (the ethnic, emotionally bonded large group). Because this garment is not tight-fitting, it also shelters other members of the group and thus resembles a large canvas tent. The introduction of traumatic events is likely to raise anxiety in the tent and may jeopardize the collective sense of self.”

~ I like this because it also explains why a change in a piece of the tent (say a thread) can cause ripples. Like a pebble in a pond.
Sand & glass shattered and restored

Pg 753 – “Abjection is caused by that which disturbs identity, system, or order, such as traumatic changes in the light of globalization. Abject becomes a major ingredient of collective identity formation when the familiar “stranger” is suddenly recognized as a threat.”

~ Collective identities feel threatened due to abjection.

Pg 755 – “This process of turning the stranger into an enemy is an attempt to securitize subjectivity in times of uncertainty. Within this process, self and other are both seen as essentialized bodies, which means reducing self and other to a number of cultural characteristics. These characteristics although constructed and fabricated, come to be seen as natural, unified features for describing the group.”

~ So by defining self/culture of self with certain specific features (collectivizing) one is trying to stop abjection and end the threat. So really, one can break the reason why cultures are understood as having certain characteristics down into the human’s need to understand something as solid even if it is not to end the threat that the culture might have if they realize that they are constantly changing. The same could be said of identity. People feel the need to identify with something or create identities or possible selves because they feel threatened knowing that nothing is ever constant. By telling themselves something cannot change or by telling themselves they are a part of a culture with certain undeniable habits they are ending the threat of change. Really change is the ultimate threat. And if development means change the reason why development requires some form of dissonance is because people don’t like to change and feel threatened when it happens. (I feel like this is really important for my theory).

Self-actualize when understand identities interplay with one another, although identities still constantly changing and developing.

~ Self-actualization happens when people realize change is inevitable. This would be the end category of the theory.

Pg 761 – “…As Calhoun has phrased it (1997, p. 18), live in only one world at a time.” (opposite = good opening for paper)

~ It is impossible to do so because everything intertwines with something else.