Uncategorized

Thoughts on the “Onion” model for Identity

After being introduced, within the “Gender mainstreaming” course with Ahead, with this model for describing, defining and summarizing the particularities of identities, I am left with a few personal thoughts, conclusions and also questions.

The main things I want to talk about are the “dynamic”, “relative” and “complex” characteristics of this model.

To get straight to the point, my understanding is that these 3 factors are very much correlated, and drive each other. I consider that the relativity (the environment in which the identity operates), very much influences the complexity and dynamic of the identity (either individual, or of a group). This relativity, I consider, is determined by many factors (like, age range, location, culture, interaction, knowledge base etc.).

For example, I will compare based on two criteria that drive relativity: age range (15 to 30 years and 40 to 60 years) and location (urban/industrialized and rural/small cities).

I argue that people living in urban areas, within any age range, will have a more dynamic and complex identity, because they are exposed to much more factors of relativity, and their grade of adaptation is higher (either out of necessity, or out of personal decision), and those living in rural/small cities will have a less dynamic and complex identity.

I admit that all identities have the potential to be VERY dynamic and complex, but due to social, religious, cultural, and many other constraints, I consider that some don’t get the chance to reach that potential.

Of course, ANY identity, no matter how more or less dynamic or complex it is, may be VERY strong and defined, but certain identities are more capable, and likely to change then others (either of individuals or of groups).

 

One other point I would like to make is that I consider that there are individual and groups that intentionally change their identities and “exercise” their dynamicity, in order to adapt to certain relative factors, or to reach certain goals, either personal or of a group. This, in my perception, would mean that there are individuals and groups that have VERY FEW characteristics in the core of their “onion”, and actually use the dynamic as a tool to adapt in certain environments, or workplaces, or etc.

 

These are just a few thoughts, and to conclude, I would say that, in my opinion, it is important to make people aware of the dynamic part of their identity, by subjecting them (softly) to more factors then they usually encounter in their day to day life.

And my question is this: can one have more identities and more personalities being expressed at the same time, and still maintain an untouched CORE in the “onion”?

Please feel free to disagree! J

All the best!

Radu, volunteer and participant in the "Gender mainstreaming" training, on behalf of "Asociatia BUMERANG", Romania

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.