Chandrika Ray, Tanaya Mohanty
The question of identity has always been central to any society. However, the way this has been debated has varied in sociology. What has been constant is the understanding that identity is socially constructed. The concept of identity, it is generally agreed, is a complex one, shaped by the everyday dynamics of the family, community, rituals, and the larger world of political, economic, historical, and cultural contexts. The answer to the question ‘who am I’ depends, in large part, on who the world around me says I am. Who do my parents say I am? Who do my peers say I am? What message is reflected in the faces and voices of my teachers, my neighbours, and my community? What do I learn from the media about myself? How am I represented in the cultural images around me? Or am I missing from the picture altogether? Early scholars such as George Herbert Mead have foregrounded the importance of the ‘generalized others’ in defining selfhood. Anthropological writings and comparative studies have long shown how different identities are shaped by different cultures. Historical specificities, political economies, and cultures were always considered as important in the making of identities. Recent years have, however, shown the minute details of how class, caste, race, and gender in intersection shape identities. An intersectional analysis has acquired its rightful salience in more recent times. It is important to recall here that there has been considerable literature in India on how gender in intersection with other organizing principles of society constructs identities. Leela Dube's pioneering work on how Hindu girls of privileged castes were socialized is instructive in this regard (Dube, 2001). Sharmila Rege's work (2014) on Dalit women highlights a very different process of how identities are constructed.