The Study of Disciplinary Identity – Some Theoretical Underpinnings

In this paper I argue that Bakhtin’s dialogic theory of identity (Bakhtin, 1981, 1984, 1986), Barth’s anthropological theory of identity (Barth, 1969, 1981; Triandafyllidou, 2002) and Socioconstructionist theory of identity (Giddens, 1991; Burr, 1995; Shotter and Gergen’s edited series on text and identity) provide a remarkably coherent and complementary theoretical foundations for an exploratory study of disciplinary identity negotiation in academic texts. Bakhtin’s dialogic view of identity, in this paper, serves as an overarching theory while social-anthropological theory of identity and socialconstructionist theory of identity contribute to the theory of identity within the dialogic framework. Barth’s dichotomous view of identity explicates the necessary consequence of Bakhtin’s infinite dialogues between Self and Others during the process of identity formation – i.e. to draw boundaries, to dichotomize insiders from outsiders, especially Significant Others who cause more impact, positively or negatively. Socioconstructionist theory provides further insights into identity formation by locating Self in a less privileged position, where Self is dialectically related to Others. These three theories have contributed much to my understanding of discipline identity. In these theoretical lights, I understand identity as arising in simultaneous interactions with a multiplicity of others, especially Significant Others in different temporal and spatial contexts. Li: The Study of Disciplinary Identity