In what sense does modernisation and post-modernity present a challenge for identity and the self - Essay Example

?Introduction There is a great demarcation in identity constructs when comparing the post-modern era to the pre-modern era. The biggest difference isthat the post-modern era has been marked with a great deal more impersonality then the pre-modern era. Whereas, in the pre-modern era, an individual could derive a sense of self and identity from their close connections – their neighbors, their churches, their family – in the post-modern era, this changed. Moreover, the role of the man has changed with the advent of the changes that have occurred in the post-modern era. Where he was the sole breadwinner in the pre-modern era, and this is where he derived his identity, in the post-modern era, the man has become less of a breadwinner and thus, according to some views, he became more of a consumer. Therefore, the male identity has changed substantially in this era. The following explains the broad nature of identity, then explains how individuals, in general, have been affected by the post-modern changes, then, finally, how men in particular have been affected by these changes. The nature of identity Identity is a dynamic social product, residing in psychological processes, which cannot be understood except in relation to its social context and historical perspective. (Breakwell, 1986, p. 9). It is a process that is developed over a person's entire life span. (Singer, 2004, p. 437). Identity grows across time, but there is a nature of time that must be considered. Inner time is a duration, and is in tune with each person's cognitive rhythms. Martin (1987) references this time thusly - inner time is the realm of subjective consciousness of the individual. As we know from experience, the two may seem inconsistent, as when we talk of time flying or passing slowly. (Martin, 1987, p.199) This concept of time refers to our inner states. Intersubjective time is measured by face-to-face social interactions, by sharing experiences with others, thus moving through time conjointly. By sharing experiences with others, the interactants come close to achieving a consensual appreciate of their conjoint movement through time. (Breakwell, 1986, p. 21). Biographical time refers to large chunks of time that are meaningful in one's life eras, such as adolescence, childhood, college years, married life, etc. There are also social and personal aspects to an identity. All humans have a division between self-identity and the performance of oneself that he puts out into the world, in specific social contexts (Giddens, 1991, p. 58). The personal identity, or real self, differs from one individual to another - some individuals' real self comes out when they act impulsively, other's real self is manifested when acting out social obligations. (Breakwell, 1986, p. 16). The real self may be looked at as being a person’s root core of who they are, and who they would be if there were not the influences of various social dynamics and constraints. (Tracy & Trethewey, 2005, p. 173). Another way of looking at this concept is the private self, the self that known only to the individual, and the public self, the self that is known to others. These two aspects of identity both act in concert with one another and conflict with each other. Most individuals unconsciously deem one aspect more important than the other, and the favored aspect is the one that controls their behavior. (Brewer & Hewstone, 2004, p. 185). There is some theory that one's personal identity is only exposed when making moral decisions, as this exposes values, which are the cornerstone of presuppositions about the self. (Breakwell, 1986, p. 17). According to Anthony Giddens (1991), identity is a reflexive project. The premise of reflexive awareness is that an individual knows what they are doing, and why they are doing it. Humans monitor their circumstances, and are able to discursively explain why they are engaging in a certain behaviour. Discursive practices use reason or argument to explain something, as opposed to emotions and intuition. Practical consciousness is the underpinning of the reflexive monitoring of action in daily life, and is practiced on a non-conscious, automatic level. With every action, one has an endless array of possibilities, and a given response to any kind of query will depend upon the shared framework of reality. There is a shared reality between individuals. Practical consciousness brackets anxieties due to the social stability that is implicated by such consciousness, as well as providing a "constitutive role in organising an 'as if' environment in relation to existential issues." (Giddens, 1991, p. 37). Identity changes by two processes - assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation refers to absorbing new components into oneself, so that they become a part of one's identity. Assimilation takes affective and cognitive schemata and incorporates them into the person’s identity, thus changing the individual’s interpretation of his or her own identity. (Sneed & Whitbourne, 2001, p. 312). Accommodation refers to the adjustment which occurs in the existing structure so as to find a place in which to fit the new elements. (Breakwell, 31 1986, p. 23). During the process of accommodation, a person changes his or her identity when there are experiences that are discrepant with the established identity. (Sneed & Whitbourne, 2001, p. 312). The processes of assimilation and accommodation work together to make a person distinct, provide continuity to self, and provide self-esteem. An individual's personal identity is a residue - every time a person assimilates and accommodate due to social context or constraints, what is left over is the personal identity. This is related to De Levita's (1965) concept of a person's sense of identity, which means the feeling of being continuous in time; the feeling of fulfilling a placed of one's own in the community...the feeling of intrinsic value of...self-esteem. (De Levita, 1965, p, 151). Related to individual identity is the concept of collective identity and collective conscience. A clear definition of the collective is the similarity among and between a plurality of persons, according to whatever criteria. (Jenkins, 2004, p. 80). According to Emile Durkheim, societies are founded upon a collective conscience, with four principal dimensions. (Durkheim, 1972, p. 5). The first dimension is the volume, and this refers to how much each individual's perspectives and attitudes are identical to others in the collective, so that each individual is, in essence, a microcosm of the collective. The second dimension is intensity, which refers to how much of an emotional and intellectual hold the collective beliefs and values have on the individual perspectives. The greater the envelopment of the collective conscience, the greater the intensity. Rigidity refers to how clearly defined are the social practices and beliefs, both proscribed and prescribed, by the collective. The lower the volume and intensity, the more vague and ambiguous are the rules, and this leaves the rules open to interpretation from each individual member. The fourth dimension is the content of the collective conscience – what is the collective conscience based upon? (Durkheim, 1972, p. 6). Gender, ethnicity and kinship are examples of collectivity. (Jenkins, 2004, p. 80). Furthermore, the collective may be a group. Group identification consists of three components. The first is the knowledge an individual has that he is a part of a group. The second is the anticipation of positive or negative connotations of being associated with the group. The third is an emotional component, in that emotions are associated with being a part of the group, such as love or hatred, and these emotions can be directed to others who are not a part of the group, but related to it. (Tajfel, 1978, pp. 28-29). The essence of collectivity is communality, and this is what a community stems from. There is an ideological tension between individual identity and group identity, which runs as a thread throughout the literature search for this particular study and the stories the men tell during the interviews. Both individualism and collectivism inform the narrative exploration of self, context, history, and category. On the one hand, there is the belief that the self is a blank slate until the individual constructs an identity; on the other hand, there is the belief that identity is constructed from thevalues of the culture in which the individual finds himself (McDonald, 2008, p. 322). Social groups impact the development of self over time, and social contexts impact the narratives people create about themselves. In Ricoeur’s view (Haker, 2000), context is vital to understanding identity. Categories and classes are universal human constructs; regarding music specifically, Meyer says, “[Were] every sound or sound relationship perceived as unique, the amount of information to be processed and stored in memory would be overwhelming” (1998, p. 11). Likewise with categories of humans; if we did not put ourselves and others into categories it would be impossible for us to sort through the wild variations among us-and the confusing variables which constitute our personal sense of Self. The influence of social groups on identity cannot be underestimated because the norms and rules of the group influence how the personality manifests itself, and further influences how the personality talks about itself (through narrative reflection). Indeed, “People believe they should act in certain ways with certain people because they feel that not acting in these ways would have serious consequences” (Kiesling, 1997, p. 67). The desire to identify with the group may overpower individuality, and it certainly creates discursive difficulties if those desires conflict in the extreme (Chase, 1995, p. 22). The tension between who people think they are (internal recognition of self) and how they think they are seen (externalized representation of self) can interrupt the process of narrative identity, causing confusion for both the narrator and the listener (Horrocks and Callahan, 2006, p. 73). Identity, then, is borne by combining context and integration with individuality and personal history, and it is articulated in context. How Modernity Affects the Sense of Identity and Self Because identity depends upon social context, a person's identity is fluid. The individual moves through a sequence of social roles, adopting the social identity appropriate to each sequentially, and sometimes simultaneously, layering them one on top of another. (Breakwell, 1986, p 17). Modernity plays a role in this process. Modernity breaks down traditional and small community frameworks, and replaces these frameworks with organisations that are large and impersonal. This makes an individual feel alone without psychological support and sense of security that a traditional setting might bring (Giddens, 1991, p. 33). Hall (1992) states that globalisation and modernity have an impact on the fluidity of identity, and uses the example of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas to demonstrate this. In this case, Clarence Thomas is a black conservative who was nominated to the United States Supreme Court by President HW Bush. He was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill, a black woman. Different groups opposed or supported Thomas according to their identity. Thus, modernity shaped the identities of the groups who supported or opposed Thomas, and this demonstrated the concept of identity shifts according to the subject at hand, and emerging identities that are formed by social movements, such as feminism, black struggles, national liberation, anti-nuclear and ecological movements. (Hall, 1992, p. 280). Furthermore, post-modern and modern identity has been affected by the fact that the world has become less intimate then in the pre-modern era. According to Simmel (1955), the individual in the pre-modern society was a member of a series of cocentric groups. These groups were such that, if one participated in the smallest group, it necessarily mean that one also participated in the largest group (Pescosolido & Rubin, 2000, p. 54). That is to say, perhaps the smallest group is one's family, and then the next smallest group is one's neighborhood, then one's religion, and finally the state. If a person was a member of a particular family, then that person was also a member of the neighborhood, the family's religion and the state. These groups were generally static in the pre-modern era, and individuals generally lived their lives as part of these same communities and groups, and these groups were made up of overlapping social networks and had a shared culture. If you were born into a certain family, then you had a certain religion, a certain occupation, and shared a certain politics (Pescosolido & Rubin, 2000, p. 55). This rigid structure was replaced in the modern era with groups that were intersecting, as opposed to cocentric, and more loosely based than the cocentric circles of the pre-modern era. The tight social circles of the pre-modern era were replaced in the modern era with loss of community, lessening of localised influences and disintegration of ties. This caused “the very tissue of spatial experience [to] alter, conjoining proximity and distance in ways that have few close parallels to prior ages” (Giddens, 1990, p. 489). However, this was replaced by the communities that were based upon shared experience. While neighborhoods are seemingly swallowed up by impersonal skyscrapers, places of informality and smallness are created in modernity's wake. Whereas before, in pre-modern societies, one's close contacts were based upon place – who lived in the neighborhood, who attended the same church, etc. - modernity enabled individuals to make ties with new people with whom one was previously unacquainted (Giddens, 1990. p. 490). Individuals became members of many different groups that intersected, with the individual at the intersecting point, and these groups were both chosen, as the case with the men in this study who chose their bands, and inherited, as would be the case with one's family. In the process, individual's selves were strengthened by having to reconcile his self with the diversity of the different groups, and because groups were oriented towards the individual, as opposed to the individual being oriented towards the group, as was the case in the pre-modern society (Pescosolido & Rubin, 2000, p. 56). Yet, according to Simmel, the narrower the social circle, the less individuality one possesses; and, in larger social circles, there is more room to develop individuality, yet, because the individual is a part of a larger whole, the individual possesses less uniqueness. Thus, “the leveling of individual differences corresponds not only to the relative smallness and narrowness of the collectivity, but also – or above all – to its own individualistic coloring” (Simmel, 1971, p. 257). This results in undifferentiated elements in a distinctive social circle, and differentiated elements in a not distinctive social circle (Simmel, 1971, p. 257). The Post-Modern Male – how the Post-Modern era has affected men Gender identity is at the core of what it means to be a woman or a man. One develops a gender identity when one develops an image of oneself as either a female or a male, and this image fits with the convictions of what one believes to be a part of that given group (Kacen, 2000, p. 346). Moreover, gender identity is both a personal and a social construct, and is dependent upon the culture in which we live. Where we are and who we are with are the social cues that give meaning to one's gender identity, and identity depends upon how society views the essence of a man or a woman (Kacen, 2000, p. 346). This is what drove gender consumption in the modern era- men were men, and women were women. A man's identity used to be dependent upon his role as a provider and his place of employment – this has been the traditional way that has defined the essence of the male identity in the modern society. This is known as the “hegemonic gender identity” (Vigorito & Curry, 1998, p. 137). Moreover, male consumption patterns were not just influenced by the hegemonic gender identity, but, in the post-Civil War era, were influenced by the Puritans (Bocock, 2000, p. 6). The Puritans had an ethic of asceticism, with not too much money spent upon men and boys, and the housing was sparse and not elaborate. The Puritan ethic dictated that British men during this period not spend money on jewelry, fine clothing and eating and drinking well, and these patterns were not economically driven (Bocock, 2000, p. 8). This morphed into contemporary society, in which, it is argued, Henry Ford is responsible for the increase in consumption, for he pioneered the idea that workers should be paid well, which led to more disposable income and, thus, more consumption (Gabriel & Yang, 1995, p. 9). In advanced capitalist societies, Ford made consumption more egalitarian, and less the province of the rich (Gabriel & Yang, 1995, p. 10). Moreover, modern consumption is also driven by the choices that were being offered in modern society, choices that were not offered in earlier societies, before mass production of goods became the norm (Gabriel & Yang, 1995, p. 11). This is illustrated by the British consumption of food as a percentage of their expenditures – in the early 20th century, British families spent between one half and two thirds of their income on food; by the middle of the twentieth century, this number was only one third (Gabriel & Yang, 1995, p. 12). This mass production had a side effect as well, one that would influence the post-modern man's obsession with labels and designers – branding became essential, as there were so many goods flooding the market, that companies needed to distinguish their goods from the multitude of other goods that were coming into existence. According to Naomi Klein (2000), this led to competitive branding and, ultimately, to the rise of designer labels, such as Calvin Klein and Ralph Lauren (Klein, 2000, p. 6). During this period, men were traditionally thought of as producers – too busy working to bother with consuming – marketers traditionally have catered to females, as they were considered to be the consumers to the male producers (Kacen, 2000, p. 347). Therefore, advertising and marketing in the modern era catered to women, with particular emphasis upon women in their traditional gender-defined roles – looking beautiful and doing domestic chores, while men were in the background (Kacen, 2000, p. 348). This is how modernity treated the concept of gender consumption – marketers provided consumers with products that were pre-packaged and fixed for each gender, and consumers used these products to maintain their identities (Kacen, 2000, p. 349). However, in the post-modern society, the concept of gender became less set, as did one's identity. Identity became a construct of consumption, in that people, both men and women, started using consumption not as a way to express one's identity, but to construct it - “brands are how we figure out who we are” (Kacen, 2000, p. 349). This reflects the fluidity of an individual's identity, and reflects that gender identity is also a fluid concept, as opposed to a fixed attribute (Kacen, 2000, p. 349). Part of this was made possible by the Nikes and Tommy Hilfigers of the world who are not just selling products, but the image that their brand connotes. Therefore, mere manufacturing has been replaced by marketing (Klein, 2000, p. 4). Therefore, the post-modern male is no longer necessarily concerned with gender roles. No longer content to the strong, silent type who provides for his family and lets his wife do the purchasing, post-modern men have become consumers in their own right, and what they consume becomes the essence of who they are, just like with the stereotypical female. For instance, Woodruffe-Burton studied men who were designated as “shopaholics” - a moniker ordinarily reserved exclusively for females (Woodruffe-Burton, 1998, p. 303). The three men that she studied defined themselves in some way by their “compensatory consumption” - in other words, they purchased to make themselves feel better. Ian was one such subject, and his shopping was prompted by boredom. That said, he was also quite passionate about the things that he consumed, waxing poetically about a Moschino jacket that he purchased for 180 pounds, and this was a jacket that he had to have “come hell or high water” - and, when it was stolen, he “cried a lot” (Woodruffe-Burton, 1998, p. 306). Similarly, Pete is another man studied by Woodruffe-Burton, and he describes consumption in shopping in glowing terms such as comparing it to a good film that one anticipates, and getting a charge out of going into stores that have new items to peruse. Glenn is the third man studied, and he shopped to fill a void after breaking up with his girlfriend. Glenn saw his consumption as a way to construct a new identity after his old identity, the identity that was associated with the girlfriend, was no longer viable, stating that, through his comsumption, that he “just wanted a change of image really...I just thought that the clothes would help me. I just thought that there was something wrong with me. And I thought maybe if do change myself I will have more luck” (Woodruffe-Burton, 1998, p. 308). Therefore, the men studied by Woodruffe-Burton would seem to fit into the definition of the post-modern male. Contrary to the modern male, who was defined by his work and providing for the family and stereotypically did not care about consumption, these men used consumption to construct new identities and as a way to make themselves feel better and more worthwhile. Ian combatted boredom, as did Peter, who was always on the lookout for new items that he could consume to help him with constructing his identity as a man who was always on the cutting-edge of fashion and designers, and Glenn consumed to enhance his self-esteem and construct a new identity after a breakup. All of the men saw consumption as distinctly different than the hegemonic male would – for instance, Peter got a “thrill” out of purchasing new clothes. The hegemonic male would never get this kind of thrill out of buying new clothes, or, even if he did, he would be loathe to admit this. Male grooming is also a part of this “new man” post-modern consumption ethic. Sturrock and Ploch (1998) conducted a study on this particular category of male consumption, using an interpretist methodology, sampling ten males between the ages of 20 to 44. They found that men purchased grooming products as a way of enhancing and constructing their self-image. That is to say, by using a certain beauty product, the meaning that is behind the use was transferred to the image that was being presented – such as using the right aftershave for the right occasion, and having a certain smell for social occasions and a certain smell for professional occasions. This goes into the image that the men were trying to present to the particular audience at hand, and also is a consideration in getting the interest of women (Sturrock & Ploch, 1998, p. 338). They also found that the men in the study were cognizant of aging, therefore they use anti-wrinkle cream and Oil of Olay. The men also felt that using skin products somehow makes them feel better when they are of ill-health, and some of the men saw skin products as a part of an overall “beauty regimen” that aided them in having softer skin on their body and face. Lastly, some of the men felt that using skin products, cologne and after-shave and the like as a way to pamper themselves – such as the man who saw a nice moisturizer from Clinique as a pick-me-up from feeling down (Sturrock & Ploch, 1998, p. 341). The men in the two studies above all have assumed stereotypical female roles. The females are the ones who are supposed to get excited by shopping for new clothes, and feel complete when they purchase just the right outfit. The females are the ones who are supposed to indulge in “retail therapy,” buying new clothes and changing their hair when they breakup with a guy, as a way to make themselves feel better. The females are the ones who are supposed to pamper themselves at a spa with a nice facial, be concerned about moisturizers, and wearing the right perfume. The modern male is not supposed to be concerned with any of that. He is only supposed to be concerned with providing for the family, doing “manly” things like watch sports and drink beer with the guys, getting ahead at work and maybe indulging in male “toys,” such as sports cars and Playstations. According to the post-modern theory, however, these fixed gender roles no longer necessarily apply, as shown by the Sturrock & Ploch and Woodruff-Burton studies. However, it is not necessarily as simple as that. There is some indication that the post-modern male has not changed as much as these studies might suggest, or, alternatively, that the hegemonic male ideal persists and that the post-modern theory that fractured, fluid identities have replaced the fixed gender identities of the modern male has not borne fruition for all segments of the population. For instance, Margaret Jobling found that men are still “ploddingly practical” when it comes to purchasing, looking for functionality and performance over brand names when it comes to skin care products (Tungate, 2008, p. 25). Moreover, the “metrosexual male,” who is into skin and hair care products and the latest fashions - in other words, the males who were exemplified by the Sturrock & Ploch and Woodruff-Burton studies - has turned out to be a bit of a marketing aberration, composing a mere twenty percent of men, according to a look at the UK toiletry market in 2006 (Tungate, 2008, p. 25). And, contrary to the image put forth by Sturrock & Ploch and Woodruff-Burton of the man who is giddy at the thought of shopping for new clothes, and proud of their cologne and skin care products, men are, in reality, still adverse to shopping and shy about purchasing skin care products, which has led to a web-site devoted to men who are embarassed to be shopping for skin care products for themselves, Mankind.co.uk (Tungate, 2008, p. 25). Moreover, men are still not interested in fashion, with men's Outwear reporting in 2007 that “men over the age of 25 often dislike shopping to such an extent that their partners buy the majority of menswear for them” (Tungate, 2008, p. 26). Therefore, there is confusing evidence about today's man. While the Sturrock & Ploch and Woodruff-Burton studies seem to indicate that the post-modern theory about gender is accurate, and men's gender identities are malleable and dependent upon consumption, Tungate would suggest that the hegemonic man – the man who hates to shop, doesn't care about skin care, and lets his wife do the consumption for him – still reigns and, perhaps, has never really left. Vigorito and Curry add another interesting wrinkle to this dichotomy. In their study, they found that men's magazines tended to emphasize men in their hegemonic role of provider, as opposed to his role as father. Meanwhile, women's magazines tend to portray men in their secondary role as family men. Men who read men's magazines have their provider identity strengthened, while women who read women's magazines come away with the notion that the man is more post-modern and less hegemonic and defined by traditional gender roles (Vigorito & Curry, 1998, p. 150). What these studies suggest is that, perhaps, the post-modern man – pejoratively referred to as “metrosexual,” who use designer labels and skin care to construct his identity and spoil himself – is anecdotal, but still exists. And, the post-modern male who does not let his gender identity dictate his role in family life, as he takes an interest in his children and wife, as well as getting ahead in work, is perhaps a fantasy that has been dreamed up by the women of the world who see this post-modern male in action in the ads in her women's magazines. Of course, he also exists, but maybe not to the extent that the women's magazines might suggest. However, this post-modern male, along with the metro-sexual version of the post-modern male, seem to still be in the minority, despite the zeitgeist suggestion to the contrary. The hegemonic male still seems to dominate, and this is still the reality of male consumption. While the marketers may try to market to the men in the Sturrock & Ploch and Woodruff-Burton studies, the fact that they have not gained much foothold after all speaks volumes. Conclusion The post-modern era has presented challenges to identities and sense of self through a variety of ways. The biggest change is that the world is larger now, and more impersonal. Especially now – individuals are texting each other, instead of talking to one another, and everybody is on the computer. The television has replaced talking to neighbors, and communities are less tight-knit. The male, long the paragon of hearth and home, has seen his identity being usurped by feminism and other changes, so that he is more like a woman than before. These are all changes that have come with post-modernity – some good, some not so good, but all substantial. Sources Used Helen Woodruffe Burton (1998), ‘Private Desire, Public Display: Consumption, Postmodernism and Fashion’s ‘new man’,’ International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 26/ 8, 1-13 Anthony J. Vigorito, Timothy J. Curry (1998), ‘Marketing Masculinity: gender identity and popular magazines,’ Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 39 / 1- 2, 135-153 Mark Tungate (2008), ‘Because he’s worth it too,’ Marketing, Feb. 13th, 24-28 Avi Shankar et al (2009), ‘Identity, consumption and narratives of socialisation,’ Marketing Theory, 9/1, 75-94 Fiona Sturrock, Elke Ploch (1998), ‘Making himself attractive: the growing consumption of grooming products,’ Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 16/ 5, 337-343 Jacqueline J. Kacen (2000), ‘Girrrl power and boyyy nature: the past, present and paradisal future of consumer gender identity,’ Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 18/ 6-7, 345-355 Robert Bocock (2000), Consumption, London Gabriel,Y. and Lang,T. (1995) The unmanageable consumer, Sage: London Klein,N. (2000), No logo Breakwell, G. 1986. Coping with threatened identities. London: Routledge. Brewer, M. & Hewstone, M. 2004. Self and social identity. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Chase, S. 1995. Taking narrative seriously: Consequences for method and theory in interview studies. In R. Josselson and A. Lieblich, eds. Interpreting Experience: The Narrative Study of Lives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 1-26. De Levita, D. 1965. The Concept of Identity. New York: Basic Books. Durkheim, E. 1972. Selected Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haker, H., 2000. Narrative and moral identity in Paul Ricouer. In H. Haring, M. Junker-Kenny, and D. Mieth, eds. Creating Identity. London: SCM Press, pp. 59-68. Horrocks, A. and Callahan, J. 2006. The role of emotion and narrative in the reciprocal construction of identity. Human Resource Development International, 9(1), 69-83. Jenkins, R. 2004. Social Identity. New York: Routledge. Kiesling, S. 1997. Power and the language of men. In S. Johnson and U. Meinhof, eds. Language and Masculinity. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 65-85. McDonald, C. 2008. Open secrets: Individualism and middle-class identity in the songs of Rush. Popular Music and Society, 31(3), pp. 313-328. Pescosolido, B. & Rubin B. 2000. The web of group affiliations. American Sociological Review, 65, 52-67. Simmel, G. 1971. Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Singer, J. 2004. Narrative identity and meaning making across the adult lifespan. Journal of Personality, 72(3), 437-460. Sneed, J. & Whitbourne, S. 2001. Identity processes in adulthood. An International Journal of Theory and Research, 2(1), 29-45. Tajfel, H. 1978. The Social Psychology of Minorities. New York: Routledge. Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in modern age. London: Stanford University Press. Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. London: Stanford University Press. Read More