Reflection 2 Kelli Green

Chapter 5 covered the complex idea of identity and how we as people find and define our identities. Martin and Nakayama explain, “By comparing ourselves and others with members of groups, we come to understand who we are. Because we belong to various groups, we develop multiple identities that come into play at different times, depending on the context.” When I meet someone, I often share about the groups or associations I am involved with that reflect my values. These groups help define my identity and help others to understand more about who I am.

Scholar Ting-Toomey argues in her identity negotiation theory that people are more successful in intercultural interactions when they feel good about themselves and the groups to which they belong.  I agree with this theory and believe that when people are proud of their multiple identities or groups that they will be able to share those identities openly in different situations.

Another aspect I found interesting was the interpretive perspective that emphasizes that identities are negotiated, co-created, reinforced, and challenged through communication with others.  One quote that pops into my mind when I think of this concept is “How Peter sees Paul says more about Peter than it does about Paul.” In other words, the way I look at or judge someone that is different than me says more about my prejudices and intolerances than our cultural differences. When I ascribe someone an identity solely based on groups or social and cultural identities, I do not allow that person to stand as an individual. Identities are very complex, but through association with values and personal interaction, we can better understand identity.  

How do we balance association with groups with individual identity?
What social groups or identities cause conflict within intercultural communication?