Identity as Unitary Personhood, Intercultural Conflict, and Identity Development
A substantially different perspective on identity and its relationship to intercultural conflict is taken in the theories proposed in the ethnic identity development theory (Phinney, 1993; Phinney & Rosenthal, 1992) and in the integrative theory of cross-cultural adaptation (Kim, 1988, 2001, 2005b, 2008, 2009b).
Although different in the respective focal phenomena being addressed, both theories are built on a unitary conception of identity that incorporates influences of culture into the whole of an individual personhood, consistent with the identity conception originally articulated by Erikson (1950, 1959/1980, 1968). Unlike in the other theories, an individual’s identity is conceived in these two theories as a dynamic and evolving entity that undergoes change over time through the cumulative experiences of person-environment interaction. Accordingly, whereas the previously discussed theories regard some form of the identity factor (e.g., collective cultural identity, subjective in-group identification, and insecure identity orientation) as leading to some form of inter- cultural conflict, these two theories explain the reverse process of influence, that is, the influence an individual’s experiences of inter- cultural conflict are likely to affect his or her identity orientation over time.In theorizing specifically about the process of ethnic identity development among minority adolescents, Phinney and Rosenthal (Phinney, 1993; Phinney & Rosenthal, 1992) assume that minority adolescents growing up in a larger society experience conflict because, unlike adolescents of the majority group membership, they need to struggle with alternative sources of identity. Given the negative attitudes to which they are likely to be subjected and the importance of achieving a secure sense of themselves as members of a minority ethnic group, as well as a “commitment” to their ethnic identity, Phinney and Rosenthal (1992) propose a three-stage model of ethnic identity development: Stage 1—an unexamined ethnic identity; Stage 2—an exploration of ethnic identity; and Stage 3—a resolution of conflict and contradictions.
It is the third stage of a resolution of internal conflict and contradictions that Phinney and Rosenthal refer to as the stage of “achieved identity,” in which minority adolescents feel a secure sense of themselves. Even though Phinney and Rosenthal allow for the possibility of individual adolescents moving beyond the three stages by pointing out the possibility for some minority adolescents to develop a “bicultural identity,” their main emphasis is on the “achieved ethnic identity.” Not achieving such a commitment to one’s own ethnic group, according to Phinney and Rosenthal, is likely to result in a significant detriment to the individual’s psychological and social functioning.Whereas Phinney and Rosenthal focus on the identity development process among ethnic minority adolescents, Kim (1988, 2001, 2005b, 2008, 2009b), in her integrative theory of cross-cultural adaptation, explains the lifelong process in which individuals, presumed to have already formed a cultural identity, move to a new cultural environment, struggles to function in that environment, and are transformed by their adaptive struggles toward an increasingly intercultural personhood. Kim explains that the adaptation process unfolds over time through the “stress-adaptation-growth dynamic,” and that, over time, this psychological experience “moves” an individual through the trajectory of an unfolding intercultural transformation. Through prolonged and cumulative experiences of conflict (stress) in coping with, and overcoming, various challenges of the new cultural environment, individuals are to undergo a continual dialectic process of acculturation and deculturation (adaptation), which, in turn, brings about a gradual and largely unconscious transformation in the individual’s identity orientation in the direction of a higher level of psychological development (growth).
Kim theorizes that, along with an increased functional and psychological fitness vis-a-vis the host cultural environment, intercultural identity transformation brings about a gradual transcendence of conventional cultural categories.
Employing a unitary, holistic conception of identity in which the collective dimension of culture or ethnicity is a part, Kim describes a continuum of adaptive changes in identity from a monocultural to an increasingly inter- cultural character. Through prolonged and cumulative experiences of stress stemming from the inner struggle to meet the challenges of the host cultural milieu, Kim explains that an individual’s identity is likely to undergo two interrelated transformative processes of individuation and universalization. Individuation involves a clear self-definition and definition of the other more as a singular individual than as a member of a cultural category. With this capacity, Kim argues that one is better able to see oneself and others on the basis of unique personal qualities. Accompanying individuation is universalization, a parallel development of a synergistic cognition born out of an awareness of the relative nature of values and of the universal aspect of human nature. In the process of becoming intercultural in identity orientation, according to Kim, individuals form an outlook that is not locked in a provincial interest of their own group, but one that is more flexible, resourceful, and creative.By highlighting these two transformational subprocesses of individuation and universalization in identity orientation, Kim differentiates her concept, intercultural identity, from other similar terms that connote various forms of additions of specific cultural components such as bicultural and hybrid identity. While incorporating these concepts, intercultural identity goes beyond them, highlighting one of the fundamental principles of all living systems: “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” This means that, although the cultural base of an individual’s identity is not going to disappear even if he or she wanted to get rid of it, what does happen in the process of intercultural transformation is a juxtaposition of deculturation and acculturation—one loses some and gains some—in doing so becoming transformed into something that is more than the simple addition of new cultural elements to the original ones. This identity transformation is represented by a formula, A + B = A' + B' + X, with A' and B' reflecting modifications in some of the original (A) and new (B) cultural patterns and X representing the extra dimension of individuation and universalization in an individual’s overall unitary identity.