Cross-Cultural Identity
In the past few months I reflected on what constitute a cross-cultural identity. The current main event, the US presidential election of 2008, which should be resolved by tomorrow, gave me, all along, plenty of examples in terms of branding of the candidates to confront my theory. I will be using my observations of the campaign to illustrate some of my points.
The result of my thinking is this cross-cultural identity Table, which represent for me an interesting instrument of investigation when designing the “persona” of a corporate or product identity.
In the past, a personal identity was defined by two factors: individual characteristics & social status. During the course of the 20th century, our understanding & definition of an identity has greatly evolved.
Individual characteristics, which were based on moral & physical assets turned into a colorful “individual identity”, one should explore, develop & expose to the world like an artist in the name of self expression.
The “social status” definition became “social identity” which says that one can acquire a specific social status if he or she is smart & ambitious enough while working hard for it. That definition is still not true in a majority of countries, across a vast majority of the world population, but the possibility to achieve it, remain out-there.
A third major factor came into play in shaping contemporary identities, which I call the “Global Identity”. This one has no precedent & is a direct result of the technological acceleration of the past 30 years, in which individuals do not define themselves according to their sole local environment, but feel being part of a vast worldwide network sharing, creating common codes & cultural values across the planet.
I came to the conclusion that a cross-cultural identity is formed by the development & combination of:
1. Individual identity
2. Social Identity
3. Global identity
The evolution of human identity find itself at a cross-road where any individual can “design” his or her own identity in great details. Artists have been at the forefront of this trend pushing the limits of the definition of an identity to extremes. In various quarter of the global market & democratic societies, many people have made the choice of their environments, the choice of their studies, the choice of their government, the choice of their ideology, religion or philosophy. They have more or less selected the sub-culture or high culture fitting best their aesthetic & moral values. They have affiliated & branded themselves to tribes & sub-tribes pledging socially, in various proportion to their own core belief.
But the vast majority, regardless of their environment, have not made any personal choices at all. Most individual stand defined by what has been given to them (designations, assets, educations, popular culture, popular media, ready-made career paths).
All this, is not just applicable to the design of a human identity, but also the very definition of “brand design” when it comes to define the identity of a corporation (a group of people) or a product (an object imbued of humanity like a cartoon character). I call it the “persona” of a brand.
At the golden age of “identity politics”, it is interesting to look at each US presidential candidates & observe how they have been shaped or determined to shape themselves.
An individual identity is strongly defined by what has shaped the person from his or her date of birth: local environment, economical environment, relatives & their values as well as gender role. This is the stuff an individual can never choose. This is the stuff most people refers to when they characterize themselves (where they come from & what they have experienced). Most accept it like a physical attribute inherited at birth. Others, in time, challenges it or completely dismiss it to develop themselves in different environment driven by a different thought process.
Since we always start to define our own identity by what has shaped us, the choices to shape ourselves at the individual level are very limited. We also sometime feel having a choice when we are barely in front of standard options in a well framed “social identity” formation system usually provided by the public education & popular culture in general.
Despite these limitations, instruments someone can choose to start designing his or her own personal identity are very powerful. It includes:
1. Moving to an exotic environment
2. Investing time & deep interest in sub-cultures &/or high-cultures.
3. Developing a personal philosophy based on critical thinking.
In the case of Obama & because of the unique circumstances that have shaped him, the design of his own identity was almost forced on to him. He has been living in multiple exotic environments, he had to choose his religion, his ideology, his race... but beyond that and at one point he made the choice to stop to be forced on choosing and developed a personal position from which his identity would grow rationally... community organizer. Which, in his own words does not mean much, but at that point in his life helped him take a direction which has brought him in this improbable journey.
For McCain, the bulk of his individual identity has been given to him in a well respected cultural environment: the military. The militaristic culture is driven by efficiency & patriotism. Questioning the value of efficiency or patriotism is viewed as a sin. You embrace it or you live in shame. Moving to an exotic environment was out of the question if it was not a military assignment. Seeing a foreign country as a source of cultural inspiration has no place in the militaristic approach if it does not help improve defense and offense technology. In other words, imagining a McCain developing a cross-cultural identity in this environment is almost impossible to conceive... designing his own would be even more improbable. But his 5 years detention and torture experience in Hanoi seems to have created a dramatic change in him. A change that forced him to question more himself and his environment. When McCain was back on US shores, he could have done many things... turning against his family, his country for having shaped him that way, sending him in places of horror & suffering, questioning everything including his pledges of allegiance... or simply accepting these events as his destiny & continuing a military career without questioning anything. McCain took the way in the middle. He started to question the politic of all this, but embraced even more the militaristic values by which is has been shaped. He created this “Maverick” brand while fitting neatly with the patriotic cliche he now embody.
Obama and McCain have both crystalized their personal identity when they started to design their own “social identity”. The main difference is that Obama had already a unique identity due to his unique background. McCain’s identity, almost like a reverse image of Obama, was the perfect standard cliche of the brave soldier among soldiers. Only a dramatic event pushed him into defining himself by himself.
Our social identity, in these days and age are completely customizable. You can even have several social identities within one life and the baby boomers have shown they can do it almost every 10 to 20 years.
While possibilities of choosing our own social identity appear limitless and suppose to reflect a certain degree of ambition & talent, the uniqueness of an identity is questionable. A social identity can be entirely defined on personal design, but few choose to do it. As we have seen with McCain, a social identity is often pre-programmed at the individual identity level. But when a social identity is designed, we often see that effort generating a more or less coherent “collage” of archetypes: The country or city in which one lives, the mainstream local/national values in which one select among available options. A social status driven usually by the education and the career (function) one has chosen to dedicate him or herself. Social gender & generational role in which one chose to cast him or herself. The religious or atheist tribe or sect someone feel belonging.
Gov. Sarah Palin is the perfect example of shaping her own identity according to well known archetypes. She has, herself, been shaped by her environment and at no point in her life can we see a moment of questioning the values, heritages & traditions she embraces with blind commitment. Her view of the world and other people seems defined by these archetypes... this can explain why we hear “Hockey mum”, “Joe 6 pack”, “Joe the plumber”, “small town values”, “real people” and the litany of pre-defined functions associated with people. Palin synthesize so well “that” identity, “that” image of the empowered modern American woman, casting for the role of vice presidential candidate which is the main reason of McCain’s campaign selection... hoping a majority of US citizens identify themselves with her.
Gov. Palin proves the point that branding using cultural identity is the quickest way to attract and make people adopt your brand. If someone or something makes people think instantly “she is one of us” or “I feel like one of them” because it relate closely to someone’s cultural identity, chances are, the hook is meaningful enough to deliver tangible results.
The main problem of Obama has not been so much the “experience” factor all along this campaign. The “individual identity” factor has been is biggest liability, determining his choice of vice presidential candidate in Joe Biden, also a perfect example of a synthetic collage of American archetypes.
But Obama’s cross-cultural identity provides also a unique advantage which is not found in his social or individual identity. His “Global identity” has been a major asset for legitimating a new brand of international diplomacy.
Being a US citizen makes someone, almost automatically, a global citizen. A global citizen, per my definition, is living or interacting with the major capital of the global marketplace, knows perfectly the western Europe &/or north American culture, his or her philosophy & values are shaped by judeo-christianism, they speak english fluently, shares & know politically correct ideas and have a relatively high reputation &/or economical status at home & abroad.
Obama is not a collage of global citizen archetypes. He is a collage of exotic & local cultures or references to exotic cultures (for example: his middle muslim name Hussein without being muslim) encapsulated in his own self designed “social identity”.
If the economic recent downturn did not happen, we would be the spectators of a cultural identity contest in this election. The economy did turn badly and now a good portion of US citizen are scrambling to decide on issues of who would best manage the crisis of the current macro-economical collapse. Identity still plays a role in people’s voting tendency... but while “values” can be similar on both camps, the voter is looking at who, in terms of identity, own best these values.
In the past, a personal identity was defined by two factors: individual characteristics & social status. During the course of the 20th century, our understanding & definition of an identity has greatly evolved.
Individual characteristics, which were based on moral & physical assets turned into a colorful “individual identity”, one should explore, develop & expose to the world like an artist in the name of self expression.
The “social status” definition became “social identity” which says that one can acquire a specific social status if he or she is smart & ambitious enough while working hard for it. That definition is still not true in a majority of countries, across a vast majority of the world population, but the possibility to achieve it, remain out-there.
A third major factor came into play in shaping contemporary identities, which I call the “Global Identity”. This one has no precedent & is a direct result of the technological acceleration of the past 30 years, in which individuals do not define themselves according to their sole local environment, but feel being part of a vast worldwide network sharing, creating common codes & cultural values across the planet.
I came to the conclusion that a cross-cultural identity is formed by the development & combination of:
1. Individual identity
2. Social Identity
3. Global identity
The evolution of human identity find itself at a cross-road where any individual can “design” his or her own identity in great details. Artists have been at the forefront of this trend pushing the limits of the definition of an identity to extremes. In various quarter of the global market & democratic societies, many people have made the choice of their environments, the choice of their studies, the choice of their government, the choice of their ideology, religion or philosophy. They have more or less selected the sub-culture or high culture fitting best their aesthetic & moral values. They have affiliated & branded themselves to tribes & sub-tribes pledging socially, in various proportion to their own core belief.
But the vast majority, regardless of their environment, have not made any personal choices at all. Most individual stand defined by what has been given to them (designations, assets, educations, popular culture, popular media, ready-made career paths).
All this, is not just applicable to the design of a human identity, but also the very definition of “brand design” when it comes to define the identity of a corporation (a group of people) or a product (an object imbued of humanity like a cartoon character). I call it the “persona” of a brand.
At the golden age of “identity politics”, it is interesting to look at each US presidential candidates & observe how they have been shaped or determined to shape themselves.
An individual identity is strongly defined by what has shaped the person from his or her date of birth: local environment, economical environment, relatives & their values as well as gender role. This is the stuff an individual can never choose. This is the stuff most people refers to when they characterize themselves (where they come from & what they have experienced). Most accept it like a physical attribute inherited at birth. Others, in time, challenges it or completely dismiss it to develop themselves in different environment driven by a different thought process.
Since we always start to define our own identity by what has shaped us, the choices to shape ourselves at the individual level are very limited. We also sometime feel having a choice when we are barely in front of standard options in a well framed “social identity” formation system usually provided by the public education & popular culture in general.
Despite these limitations, instruments someone can choose to start designing his or her own personal identity are very powerful. It includes:
1. Moving to an exotic environment
2. Investing time & deep interest in sub-cultures &/or high-cultures.
3. Developing a personal philosophy based on critical thinking.
In the case of Obama & because of the unique circumstances that have shaped him, the design of his own identity was almost forced on to him. He has been living in multiple exotic environments, he had to choose his religion, his ideology, his race... but beyond that and at one point he made the choice to stop to be forced on choosing and developed a personal position from which his identity would grow rationally... community organizer. Which, in his own words does not mean much, but at that point in his life helped him take a direction which has brought him in this improbable journey.
For McCain, the bulk of his individual identity has been given to him in a well respected cultural environment: the military. The militaristic culture is driven by efficiency & patriotism. Questioning the value of efficiency or patriotism is viewed as a sin. You embrace it or you live in shame. Moving to an exotic environment was out of the question if it was not a military assignment. Seeing a foreign country as a source of cultural inspiration has no place in the militaristic approach if it does not help improve defense and offense technology. In other words, imagining a McCain developing a cross-cultural identity in this environment is almost impossible to conceive... designing his own would be even more improbable. But his 5 years detention and torture experience in Hanoi seems to have created a dramatic change in him. A change that forced him to question more himself and his environment. When McCain was back on US shores, he could have done many things... turning against his family, his country for having shaped him that way, sending him in places of horror & suffering, questioning everything including his pledges of allegiance... or simply accepting these events as his destiny & continuing a military career without questioning anything. McCain took the way in the middle. He started to question the politic of all this, but embraced even more the militaristic values by which is has been shaped. He created this “Maverick” brand while fitting neatly with the patriotic cliche he now embody.
Obama and McCain have both crystalized their personal identity when they started to design their own “social identity”. The main difference is that Obama had already a unique identity due to his unique background. McCain’s identity, almost like a reverse image of Obama, was the perfect standard cliche of the brave soldier among soldiers. Only a dramatic event pushed him into defining himself by himself.
Our social identity, in these days and age are completely customizable. You can even have several social identities within one life and the baby boomers have shown they can do it almost every 10 to 20 years.
While possibilities of choosing our own social identity appear limitless and suppose to reflect a certain degree of ambition & talent, the uniqueness of an identity is questionable. A social identity can be entirely defined on personal design, but few choose to do it. As we have seen with McCain, a social identity is often pre-programmed at the individual identity level. But when a social identity is designed, we often see that effort generating a more or less coherent “collage” of archetypes: The country or city in which one lives, the mainstream local/national values in which one select among available options. A social status driven usually by the education and the career (function) one has chosen to dedicate him or herself. Social gender & generational role in which one chose to cast him or herself. The religious or atheist tribe or sect someone feel belonging.
Gov. Sarah Palin is the perfect example of shaping her own identity according to well known archetypes. She has, herself, been shaped by her environment and at no point in her life can we see a moment of questioning the values, heritages & traditions she embraces with blind commitment. Her view of the world and other people seems defined by these archetypes... this can explain why we hear “Hockey mum”, “Joe 6 pack”, “Joe the plumber”, “small town values”, “real people” and the litany of pre-defined functions associated with people. Palin synthesize so well “that” identity, “that” image of the empowered modern American woman, casting for the role of vice presidential candidate which is the main reason of McCain’s campaign selection... hoping a majority of US citizens identify themselves with her.
Gov. Palin proves the point that branding using cultural identity is the quickest way to attract and make people adopt your brand. If someone or something makes people think instantly “she is one of us” or “I feel like one of them” because it relate closely to someone’s cultural identity, chances are, the hook is meaningful enough to deliver tangible results.
The main problem of Obama has not been so much the “experience” factor all along this campaign. The “individual identity” factor has been is biggest liability, determining his choice of vice presidential candidate in Joe Biden, also a perfect example of a synthetic collage of American archetypes.
But Obama’s cross-cultural identity provides also a unique advantage which is not found in his social or individual identity. His “Global identity” has been a major asset for legitimating a new brand of international diplomacy.
Being a US citizen makes someone, almost automatically, a global citizen. A global citizen, per my definition, is living or interacting with the major capital of the global marketplace, knows perfectly the western Europe &/or north American culture, his or her philosophy & values are shaped by judeo-christianism, they speak english fluently, shares & know politically correct ideas and have a relatively high reputation &/or economical status at home & abroad.
Obama is not a collage of global citizen archetypes. He is a collage of exotic & local cultures or references to exotic cultures (for example: his middle muslim name Hussein without being muslim) encapsulated in his own self designed “social identity”.
If the economic recent downturn did not happen, we would be the spectators of a cultural identity contest in this election. The economy did turn badly and now a good portion of US citizen are scrambling to decide on issues of who would best manage the crisis of the current macro-economical collapse. Identity still plays a role in people’s voting tendency... but while “values” can be similar on both camps, the voter is looking at who, in terms of identity, own best these values.
You are reading C+C Politics articles
