On the Theory, Epistemology, and Politics of the Social Construction of ´Cultural Identities´ in the Age of Globalization: Introductory Remarks to Ongoing Debates

DANIEL MATO

IDENTITIES-GLOBAL STUDIES IN CULTURE AND POWER

Gordon and Breach Publishers

Año: 1996 vol. 3 p. 61 - 72

1070-289X

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0pt; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:70.85pt 85.05pt 70.85pt 85.05pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> Identity studies distinguish between an approach they name "essentialist" and an other that they depict as "inventionist" or "constructionist," and treat what they name "constructionism" and what they name "inventionism" as equivalents.  Perhaps this postulated equation is a consequence of the polarized presentation of these two non‑"essencialist" approaches vs. "essentialist" positions. I believe that drawing a distinction between invention and construction may enrich current research on processes of social construction. The "ism" labeling used by the authors makes even more problematic their equation of the ideas of social construction and invention. This "ism" labeling is itself a practice of identity attribution that tends to diminish differences within each of the so called "inventionist" and "constructionist" positions. These differences may be significant in diverse ways, I will later argue about some of them based on epistemological and political considerations. Of course, my own representational practice of maintaining such a differentiation between two supposed general approaches and thus sketching the contours of each of them‑‑through these pages‑‑is also an exercise of identity . One author, myself, proposes that the formulations of many other authors have some elements in common that at the same time differentiate them from another proposed assembling. My assumptions are obviously subject to debate too.