Utgående från Williams James idéer om identitet som inte bara föränderlig utan också att vi samtidigt har flera identiteter fortsätter traditionen som allmänt kallas symbolisk interaktionism se på identitet på det sättet. Avsikten med denna workshop är att belysa detta sätt att se i nutid med historiska tillbakablickar. Betoning ligger också på förenandet av teoriutveckling sedd mot den empiriska ”verkligheten”.

En del forskning om indvandrere og arbejde fokuserer på indvandreres adgang til arbejdsmarkedet og de eventuelle barrierer der måtte være her (fx Augustsson 1996; Höglund 1998, 2000; Rogstad 2000; de los Reyes 2000; Ejrnæs 2008; Behtoui & Neergaard 2009 m.fl.). Denne fokusering overskygger imidlertid ikke bare, at en betydelig andel af indvandrere i skandinaviske lande allerede er i arbejde, men også den indsigt, at ikke bare det at have et arbejde bidrager til integration (systemintegration), men også det i sig selv at være på en arbejdsplads blandt andre mennesker (social integration).

Med udgangspunkt i et etnografisk feltarbejde på en dansk, ’fleretnisk arbejdsplads’ inden for hotel- og restaurationsbranchen, bestående af deltagende observation, interview og ’go-along’ (Kusenbach 2003), belyser dette paper de uformelle, sociale omgangs- og samværsformer i interetniske kollegiale relationer mellem førstegenerationsindvandrere og etniske danskere i det hverdagslige arbejdsliv, og på hvilken måde disse kan bidrage til social integration.

Paperet viser hvordan medarbejdere med indvandrerbaggrund i det uformelle, kollegiale samvær med etniske danskere, som dette spontant opstår hér og nu, har en selvironisk omgang med etniske stereotyper, og hvordan denne humoristiske socialitet kan betragtes som en form for såkaldt ”etnisk humor” (Apte 1985, 1987). Trækkende på en symbolsk interaktionistisk tilgang til såvel etnicitet som til humor, har paperet en ikke-essentialistisk tilgang til etnicitet (Necef 1994, 2000), og betoner humorens rolle i konstruktion af mening og sociale relationer i social interaktion (Kuipers 2008).

Paperet viser hvordan den selvironiske omgang med etniske stereotyper, fungerer som en form for såvel individuel som kollektiv indtryksstyring (Goffman 1959; Lyman & Douglass 1973), der har til hensigt at afdramatisere negative stereotyper om indvandrere, af-kitschificere indvandrere (jf. Necef 1992), stille indvandrere i et bedre lys og skabe fællesskab med etniske danskere. Gennem selvironiske overdrivelser om at indvandrere har mange børn, er ekstremt religiøse, praktiserer flerkoneri m.m., udøver medarbejdere med indvandrerbaggrund rolledistance (Goffman 1961) og anlægger en ironisk distance til negative, etniske stereotyper, der åbner op for andre tolkninger af indvandrere og skaber intimitet i interetniske sociale relationer.

There is a tendency to perceive and analyse identities primarily in light of social categories, such as gender, class, age and ethnicity. There are some good reasons for this – most people will claim membership in such categories in different respects and to various degrees. They will also, as a general rule, be involved in gender attribution, age attribution etc. on a regular basis. Geography, i.e. where a person lives or used to live, as well as occupation is sometimes taken into account, and occasionally other aspects of an individual’s life are made relevant. Of course we could spend all our time sorting out everything that matters when identities are formed and transformed, but what should be duly noted regardless of this is the lack of variation when it comes to conceptualisations of identity.

When identities in a local order are explored it seems that other, less theory-dependant, features can be detected. Using data from an ethnographic study of a museum, I argue that even though gender, ethnicity, and so on, in different situations make up the core of the identities performed, there are also identities that are not part of the commonly recognised identity-categories. Instead they should be understood as part of and constitutive of, through everyday interaction, the local order where they are to be found. The overall purpose of this paper is to trouble the often favoured way of linking identity to certain identity-categories, by highlighting other important and interconnected dimensions of peoples’ place-bound activities. Embedded in this we find questions of how, for instance, the methods we use facilitate different notions and investigations of identity, and how looking beyond the sociologically obvious can help us to discover the situatedness of situated identities. From an ethnomethodological perspective there is, finally, the question of intelligibility – to what extent, when and why is it possible to make alternative accounts of identity, and still be intelligible as a serious sociologist?

Age is an organising principle for both social relations and for welfare policy. In recent years age has come to be increasingly politicized as debate over the growing number of elderly in society and how society will manage the costs of future elderly care has gained momentum. The politicization of age is not new, however. Different social movements throughout history have been shaped by and have had age as a point of departure for political mobilization. Examples of such political organisation include pensioner organisations, pensioners’ political parties, and interest groups for elderly workers. Also young people have organised themselves in different political contexts on the basis of a commonality in age. A distinction between old and young has also been made within political parties whereby one has repeatedly argued for renewal and change to increase representation of younger members. The aim of this presentation is to investigate and discuss the articulation of age as a political identity by way of examples of current political organisations. In this case, our focus is primarily upon old age as a political identity

The term, and also the concept, of identity refers often to as if a person’s identity at every moment is just one, is singular. I argue for a person’s identity at any occasion is plural: we have several identities at every moment.

One can find hints to that effect in the original writings of William James and the idea becomes even more evident in the writings of Gregory Stone. In my presentation I will go further in the development of this theoretical part of what is usually labeled as symbolic interactionism.

The paper addresses the problem of how to define culture and multicultural selves within the growing field of multicultural studies.

The discussion comprises a critical view of the notion that each human being possesses a multicultural self (Lott 2009).It further examines the difference and the relationship between cultural and social selves from a symbolic interactionist perspective with a special focus on socialization and the concept of the significant other.