“What am I?”: An investigation into the construction of a fluid and complex identity in transgender and non-binary gender online forums

Using data from online forums, this project uses discourse analysis to investigate how language is used to create an identity within a community. As the focus of this research is the fluidity of identity, forums for transgender and non-binary gender support have been chosen as they are spaces where identity takes on an even more fluid state, a kind of ‘super-fluidity’, and where a simple label is not sufficient to describe the identity of an individual. Bucholtz and Hall’s ‘tactics of intersubjectivity’ and their ‘principles of identity’ are the main framework for analysis. Wilson et al (in prep) gloss these principles as: “EMERGENCE PRINCIPLE: Identity should not be viewed as a priori. It emerges with ongoing interaction.
POSITIONALITY PRINCIPLE: Identity encompasses: macro level categories; local relational categories; and temporal interactional categories.
INDEXICALITY PRINCIPLE: Identities are often indexed by language in the sense that certain groups use certain linguistic forms. RELATIONALITY PRINCIPLE: Identities are intersubjectively constructed. PARTIALNESS PRINICPLE: Identity is constantly shifting during interaction and across situations.” Bucholtz and Hall define the tactics of intersubjectivity in three sets of pairs: (1) adequation and distinction refer to the establishment of similarities and differences between interactants; (2) authentication and denaturalization refer to the credibility or in-credibility of a claim to a particular identity; and (3) authorization and illegitimation refer to using power, status or authority of a community/institute/state to legitimise or delegitimise what is being communicated. This project also considers the role which positive social value (‘face’, Goffman, 1967) plays in the construction of identities in online communities, and how individuals use this value in relation to how others view their identity. Finally, the project also investigates the effect of common ground (assumed knowledge) and the understanding of community-specific terminology and their definitions on identity construction. Clark defines common ground as “a great mass of knowledge, beliefs, and suppositions they [the interactants] believe they share” (1996: 12). Common ground therefore has a huge role to play in interactions, in building and maintaining relationships, in understanding each other, and in creating a recognisable identity. Through a combination of discourse analysis and identity frameworks, this project shows that identity is much more complex and much more fluid than an easily applicable label. Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2004). Language and Identity, in A. Duranti (ed.) A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 369–94 Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7 (4–5): 585–614. Clark, H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Goffman, Erving. 1967 [1955]. On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In Erving Goffman, Interaction Ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. 5–45. New York: Pantheon Books. Wilson, J., Merrison, A.J., Graham, S. (in prep.) Reflections on face, commitment and identity in an online Christian forum. Unpublished manuscript.