Hardin's theory of socially constructed group identity and historical memory

Hardin 2001

In talking about social identity, Hardin suggests that the way a group remembers its history "contributes to mystification rather than explanation or understanding.".. 1.Do you think this is an accurate statement?

The way a group remembers its own history can, but does not always, "contribute to mystification rather than explanation or understanding" (Hardin 2001). Deep understanding and awareness leads to the ability to reflect critically on identity and craft one as free as possible from bias. However, such awareness rarely happens. As Hardin (2001) suggests, identity is socially constructed. The social construction of identity precludes the possibility of a truly objective sense of self. Moreover, the nature of identity itself is mystifying. It may not be possible for any identity to exist in the absence of social context. Plus, Hardin (2001) points out, "What is missing is some standard set of characteristics that defines a social identity beyond the fact that some significant members of people assert that they have such an identity." The parameters used to create and communicate identity are arbitrary and they change. Factors like religion may be important to some cultures but not to others. A person from one place might include religion into their core identity whereas a person from another place would not think to do the same. Career path, social class status, race, ethnicity, and gender are all possible features of an identity but none are universally agreed-upon as essential.

The way a group remembers its own history will of course differ from the way that non-group members will describe that history. Their narratives are wholly different. For example, the dynamic between oppressor and oppressed will undoubtedly and unavoidably shape individual and collective identity. The oppressors frequently "forgot" or gloss over instance of oppression. Those groups that are oppressed must recall their own history.