2
From Role to Identity
2.1. Roles, boundaries and transitions
In the Preamble, when we described a fictional person’s typical day, we show the succession of everyday roles he adopts depending on the social context and locations which he finds himself in. These locations are easily identifiable: home, school, office, sports club, bar or his parents’ home. The transition from one role to another occurs via implicit or explicit transitions, which correspond mainly with transitions from one place to another: a train journey, the journey from school to the station, then the move to the sports club.
If we look at the professional context, the scene described shows the typical transitions that occur on a working day: home–work, work–work (moving from the role of team leader to that of subordinate) and work–third place (from the office to the sports club, then from the office to the bar) [ASH 00]. The time boundaries between the different roles, as well as the spatial boundaries within which a person occupies those roles, are well defined.
Until recently, the role and functions that form the basis of our identities were well defined in space and time. We were accustomed, as in the example of Angel Rafran, to be a husband and a father in the morning at home, an accountant at the office during the day, a squash partner at the sports club during the lunch break, an affable colleague at the bar after work, a busy son visiting his parents before going home, etc.
Our daily lives were made up of a succession of roles, which we played through a number of agreed social actions and interactions, as well as through the micro-transitions that allow us to cross the boundaries between these roles, that is to say we leave one role, cross the line between this role and another and then adopt the next role.
In the first paragraph of his daily routine, when Angel falls asleep and dreams, he occupies various roles and passes from one role to another in a rather idealized fashion, in a scenario in which the transitions are planned rather than imposed, in which he pays complete attention to each of his roles without any unexpected interruption. We can even see a kind of success and personal fulfillment.
Of course, we are still dreaming…
2.1.1. Spatial and temporal boundaries
The definition of roles within specified limits in space and time has been considered “natural” (that is to say close to nature and to natural processes) in recent centuries. Nevertheless, it is a fairly recent idea in human history.
In fact, ancient hunter-gatherer societies were once essentially nomadic and could not therefore be territorial, that is to say their social system could not be defined by spatial boundaries. This situation was also the norm for small farming communities, which had to change the land they farmed and move according to their needs, either as communities grew and needed more land and resources or because the resources available had been exhausted or the land available no longer being fertile.
Spatial and territorial limits appeared formerly with the emergence of private property and more recently, nation-states. Nation-states have established formal borders, in addition to the communities identified by and within these borders. They have made the concept of nationality a new form of identity which did not exist previously. Thus, nationality has become part of individual identity. These spatial limits and borders have been deepened by conflicts arising from the desire to protect our territories and communities and the growing sense of nationality, including identity, linked to both territory and community.
Earlier, and in particular, agrarian societies also used their own calendar, which formed a way of creating and managing temporal boundaries. Agricultural work was measured out for centuries by the sound of village bells, which invited farmers to gather in predefined places to share resources (human and other), and to work and advance together. For each sound there was a corresponding place and moment in the day as well as actions to be carried out.
The idea of time as such, that is to say without reference to a time or an action, is fairly recent. It followed the invention and increasing use of the mechanical clock. Despite the emergence of this independent time, time has long been linked to notions of space and associated actions, just as in premodern societies.
The time-place-action or time-space-role overlaps clearly appear in Angel’s (dreamed) idealized daily routine: for each moment of the day there is a place, for each place a role, for each role a moment and so on from getting up to going to bed.
Zerubavel believes that time has another fundamental use [ZER 79]. First of all, he notes that in modern social organization, a distinction is made between public and private spheres. He is a passionate defender of each individual’s right to retire from the public sphere to take refuge in the private sphere and believes that it has become a need and a necessity even more than a right. And he observes that, although the public/private distinction is thought of as spatial (when we speak of public/private spheres); it is in fact a temporal distinction: there is a public time and a private time.
2.2. Roles
2.2.1. Definition
Roles are one of the most captivating characteristics of social behavior. The fact, as Biddle describes [BID 86], that “human beings behave in ways that are different, and predictable depending on their respective social identities and the situation” is one of the pillars ensuring stability within current organizations and social models. According to Katz and Khan [KAT 78], in the context of their studies on organizational theory, they consider roles as “the building blocks of social systems and the summation of the requirements with which such systems confront their members as individuals,” and they define human organizations as open systems with roles.
Ashforth et al. [ASH 00] completed this description by differentiating, within the organizational structure, between function and position, considered as the role proper, and the group of demands linked to the role, defined as the role identity. In well-established organizations or systems these demands result in social rules or behavior, defined as role behavior. Each organization has its own perception of the roles that form it, as well as the behaviors that are associated with the individuals that occupy these roles, a process defined as role sending.
From the opposite perspective, each individual decides the behavior associated with their role depending on their interpretation, perception and understanding of what the organization, according them, this role expects in that particular context [EBA 88]. This is what is called the received role [SLU 07]. Finally, these elements are completed by an individual, personal conception of the role (self-concept), which is not linked directly to social or organizational context, but of the personalized image that individuals create of their own role and the perception they have of the ideal attitude within this role [NEA 06].
In fact, the term “role” was taken from theater as a metaphor well before it became a subject of interest for the social and organizational sciences. In this way, just as actors always playing the same role over again in the same, single play, bring their personalities to their roles, making each representation a new and different experience, each individual possesses their own personal conception of their role. This personal approach is a determining factor in performance: without this room for maneuver, the individual would not be able to create their own vision of the role and job satisfaction; hence, performance would be affected.
This description of social roles is also a means of separating the public from the private sphere. So according to Zerubavel, using the term, “role” is a means of properly differentiating between our social behaviors, our function, etc. (that is to say the public roles we play) and the people we really are, the private side of the individuals that we are.
This separation, as we will see later, is being disrupted more and more by new ways of life and the eruption of electronic communications in our daily life.
2.2.2. Role boundaries
Some years ago, I was at a meeting with several colleagues when we heard a mobile phone ring. This was nothing unusual and it triggered a wave of smiles and sympathetic laughter for the embarrassed colleague who, following our unwritten rule, had to pay the bill as we left the cafe. What happened next was distinctly more memorable. The blood drained from our colleague’s face and he became as white as a sheet. “My daughter has had an accident!” he exclaimed before suddenly leaving the room. It was only after we had recovered from the shock that we realized we had not known that this colleague, with whom we had worked for years, had children…
2.2.2.1. Limits
Boundaries are the limits that we use when we sort, classify, separate and to determine what is included and what is not, what comes within them or remains outside them… Boundaries can be of different types: physical, spatial, temporal, mental, ethical, etc. We use boundaries to determine if a try (in rugby) is valid or not (and to check if the ball has been grounded before or after the try-line), if a tree is inside or outside a property, if something has already happened, is currently happening or could happen in the future, if ideas are common-place or if they are really creative, if an action is acceptable or if it is not in line with our principles… The examples are plentiful and make up the daily round of perception, analysis, evaluation, decision-making and action that characterize human behavior.
Role boundaries are the mental limits that we place around roles in order to determine which category they fit in. They are a means of facilitating a role’s reception and identification. Individuals use boundaries to facilitate taking in and understanding their social environment, and to facilitate managing their various roles in different social contexts that they create with the said boundaries (“home,” “office,” “sports center,” etc.) [NIP 95], sometimes creating real “mental fences” [ZER 91].
Role boundaries also correspond to the professional limits that organizations use to classify different functions and positions. Organizations use professional boundaries to classify and identify individuals in socio-professional categories, and so facilitate the establishment and implementation of policies and rules at an organizational level (“doctor,” “accountant,” “judge;” as well as “employee,” “executive,” “director;” or even “citizen,” “foreigner”, etc.).
2.2.2.2. Flexibility
Role boundaries depend on the spatial and temporal boundaries with which roles can be linked. For example, a tennis umpire or a surgeon will carry out the bulk of the professional duties associated with their roles in clearly defined locations such as a tennis club or hospital. This characteristic is flexibility. A role boundary is flexible if it does not depend entirely on spatiotemporal context, that is to say, if the role can be carried out in different places and at different times.
2.2.2.3. Permeability
Role boundaries also depend on the concentration and attention that the role demands. This is what is called role permeability. If an individual can occupy a particular role’s cognitive, mental or psychological context (for example, handling documents at the office) and play other roles in parallel (for example answering telephone calls unrelated to the tasks in hand), then the role boundary is permeable. In the opposite case, such as that of a surgeon in the operating theater who has to be absolutely alert and focused on their actions, the role boundary is impermeable.
2.2.2.4. Directionality
Directionality is a complementary characteristic to permeability and flexibility. It indicates when we compare two roles occupied by the same individual, which tends to occupy the other’s contextual sphere. A characteristic example is that of directionality in professional roles compared to private roles [GRE 85, OLS 06]. For example, a growing number of individuals consider it acceptable to receive professional calls at home or outside working hours, whereas most business believe that their employees should leave private matters at the office door. Thus, directionality in professional roles in relation to private roles is higher than that of private sphere in relation to professional sphere roles. Role flexibility and directionality are important factors in the multiplication of family conflicts in which partners reproach one another for being too willing to work from home, neglecting the family sphere in favor of professional roles.
2.2.2.5. Integration-segmentation
Each individual has their own way of managing the boundaries around and between their different roles. In the same way as each person lives the roles received and their own conception of the said roles in an individual way, the perception of what constitutes a behavior appropriate for a role or of what a role covers varies depending on the individual [TEP 01]. Consequently, permeability and flexibility also depend on how individuals understand what behaviors are appropriate to their roles.
Several studies have, therefore, introduced the notion of the “integration-segmentation continuum” [ROT 05] or the integration-segmentation matrix [KOW 09]. Whatever the differences between these two approaches are, the segmentation corresponds to a direct and clear division between roles whereas integration corresponds, on the contrary, to roles being superposed in space and time and combined.
Depending on their behavior, individuals can be categorized as integrators or segmentors (the latter are sometimes called sequencers). Integrators are not afraid to see the boundaries between their different roles erased or the roles superposed. Segmentors have the opposite approach and establish a clear separation, in such a way that the boundaries between their different roles are as little permeable and flexible as possible. Cases of complete integrators or segmentors are exceptional, hence, the notion of a continuum suggested by Rothbard et al. Individuals tend to find the position of equilibrium between integration and segmentation. Where the notion of integration-segmentation can be applied to any pair of roles, recent literature has sought to analyze those to which individuals attach most importance, that is to say the work–life balance which is, on the one hand the group of roles corresponding to professional life and the group of roles relating to our private lives on the other.
The theory of social identity established a general classification of the various roles that an individual carries out in given social contexts and cultures, separating them into two broad categories of “work” and “home,” or “work” and “non-work.” Others also introduce the notion of the third place (the children’s school, the fitness club, the bar, etc.) in order to highlight the social role of some activities that are otherwise carried out in the private sphere. All these approaches underline the highly integrative role of work and more generally professions, which enable individuals to identify themselves in the context of their organizational and social environment [SLU 07].
The notions of work–home and work–leisure are not entirely identical. The work–home distinction is a clear spatiotemporal concept, in which, “home” has a very strong link with a personal, private property (including the family), whereas “work” corresponds entirely to the notion of “working hours.” This is why the work–leisure duality is also considered, which is more centered on activities linked to work and which also introduces the notion of the third place.
Our approach is slightly different, in the sense that we believe that individuals instead construct their identities around three axes, three groups of roles: professional, functional and individual. This is, in fact, the approach that is most widely adopted by organizations and individuals, making the distinction between an individual profession (for example “accountant”), position (for example “head of the budget division”) and personal identity (Angel Rafran).
The distinction of roles between work–home and work–leisure has opened the door to numerous studies on work–life balance, as well as on policies affecting the interface between professional and private life. Particular attention has also been paid to remote working (telecommuting) that is to say to the integration of work space into family space, which was once considered a non-working space [NIP 96]. These studies indicate that telecommuting facilitates the disappearance of boundaries between professional and private life. In particular, the superposition of the work space and personal or private space requires the transitions between work and leisure, work and family or professional life and private life to be managed through cognitive, temporal and psychological approaches rather than by a movement from one place to another.
2.2.3. Transitions between roles
In daily life, individuals change role constantly. When he is at home, Angel interacts with Isabel as a husband and with Esmeralda as a father. When he is at the office, he moves from supervisor to subordinate depending on the items on his agenda (leader at a team meeting, reporting to the boss, in discussion with colleagues, etc.) Moving from one role to another requires a transition, which enables the boundaries between roles to be crossed. This is what Ashforth calls micro-transitions, that is to say transitions between roles that are occupied simultaneously (such as husband and father, supervisor or subordinate, etc.) or, to use his own words “between the many hats that that we take on or off over the course of a day.”
The size of the transitions from one role to another depends on a multitude of factors. The more segmented the roles, the easier it is to manage the boundaries that separate them, the more difficult to pass from one role to another and to cross the boundary. A transition requires leaving a role or a shift, then entering a new role. This can lead to the development of separation, transition and incorporation rituals [RIC 90]. The shifts or transitions are not just physical, social or spatiotemporal, they are also psychological and cognitive, since a specific state of mind might be required for a given role, which can be fundamentally different from the state of mind required for another type of role.
Transitions can be more or less difficult depending on the time-distance between them. Richter differentiates between two types of transition. Planned transitions occur when the change of role is anticipated. This is the case for example in the morning and evening, from home to office or vice versa. Interposed transitions occur in the same spatiotemporal context (for example, at the office) when an individual comes into contact with elements linked to a different contexts or roles (for example, reading private correspondence at the office). Interposed transitions can be imposed on or initiated by the individual [HAL 89].
Transitions also depend on an individual’s identification with the role. Just as individuals have their own conception of their roles, they also differ in their identification with these roles. Individuals will naturally be more inclined to identify strongly with roles that receive a positive response from their socio-cultural environment. Roles with high identification have greater permeability than roles with weak identification. For example, a renowned and successful artist will tend to let this role penetrate the weak identification roles in his daily life.
Finally, transitions vary depending on difficulty, that is to say the effort required to quit one role and engage in another, as well as depending on the valence they have for the individual, that is to say the transition’s attractiveness.
2.3. Identities
As indicated above, rather than using the traditional “work–home” or “work–non-work” divisions, we tackle roles using three axes: professional, functional and individual. In fact, our approach consists of defining an individual’s professional identity (which has been added to their personal identity) in two role sub-groups, actually functional and professional.
Figure 2.1. Identity construct
Figure 2.1 shows how an individual’s socio-cultural identity is constructed. A person’s fundamental identity is the sum of their professional, functional and personal identities:
Each of these sub-identities includes a group of roles, as illustrated in Figure 2.2:
Figure 2.2. Identity construct (with roles)
Individual identities are simultaneously defined by sub-identities but also by interactions with the social domain in which the roles are enacted, that is to say by interactions with other individuals in the same social domain. This is known as relational identity [SLU 07], as illustrated in Figure 2.3. For example, in the context of a doctor–patient relationship, the latter certainly plays a personal role (their own role as an individual), whereas the former occupies a functional role.
Figure 2.3. An example of a functional role interacting with a persona role
We will define relational identity (of individual i in relation to individual j) as:
NOTE.– Public (Pub) is the side of fundamental identity (Idcore(i)) that individual i exposes to individual j and Interact represents the interaction of any of individual i’s roles with any of individual j’s roles.
We will define individual i’s social identity in relation to their environment as the sum of all their relational identities.
Finally, starting from the principle that each individual has a “secret garden,” we will define total identity, or more simply identity, as the sum of social identity and private identity, that is to say:
NOTE.– Private identity is the side of fundamental identity (Idcore(i)) (included in personal sub-identity) that individuals do not reveal.
The aim of these definitions is to present the notion of interaction, which includes interpersonal relationships as well as relationships between individuals and their socio-cultural domain. These elements will eventually enable us to establish individuals’ profiles in terms of exposure to spam, by attributing a “communication weight” to their relational identity, their private identity and their social identity. They also enable us to define spam in the context of identity theory.
2.4. Conclusion
We have discussed how individuals manage the multiples roles that they occupy in parallel in everyday life. They have to manage the (spatial, temporal and psychological) boundaries that they set up between these roles, depending on the nature of these boundaries: their permeability, flexibility and directivity. They also have to manage the transitions between roles and the way they cross the boundaries between roles, as well as the associated transition rituals. Finally, we have described how individual identity is constructed around professional, functional and personal roles, and interactions between individuals and their socio-cultural milieu – relational identity.
We must now establish how far electronic communications, in their various forms, alter these different elements, in light of their impact on the spatiotemporal and psychological landmarks that determine the roles’ boundaries and the transitions between them.