George Joseph's Identity Map
Wasian
Son
Chicago Sports Fan
Brother
Student
Massachusetts
Friend
Active
My “son” identity can be analyzed using Bronfenbrenner’s theory of contextualism. Bronfenbrenner’s theory says that identity and development are shaped by interactions between a person and their environment. Within this environment is the most important microsystem of family relationships where children learn norms, expectations, and values. My understanding of what it means to be a son is shaped by my parents' expectations of me, as well as observations of my friends’ families. In my family, a big expectation is to always be there for one another. If my Mom had a tough day at work, I would need to be able to recognize that and help out around the house. My mesosystem, which Bronfenbrenner describes as the interactions between microsystems, is a big part of how I came to be at Northwestern. My parents' involvement in my education, which I viewed as strict at the time, set me up to succeed academically and be accepted to this university. I was raised to be a gentleman, and that makes up a big part of my macrosystem (larger cultural values/norms). I was told to never hit women, always hold the door, and to treat others with respect. My chronosystem explains how my identity as a son has changed over time as I have gone to college. Now there are new expectations of me, such as calling my parents regularly and getting more involved in tough family decisions. Bronfenbrenner’s theory helps explain that my identity as a son is not fixed, but something shaped by my ongoing interactions between these systems.
My “brother” identity can be analyzed using identity theory. Identity theory says that an identity forms when people see themselves as occupants of a role and its accompanying expectations carry over into their own sense of self. In this sense, being a brother to me is not just a label but a role with norms of how I should act towards my older sister. I need to act courteous to her, and always be supportive of her endeavors. As a brother, my identity develops through the interactions with my siblings and parents. When my “brother” identity is activated, I act in ways that are consistent with the role. One example that comes to mind is at the beginning of the school year, I helped her build her stock portfolio and gave friendship advice when she was going through difficult times. Acting this way reinforces my sense of myself as a good brother because my behavior meets the expectations tied to the role. As we’ve grown older together (she’s 4 years older than me), the role’s expectations have shifted from being physically present to being emotionally present through online platforms. I would also say that my identity as a “brother” has become more salient because of our fewer interactions. My role as a brother has changed since identity develops through ongoing interactions.
My “Massachusetts” identity can be analyzed using the master narrative framework. This framework describes identity as developing through the interaction between personal narratives and master narratives that are shared among society. The theory says that identity is an evolving story that connects the past, present, and future into one collective sense of self. Growing up in Massachusetts forms part of my personal narrative because memories of school and community experiences are stories I use to explain who I am. At the same time, a lot of my identity is based on the master narratives around Massachusetts culture, such as being well educated, talking with a boston accent, or even liking dunkin donuts. These narratives are compulsory and carry expectations of how someone (me) from Massachusetts should act. They are also rigid and harder to change since they persist over time. I unconsciously internalize these master narratives and negotiate them as they build my identity. Moving from Massachusetts to the midwest for Chicago has made me a lot more aware of these internalized regional narratives. As I meet people from different regions and backgrounds, I start to develop alternative narratives that clash with these Massachusetts narratives. The master narrative framework showed me that my “Massachusetts” identity is shaped by my culturally shared stories that I internalize, negotiate, and revise as my personal narrative continues to develop and evolve.
My “active” identity can be analyzed using Goffman’s theory of face-work. This theory explains identity as something maintained through ritual like interaction in order to preserve your own face. Goffman says that people perform behaviors to maintain a consistent image of themselves and avoid embarrassment in front of others. Me being an active person is, in part, for my own health and personal goals, but is also largely driven by wanting to come off as being disciplined and motivated. When I go to the gym, play sports, or talk about being active, a large part of this behavior supports this image of myself. I also find myself using face-work practices to maintain this image. I avoid actions that contradict my active identity and try to correct situations where my identity is under threat. When I feel too tired to go work out, or I am too busy with work to go play basketball, I still try to get myself to, so I can avoid presenting a different image of myself. This also connects to Goffman’s idea of front stage and back stage behavior. In the front stage, where others are looking at me, I maintain the face of being an active person by talking about fitness, but when I am by myself in the back stage, I question myself and how active I was on a given day. Even when others are not present, I am preparing my back-stage self so that my front-stage performance is believable. In conclusion, Goffman’s theory shows that my “active” identity is not just a habit, but something I constantly maintain through face-work in everyday social interaction.
My “active” identity can be analyzed using Goffman’s theory of face-work. This theory explains identity as something maintained through ritual like interaction in order to preserve your own face. Goffman says that people perform behaviors to maintain a consistent image of themselves and avoid embarrassment in front of others. Me being an active person is, in part, for my own health and personal goals, but is also largely driven by wanting to come off as being disciplined and motivated. When I go to the gym, play sports, or talk about being active, a large part of this behavior supports this image of myself. I also find myself using face-work practices to maintain this image. I avoid actions that contradict my active identity and try to correct situations where my identity is under threat. When I feel too tired to go work out, or I am too busy with work to go play basketball, I still try to get myself to, so I can avoid presenting a different image of myself. This also connects to Goffman’s idea of front stage and back stage behavior. In the front stage, where others are looking at me, I maintain the face of being an active person by talking about fitness, but when I am by myself in the back stage, I question myself and how active I was on a given day. Even when others are not present, I am preparing my back-stage self so that my front-stage performance is believable. In conclusion, Goffman’s theory shows that my “active” identity is not just a habit, but something I constantly maintain through face-work in everyday social interaction.
My “student” identity can be analyzed using the framework of identity politics by Bernstein. Identity politics is activism organized around status-based identities where belonging to a group becomes part of the basis for shared claims. As a Northwestern student, I see myself as a part of a larger collective identity that is shaped by the school’s culture and prestige. Even though being a student is not a marginalized identity like race and gender, it still creates a sense of connection with others who are going through the same Northwestern experience. One example of this that comes to mind is that when people are flying out from school, everybody tends to wear Northwestern merch as almost a signal to other students. This is most prevalent when students come together to talk about campus policies because our shared identity legitimizes our participation in the discussion. My “student” identity is not only something about my daily life, but something that links me to a larger community. This collective identity also describes how students support one another academically. When students advocate for changes to class structure, homework, or larger campus policy, they are also advocating for their group/community of Northwestern students. Seeing my “student” identity through this framework has made me more aware that my identity connects my personal experiences at Northwestern to a larger collective community of other students.
My “Chicago Sports Fan” identity can be analyzed using Tajfel and Turner’s integrative theory of intergroup conflict. This theory describes that people develop part of their identity from being a part of a group. They then categorize themselves into in-groups and out-groups and make favorable comparisons between their in-group and out-group. As a Chicago sports fan, I see myself as part of an in-group made up of other Chicago fans, and I tend to discriminate against other sports cities. I often find myself standing firmly on the basis that Michael Jordan is the GOAT over Lebron James. Also, growing up in Massachusetts, this part of my identity clashes with my master narratives from Massachusetts because Boston is a successful sports city. I had to watch as the Patriots would win superbowl after superbowl and the Bears would fail to make the playoffs. I find myself falling victim to in-group favoritism and arguing strongly for Chicago teams. Recently, the Bears beat the Packers in the playoffs for the first time in a long time, and even though it was just a game the rivalry felt very intense. Tajfel and Turner explain that people strive for a positive social identity, so even the seemingly small wins for Chicago sports teams feel meaningful because they improve the status of my in-group.
My “Wasian” identity can be analyzed using the concept of intersectionality. Intersectionality explains how different aspects of identity, like race and gender, work together to define people’s experiences in ways that can’t be understood separately. People who exist at the intersection of multiple identities often experience forms of marginalization that are not experienced by the individual identities themselves. As someone who is Korean on my mom’s side and White on my dad’s side, my experiences as a Wasian were unique. When spending time with other Koreans, I often felt isolated because I couldn’t understand the language and I didn’t experience the same level of Korean culture as they did. On the other hand, because I grew up in a mostly white town, I was one of the few Asians (especially in sports). This led to many times where I was called Chinese or just Asian when I felt that it didn’t encapsulate me properly. This is one thing that I especially noticed when coming to Northwestern. I often feel like I am being viewed as White here in certain daily interactions. Intersectionality shows that these experiences are not just my own personal confusion, but the result of overlapping social categories that define how people are treated. Seeing my experiences through the lens of the intersectionality concept allows me to understand that my identity as a Wasian is not defined by one side or the other, but by the interaction of both identities in my daily life experiences.
George Joseph's Identity Map
George Joseph
Created on February 11, 2026
Start designing with a free template
Discover more than 1500 professional designs like these:
View
Akihabara Agenda
View
Akihabara Content Repository
View
Mind Map: The 4 Pillars of Success
View
Big Data: The Data That Drives the World
View
Internal Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence Use
View
Correct Concepts
View
Sorting Cards
Explore all templates
Transcript
George Joseph's Identity Map
Wasian
Son
Chicago Sports Fan
Brother
Student
Massachusetts
Friend
Active
My “son” identity can be analyzed using Bronfenbrenner’s theory of contextualism. Bronfenbrenner’s theory says that identity and development are shaped by interactions between a person and their environment. Within this environment is the most important microsystem of family relationships where children learn norms, expectations, and values. My understanding of what it means to be a son is shaped by my parents' expectations of me, as well as observations of my friends’ families. In my family, a big expectation is to always be there for one another. If my Mom had a tough day at work, I would need to be able to recognize that and help out around the house. My mesosystem, which Bronfenbrenner describes as the interactions between microsystems, is a big part of how I came to be at Northwestern. My parents' involvement in my education, which I viewed as strict at the time, set me up to succeed academically and be accepted to this university. I was raised to be a gentleman, and that makes up a big part of my macrosystem (larger cultural values/norms). I was told to never hit women, always hold the door, and to treat others with respect. My chronosystem explains how my identity as a son has changed over time as I have gone to college. Now there are new expectations of me, such as calling my parents regularly and getting more involved in tough family decisions. Bronfenbrenner’s theory helps explain that my identity as a son is not fixed, but something shaped by my ongoing interactions between these systems.
My “brother” identity can be analyzed using identity theory. Identity theory says that an identity forms when people see themselves as occupants of a role and its accompanying expectations carry over into their own sense of self. In this sense, being a brother to me is not just a label but a role with norms of how I should act towards my older sister. I need to act courteous to her, and always be supportive of her endeavors. As a brother, my identity develops through the interactions with my siblings and parents. When my “brother” identity is activated, I act in ways that are consistent with the role. One example that comes to mind is at the beginning of the school year, I helped her build her stock portfolio and gave friendship advice when she was going through difficult times. Acting this way reinforces my sense of myself as a good brother because my behavior meets the expectations tied to the role. As we’ve grown older together (she’s 4 years older than me), the role’s expectations have shifted from being physically present to being emotionally present through online platforms. I would also say that my identity as a “brother” has become more salient because of our fewer interactions. My role as a brother has changed since identity develops through ongoing interactions.
My “Massachusetts” identity can be analyzed using the master narrative framework. This framework describes identity as developing through the interaction between personal narratives and master narratives that are shared among society. The theory says that identity is an evolving story that connects the past, present, and future into one collective sense of self. Growing up in Massachusetts forms part of my personal narrative because memories of school and community experiences are stories I use to explain who I am. At the same time, a lot of my identity is based on the master narratives around Massachusetts culture, such as being well educated, talking with a boston accent, or even liking dunkin donuts. These narratives are compulsory and carry expectations of how someone (me) from Massachusetts should act. They are also rigid and harder to change since they persist over time. I unconsciously internalize these master narratives and negotiate them as they build my identity. Moving from Massachusetts to the midwest for Chicago has made me a lot more aware of these internalized regional narratives. As I meet people from different regions and backgrounds, I start to develop alternative narratives that clash with these Massachusetts narratives. The master narrative framework showed me that my “Massachusetts” identity is shaped by my culturally shared stories that I internalize, negotiate, and revise as my personal narrative continues to develop and evolve.
My “active” identity can be analyzed using Goffman’s theory of face-work. This theory explains identity as something maintained through ritual like interaction in order to preserve your own face. Goffman says that people perform behaviors to maintain a consistent image of themselves and avoid embarrassment in front of others. Me being an active person is, in part, for my own health and personal goals, but is also largely driven by wanting to come off as being disciplined and motivated. When I go to the gym, play sports, or talk about being active, a large part of this behavior supports this image of myself. I also find myself using face-work practices to maintain this image. I avoid actions that contradict my active identity and try to correct situations where my identity is under threat. When I feel too tired to go work out, or I am too busy with work to go play basketball, I still try to get myself to, so I can avoid presenting a different image of myself. This also connects to Goffman’s idea of front stage and back stage behavior. In the front stage, where others are looking at me, I maintain the face of being an active person by talking about fitness, but when I am by myself in the back stage, I question myself and how active I was on a given day. Even when others are not present, I am preparing my back-stage self so that my front-stage performance is believable. In conclusion, Goffman’s theory shows that my “active” identity is not just a habit, but something I constantly maintain through face-work in everyday social interaction.
My “active” identity can be analyzed using Goffman’s theory of face-work. This theory explains identity as something maintained through ritual like interaction in order to preserve your own face. Goffman says that people perform behaviors to maintain a consistent image of themselves and avoid embarrassment in front of others. Me being an active person is, in part, for my own health and personal goals, but is also largely driven by wanting to come off as being disciplined and motivated. When I go to the gym, play sports, or talk about being active, a large part of this behavior supports this image of myself. I also find myself using face-work practices to maintain this image. I avoid actions that contradict my active identity and try to correct situations where my identity is under threat. When I feel too tired to go work out, or I am too busy with work to go play basketball, I still try to get myself to, so I can avoid presenting a different image of myself. This also connects to Goffman’s idea of front stage and back stage behavior. In the front stage, where others are looking at me, I maintain the face of being an active person by talking about fitness, but when I am by myself in the back stage, I question myself and how active I was on a given day. Even when others are not present, I am preparing my back-stage self so that my front-stage performance is believable. In conclusion, Goffman’s theory shows that my “active” identity is not just a habit, but something I constantly maintain through face-work in everyday social interaction.
My “student” identity can be analyzed using the framework of identity politics by Bernstein. Identity politics is activism organized around status-based identities where belonging to a group becomes part of the basis for shared claims. As a Northwestern student, I see myself as a part of a larger collective identity that is shaped by the school’s culture and prestige. Even though being a student is not a marginalized identity like race and gender, it still creates a sense of connection with others who are going through the same Northwestern experience. One example of this that comes to mind is that when people are flying out from school, everybody tends to wear Northwestern merch as almost a signal to other students. This is most prevalent when students come together to talk about campus policies because our shared identity legitimizes our participation in the discussion. My “student” identity is not only something about my daily life, but something that links me to a larger community. This collective identity also describes how students support one another academically. When students advocate for changes to class structure, homework, or larger campus policy, they are also advocating for their group/community of Northwestern students. Seeing my “student” identity through this framework has made me more aware that my identity connects my personal experiences at Northwestern to a larger collective community of other students.
My “Chicago Sports Fan” identity can be analyzed using Tajfel and Turner’s integrative theory of intergroup conflict. This theory describes that people develop part of their identity from being a part of a group. They then categorize themselves into in-groups and out-groups and make favorable comparisons between their in-group and out-group. As a Chicago sports fan, I see myself as part of an in-group made up of other Chicago fans, and I tend to discriminate against other sports cities. I often find myself standing firmly on the basis that Michael Jordan is the GOAT over Lebron James. Also, growing up in Massachusetts, this part of my identity clashes with my master narratives from Massachusetts because Boston is a successful sports city. I had to watch as the Patriots would win superbowl after superbowl and the Bears would fail to make the playoffs. I find myself falling victim to in-group favoritism and arguing strongly for Chicago teams. Recently, the Bears beat the Packers in the playoffs for the first time in a long time, and even though it was just a game the rivalry felt very intense. Tajfel and Turner explain that people strive for a positive social identity, so even the seemingly small wins for Chicago sports teams feel meaningful because they improve the status of my in-group.
My “Wasian” identity can be analyzed using the concept of intersectionality. Intersectionality explains how different aspects of identity, like race and gender, work together to define people’s experiences in ways that can’t be understood separately. People who exist at the intersection of multiple identities often experience forms of marginalization that are not experienced by the individual identities themselves. As someone who is Korean on my mom’s side and White on my dad’s side, my experiences as a Wasian were unique. When spending time with other Koreans, I often felt isolated because I couldn’t understand the language and I didn’t experience the same level of Korean culture as they did. On the other hand, because I grew up in a mostly white town, I was one of the few Asians (especially in sports). This led to many times where I was called Chinese or just Asian when I felt that it didn’t encapsulate me properly. This is one thing that I especially noticed when coming to Northwestern. I often feel like I am being viewed as White here in certain daily interactions. Intersectionality shows that these experiences are not just my own personal confusion, but the result of overlapping social categories that define how people are treated. Seeing my experiences through the lens of the intersectionality concept allows me to understand that my identity as a Wasian is not defined by one side or the other, but by the interaction of both identities in my daily life experiences.