Understanding adolescents is critical to educating them, and theories about youth and their identities have evolved over the years. Adolescents are often described as being in a time of “storm and stress” (Hall, 1904) and exhibiting what Lesko (2001) calls the “confident characteristics” of coming-of-age: controlled by raging hormones, peer-oriented, and represented by age. However, recent theories such as work done around the youth lens (Petrone, Sarigianides, & Lewis, 2015) complicates our understanding of young adults, illuminating the social construct of adolescence and taking a critical eye to “how ideas about adolescence and youth get formed, circulated, critiqued, and revised” (Petrone et al., 2015, p.506). Lesko (2001) challenged the stereotypes of adolescence, problematizing the notion that they are always “becoming but not being,” expanding on “the difficulties of actively mastering one’s environment and securing ‘identity’ when youth are simultaneously contained within an ‘expectant mode’” (p. 106).
This complex notion of adolescence is further complicated under a New Materialist lens. As with any other material viewed through this lens, identity cannot be described in and of itself, but is constantly in flux by intra-acting with other materials. Hayes (1999) goes beyond saying that identity is affected by materials, rather explaining that the separation between the human and the material world is artificial, with one material not exerting any more agency or will than the other:
In the posthuman, there are no essential differences or absolute demarcations between bodily existence and computer simulation … the presumption that there is an agency, desire, or will belonging to the self and clearly distinguished from the ‘wills of others’ is undercut in the posthuman, for the posthuman’s collective heterogeneous quality implies distributed cognition located in disparate parts. (p. 5)
For posthumanism and the more encompassing New Materialism, identity, adolescent or otherwise, is never fixed or essentialist, but always becoming with other materials. In this light, a New Materialist lens fits neatly with our socially constructed notions of adolescents as in a perpetual state of “becoming” since New Materialism views every material as not just existing, but constantly changing with its environment. While Lesko (2001) problematizes viewing adolescents this way, perhaps the real problem is viewing only adolescents this way, rather than recognizing “becoming” as the constant state of all identities. By stating that only adolescents are in a period of change, we elevate adulthood as a time of arrival and completeness. This ignores the ways in which adults are constantly changing and being changed by their environment and the materials it contains. Adolescents are becoming, and so are adults. New Materialism’s idea of intra-action allows us to bridge the binary and false distinction between the two socially-constructed groups. This New Materialism study posits that identity, adolescent or otherwise, is always in flux, affected by the materials with which one intra-acts. What follows is an examination of how adolescent identity in particular has been studied to intra-act with other materials in this study.
Engagement has been defined many ways. Perhaps the most basic definition is investing cognitive resources into a task (Guthrie, Van Meter, McCann, & Wigfield, 1996; Kelley & Clausen-Grace, 2009). However, as literacy engagement has been studied further, additional components have been added to cognition, expanding the definition. Guthrie and Wigfield (2000) included motivational and social components alongside cognitive components of engagement stating that engaged readers “coordinate their strategies and knowledge (cognition) within a community of literacy (social) in order to fulfill their personal goals, desires, and intentions (motivation)” (para. 5). As evidenced in this quote, rather than get at the essence of what engagement is, many researchers study what engagement looks like – the habits of engaged readers. While there are several ways in which researchers identify and measure engagement, engagement for social and identity purposes are especially relevant here.
Research shows that reader identity is an important factor in reader engagement (Beach & Ward, 2013; Cantrell et al., 2017; De Naeghel, Van Keer, Vansteenkiste, & Rosseel, 2012; Gambrell & Morrow, 1996; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; McCombs, 1996; Oldfather, 1996). Cantrell et al. (2017) states that “students’ beliefs about their own abilities to read well influence their reading behaviors, their cognitive processes, their reading motivation, and ultimately their achievement” (p. 56). If readers believe they will be successful, reading becomes much more enjoyable and engaging. One participant in Cantrell et al.’s (2017) study noted that “understanding the book better really is what made it more interesting to read” (p.65). Here, researchers see a direct connection between understanding, motivation, and engagement. Guthrie, Alao, and Rinehart (2017) address the converse, noting that “less successful students lose their intrinsic motivations for reading due to their eroding sense of competence” (p. 440). It is crucial to engagement that participants in literacy tasks view themselves as readers.
However, viewing oneself as a reader extends beyond a belief that one can read well. De Naeghel et al. (2012) notes that engagement is increased when children find reading personally relevant or “identify themselves with the value of reading” (p.1007). In Kirkland’s (2011) study of reading engagement for adolescent African-American men, he found that his primary participant needed not only to identify with a text, but to be able to make it personally meaningful to his identity, stating that “Derrick's sense of self was important to his engagement with texts such as comics, and he believed that his sense of self could be found in or constructed through such texts” (p. 204). Kirkland further stated of a pair of participants that “not only did the two young men understand the texts, they used the texts to understand themselves” (p.205). This speaks to the importance of reading being personally relevant to foster engagement, but also for the need for the act of reading itself to be seen as integral to identity, whether this is seeing one’s self as a reader or seeing reading as a way to construct a sense of self. Identity is integral to reading engagement.
Integral to identity is social interaction, and social interaction centered around literacy is a major factor in engagement (Beach & Ward, 2013; Cantrell et al., 2017; Gambrell & Morrow, 1996; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Ivey, 2014; Oldfather, 1996; Scheffel, 2016). Cantrell et al. (2017) stated that “social context is a critical dimension influencing a reader’s engagement, particularly as it relates to students’ relationships with teachers and peers” (p. 56). Engaged readers are involved in literacy activities with others. Beyond this, Ivey (2014) found that “students who were engaged as readers viewed reading as fundamentally about working on relationships, both with others and with themselves” (p.166). Similarly to how Kirkland (2011) found that reading engagement stemmed from students’ ability to make texts meaningful in the construction of their identity, Ivey (2014) found that engagement occurs when students find texts that can be helpful in constructing social being. Cantrell et al. (2017) also found that schools can foster motivation to read in a social context, showing the connection among different qualities of engaged readers.
In educational settings, there are many things teachers can do to build identity and social engagement with texts. Engagement is enhanced when students read books that are on their reading level. Allington and Gabriel (2012) stated that “it’s not just the time spent with a book in hand, but rather the intensity and volume of high-success reading, that determines a student’s progress in learning to read. When students read accurately, they solidify their word-recognition, decoding, and word-analysis skills. Perhaps more important, they are likely to understand what they read—and, as a result, to enjoy reading” (p. 12). This “high-success reading” is important for students to form reader identity and self-efficacy. However, Hastings (2016) addresses the need for balance between reading-level texts and texts with appropriate interest level for students. If a student’s reading level requires them to read books far too simplistic in content for their interests, texts could become too boring and decrease engagement. Research shows that one of the most effective factors in increasing student motivation to read is providing them with interesting texts (Cantrell et al., 2017; Guthrie & Humenick, 2004). For example, in a study of one 8th grade class, increased motivation as measured through factors such as wide reading, book knowledge, critical reading, and reading mechanics among other elements was demonstrated when students had access to books that they found interesting (Ivey & Johnston, 2013).
Beyond interesting texts, the research overwhelmingly shows that motivation is increased when students get to choose what they read (Allington & Cunnignham, 2007; Brozo & Hargis, 2011; Gambrell & Morrow, 1996; Guthrie & Humenick, 2004; Ivey & Johnston, 2013; Oldfather, 1996). Several studies have been conducted in which some students have been given a choice of books (even from a limited number), and a control group has been randomly assigned books. Students who are given choice spend more time reading and perform comprehension tasks with more accuracy than those with no choice (Guthrie & Humenick, 2004). Choice provides motivation and helps students form reader identities, increasing engagement. Engagement comes when adolescents identify with the texts and with reading.
Gee (2001) outlines four ways to view identity including Nature-identity, Institution-identity, Discourse-identity, and Affinity-identity (p.100). Most relevant to this study is Affinity-identity or A-identity (Gee, 2001, p. 105). Gee (2001) defined A-identity as a way of viewing a person by the “experiences shared in the practice of ‘affinity groups’” (p. 100). Affinity groups are groups of people who share and engage in a particular interest together (Gee, 2001). Many fanfiction researchers see online fanfiction communities as affinity groups from which participants take part of their identity (Black, 2007, 2009a; Kell, 2009; Korobkova & Black, 2014; Lammers, 2016; Lammers & Marsh, 2015). Lammers (2016) noted that “sharing writing in an online space connects youth to authentic writing identities” (p.309). Black (2005) showed that “ELLs [English Language Learners] in this space are able to use acts of literacy to publicly perform aspects of their identities and, in so doing, affiliate themselves with the fan community” (p.123). In this way we see fanfiction spaces as greatly connected to identity. This study explores further how adolescents influence fanfiction spaces and how fanfiction spaces influence adolescent identity.