Negotiating Identity Within Systems of Power: Trauma, Institutional Contexts, and Meaning-Making
This paper does not refer to any specific legal case or individual. This paper explores identity formation within systems of power, focusing on the interaction between personal identity and socially assigned identity. Drawing on theories of identity, narrative, and institutional power, the paper examines how ethnicity, gender identity, and socioeconomic status shape identity through social interaction and institutional contexts. Using a case-based analysis, the paper argues that identity is continuously negotiated between self-perception and external categorisation, particularly within powerful institutions such as the family court system. The paper also critically examines post-traumatic growth (PTG) and proposes the Mud Lotus Trauma Integration Model as a framework for understanding meaning-making and identity reconstruction after trauma. The findings suggest that identity is not solely an internal construct but is shaped through ongoing negotiation within systems of power.
Keywords: identity formation; narrative identity; trauma; institutional trauma; institutional power; domestic violence; family court; misidentification; coercive control; meaning-making; identity reconstruction; intersectionality; socio-legal; qualitative research; Mud Lotus Model
Introduction
Vignoles (2018) suggested that personal identity refers to how individuals answer the question “Who are you?” at both a personal and social level. Hitlin (2003) argues that values can be understood as the core of personal identity because they provide a sense of meaning and consistency across different life experiences. Klimstra and van Doeselaar (2017) explain that identity is formed and developed through everyday experiences, and that identity can change through daily life. Côté and Levine (2002) propose that identity formation occurs through the interaction between individual agency and social structure, meaning that identity is shaped not only by personal choices and values but also by social roles, cultural expectations, and institutional systems. From this perspective, identity can be understood as a social process that develops over time through the interaction between self-perception and others’ perceptions.
This essay examines how ethnicity, gender identity, and socioeconomic status influence identity formation through social interaction and institutional power. It argues that identity formation is a process of negotiation between self-identity and socially assigned identity, through which individuals maintain their identity by relying on values and meaning-making when challenged by institutions.
Ethnicity
Ethnicity plays a role in identity formation because it influences cultural values, social expectations, and how individuals are perceived by others (Vignoles, 2018). Kokoro (a case example) was raised in a highly educated Japanese family that emphasised achievement, social responsibility, and humility.
From early childhood, she was encouraged to think about contributing to society, which shaped her sense of purpose and responsibility. These cultural expectations influenced how Kokoro came to see herself not only as an individual but also as a member of a wider community with social responsibilities.
An important aspect of Kokoro’s upbringing was the Japanese cultural value of humility. When she introduced her father as a successful business owner, her parents told her that her parents’ socioeconomic status was not her identity and that she should not define herself through her family’s status. This reflects what Markus and Kitayama (1991) describe as an interdependent self, where identity is defined through relationships, social roles, and responsibilities rather than individual achievement alone. Similarly, Watsuji’s concept of relational identity suggests that the self is formed through relationships and social context rather than existing as an isolated individual (Watsuji, 1996). From this perspective, Kokoro’s early identity was shaped through cultural values that emphasised responsibility, humility, and social contribution rather than individual status.
However, Kokoro’s ethnic identity was shaped not only by her cultural upbringing but also by how she was perceived and treated by others after migrating to New Zealand. Research shows that Asian migrants in New Zealand are often perceived as perpetual foreigners rather than “real New Zealanders” (Ward & Masgoret, 2008). This reflects racialisation, where individuals are categorised based on ethnicity rather than personal identity (Omi & Winant, 1986).
Although New Zealand presents itself as a multicultural society, Pākehā culture remains the dominant norm, and Asian migrants have been positioned as outsiders, influencing discrimination in employment and social integration (Ip, 2003; Daldy et al., 2013; Rocha, 2012). Research shows that migrants often experience identity negotiation as they move between cultures and are viewed through stereotypes associated with their ethnic group (Takamatsu & Takai, 2018). This created a conflict between her internal identity and socially assigned identity, requiring her to negotiate her identity across different contexts. This suggests that ethnicity is also about how individuals are positioned within systems of power and racial hierarchy.
Gender
Gender identity is an important aspect of identity formation because it influences how individuals see themselves and how they are perceived and treated by others in society. According to social identity theory, gender is a social category that shapes social roles, expectations, and social treatment (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Kokoro identified as non-binary from a very young age and reported experiencing social difficulties during childhood because she did not feel that she fit into traditional gender categories. Research suggests that gender identity can be fluid and develops over time through personal experiences and social context (Diamond & Butterworth, 2008). Many gender-diverse individuals report feeling different from traditional gender roles from a young age and may experience confusion, isolation, and social pressure during childhood (Lev, 2004).
During her marriage, she was involved in a conservative religious environment where her Buddhist beliefs and gender identity were not accepted, which contributed to her remaining in an abusive relationship for many years. After leaving the relationship, Kokoro reported that her gender identity was sometimes used against her in the family court process, where legal professionals questioned whether her gender identity would negatively affect her child. Non-binary individuals often experience social misunderstanding and pressure to conform to gender norms (Richards et al., 2016). Research also shows that credibility judgments in the legal system are influenced by gender stereotypes, and individuals who do not fit the stereotype of the “ideal victim” may be perceived as unreliable, hostile, or emotionally unstable (Reeves et al., 2025).
From the perspective of the looking-glass self, individuals develop identity based on how they believe others see them (Cooley, 1902). Being repeatedly treated as unreliable can negatively influence self-concept. However, Kokoro maintained a distinction between her internal identity and the socially assigned identity imposed on her by the court. She reported that her gender allowed her to think outside gender expectations and helped her remain calm during stressful court situations. This illustrates the role of personal agency in identity formation (Côté & Levine, 2002).
Gender identity is often discussed as a personal identity and form of self-expression. However, Kokoro’s experience shows that gender identity is also shaped by social institutions and power structures, particularly in the legal system. Gender is not only an internal identity but is also socially constructed and regulated through social norms and institutions (Butler, 1990; West & Zimmerman, 1987). Her experience in the family court highlights that gender identity is not only personal but also social and institutional, as her gender identity influenced how her credibility and parenting were evaluated by legal professionals (Reeves et al., 2025). This suggests that gender identity is shaped not only by self-understanding but also by how institutions interpret and assign meaning to gender, which can have significant consequences for identity and opportunities.
Kokoro’s experiences can also be understood through intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989), which suggests that aspects of identity such as gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status interact to shape how individuals are perceived and treated within social institutions. In Kokoro’s case, her experiences in the family court system cannot be understood through gender alone, but through the intersection of being a migrant, Asian, non-binary, and a single mother. These intersecting identities influenced how her credibility and parenting were evaluated. This highlights that gender identity is not experienced in isolation, but is shaped through its interaction with other social identities and institutional power.
Socioeconomic status
Socioeconomic status played a complex role in Kokoro’s identity formation because her socioeconomic position changed significantly across different contexts and life stages. Kokoro came from a highly educated and professionally successful family in Japan, where many family members were business owners, academics, medical doctors, and legal professionals. This background provided her with high cultural capital, including education, professional skills, and strong expectations regarding social contribution and achievement (Bourdieu, 1986). These forms of capital influenced how Kokoro saw herself and how she was positioned within different social contexts.
After migrating to New Zealand, she reported being treated as a poor migrant who could not speak English well. At times, she felt that people treated her as if she had low intelligence due to her limited English ability. This reflects status inconsistency, where individuals have high education or professional skills but are treated as having low social status due to migrant status or language ability (Lenski, 1954).
Kokoro’s socioeconomic struggles became more severe during her abusive marriage and the family court process. Some researchers describe this as legal abuse, where the legal system is used as a tool to continue coercive control after separation (Gutowski & Goodman, 2023). When institutions fail to protect victims or cause additional harm, this is referred to as institutional betrayal (Smith & Freyd, 2014). Survivors of domestic violence often experience secondary victimisation in the family court system, where their experiences are minimised or disbelieved, leading to further psychological harm (Wilde, 2023; Dalgarno et al., 2024). These experiences can affect identity because individuals may be socially positioned as unreliable, unstable, or powerless within institutional contexts.
Kokoro experienced significant financial pressure due to legal costs. Many survivors withdraw from legal proceedings due to emotional stress and financial burden (Bell & Goodman, 2001). Despite these challenges, Kokoro later experienced upward socioeconomic mobility through establishing her own company, which became a government service provider.
The contrast between how Kokoro was treated in the family court system and in professional settings suggests that socioeconomic status is socially constructed and recognised differently depending on institutional context. Socioeconomic status is not only about income but also about education, professional recognition, social networks, and institutional power. Kokoro’s education and professional experience can be understood as cultural capital, while her professional networks can be understood as social capital (Bourdieu, 1986).
This situation can also be understood through identity theory, which suggests that identity is shaped by social roles and how individuals are positioned within social structures (Côté & Levine, 2002). In different institutional contexts, Kokoro was assigned different social roles, such as a vulnerable migrant single mother in the court system and a competent professional in her workplace. These different roles influenced how others perceived her and how she saw herself.
Kokoro’s identity was shaped through the interaction between self-perception and social roles assigned by institutions. This suggests that socioeconomic status is not only a position but also a social identity shaped by institutions and roles.
Discussion
Kokoro’s experiences can be understood through the concept of intersectionality, which suggests that multiple identities interact to shape how individuals are perceived and treated by society (Crenshaw, 1989). Kokoro’s experiences in the family court system highlight how institutional power can influence identity. Research shows that legal systems can become a site of continued coercive control, where perpetrators use legal processes to maintain power over victim-survivors after separation (Reeves et al., 2025). In such contexts, victim-survivors may be positioned as unreliable or dishonest, which can damage their social identity and credibility.
From the perspective of the looking-glass self (Cooley, 1902), individuals develop identity based on how they believe others see them. Being repeatedly positioned as unreliable by legal actors had the potential to damage Kokoro’s self-concept. However, Kokoro maintained a distinction between her internal identity and the socially assigned identity imposed on her by the court. This illustrates the role of personal agency in identity formation (Côté & Levine, 2002).
Through her Zen worldview, she developed a way of understanding her situation that allowed her to avoid internalising negative labels imposed by others. This can be understood as meaning-making, where individuals interpret difficult experiences in ways that protect their sense of self (Park, 2010). This process can also be understood through narrative identity, which suggests that individuals construct their identity by integrating past experiences, present identity, and future goals into a life story (McAdams, 2001).
Kokoro’s experiences are often described using the concept of post-traumatic growth (PTG), which refers to positive psychological changes following traumatic experiences (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). However, some researchers argue that PTG can be problematic because it may place pressure on survivors to find positive meaning in traumatic experiences and may overlook ongoing suffering and structural injustice (Zoellner & Maercker, 2006; Tseris, 2013). Framing trauma primarily in terms of growth may individualise what are often social and structural problems, as trauma is shaped by power relations, social inequality, and institutional responses rather than individual psychology alone (Burstow, 2003).
During this process, Kokoro developed the Mud Lotus Trauma Integration Model, which can be understood as a meaning integration framework rather than a growth model. Instead of focusing on growth, the model emphasises integrating traumatic experiences into a coherent sense of self while acknowledging the reality of suffering and institutional injustice. Identity formation is a negotiation between self-identity and socially assigned identity within systems of power. The most important question after trauma may not be how individuals grow, but how they maintain their sense of self when their identity is challenged by external factors.
This analysis also highlights the need for further research exploring how identity is negotiated within institutional contexts, particularly in cases involving domestic violence and family court systems. Future research could examine how individuals who experience misidentification and institutional responses reconstruct identity and meaning over time, using qualitative and narrative-based approaches. Such research may contribute to the development of culturally and relationally informed frameworks for trauma and identity reconstruction, including further development of the Mud Lotus Model.
Conclusion
This essay examined how Kokoro’s identity was shaped by ethnicity, gender identity, and socioeconomic status across different social contexts. Her experiences demonstrate that identity is shaped not only by internal self-perception but also by how individuals are perceived, positioned, and treated by others, particularly within powerful social institutions. This case shows that individuals are not passive recipients of socially assigned identities. Through personal values and meaning-making, Kokoro maintained her identity despite negative social labeling and legal stress.
This case supports the view that identity formation is a social process shaped by both social structure and individual agency (Côté & Levine, 2002). Identity is not fixed within the individual, but is continuously negotiated through social interaction, institutional power, and personal meaning-making. This case reflects the idea that identity is not simply formed within the individual, but is continuously negotiated, contested, and reconstructed within social relationships and systems of power.
This perspective positions identity not as a fixed internal construct, but as an ongoing negotiation within systems of power, culture, and meaning.
References
Bell, M. E., & Goodman, L. A. (2001). Supporting battered women involved with the court system: An evaluation of a law school-based advocacy intervention. Violence Against Women, 7(12), 1377–1404.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
Burstow, B. (2003). Toward a radical understanding of trauma and trauma work. Violence against Women, 9(11), 1293–1317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801203255555
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2002). Identity formation, agency, and culture: A social psychological synthesis. Psychology Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
Daldy, B., Poot, J., & Roskruge, M. (2013). Perceived discrimination and immigrants’ well-being in New Zealand. Journal of Population Economics, 26(2), 645–672.
Dalgarno, N., Katz, I., Hegarty, K., Humphreys, C., & Kaspiew, R. (2024). Domestic violence and the family law system: The experiences of victim-survivors in family court. ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au
Diamond, L. M., & Butterworth, M. (2008). Questioning gender and sexual identity: Dynamic links over time. Sex Roles, 59(5–6), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9425-3
Gutowski, E. R., & Goodman, L. A. (2023). Coercive control in the courtroom: The legal abuse scale (LAS). Journal of Family Violence, 38(3), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-022-00408-3
Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between two theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2), 118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519843
Ip, M. (2003). Unfolding history, evolving identity: The Chinese in New Zealand. Auckland University Press.
Klimstra, T. A., & van Doeselaar, L. (2017). In J. Specht (Ed.), Identity formation in adolescence and young adulthood. Personality Development across the Lifespan (pp.293-308). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-804674-6.00018-1
Lenski, G. E. (1954). Status crystallization: A non-vertical dimension of social status. American Sociological Review, 19(4), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.2307/2087459
Lev, A. I. (2004). Transgender emergence: Therapeutic guidelines for working with gender-variant people and their families. Haworth Press.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
McAdams, D. P. (2001). The Psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2), 100–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.2.100
Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1986). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1980s. Routledge.
Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 257–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018301
Reeves, E., Fitz-Gibbon, K., Meyer, S., & Walklate, S. (2025). Incredible women: Legal systems abuse, coercive control, and the credibility of victim-survivors. Violence Against Women, 31(3–4), 767–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012231220370
Richards, C., Bouman, W. P., & Barker, M.-J. (2017). Genderqueer and non-binary genders (M.-J. Barker, C. Richards, & W. P. Bouman, Eds.; 1st ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51053-2
Rocha, I. (2012). Multiculturalism and identity in New Zealand. New Zealand Sociology, 27(1), 25–45.
Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist, 69(6), 575–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037564
Takamatsu, R., & Takai, J. (2018). The psychology of culture in Japan. In W. W. Li, D. Hodgetts, & K. H. Foo (Eds.), Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Intercultural Psychology (1st ed., pp. 32–52). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315158358-3
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01
Tseris, E. (2013). Trauma theory without feminism? Evaluating contemporary understandings of traumatic stress. Affilia, 28(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109913485707
Vignoles, V. L. (2018). Identity: Personal and social. In V. L. Vignoles, K. D. Brown, & D. Capozza (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of identity (pp. 1–20). Oxford University Press.
Ward, C., & Masgoret, A.-M. (2008). Attitudes toward Immigrants, Immigration, and Multiculturalism in New Zealand: A Social Psychological Analysis. International Migration Review, 42(1), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2007.00119.x
Watsuji, T. (1996). Watsuji Tetsuro’s Rinrigaku: Ethics in Japan. State University of New York Press.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002
Wilde, S., Sheeran, N., & Douglas, H. (2023). The psychological impact on mothers who have experienced domestic violence when navigating the family court system: a scoping review. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 31(4), 764–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2023.2214927
Zoellner, T., & Maercker, A. (2006). Posttraumatic growth in clinical psychology — A critical review and introduction of a two component model. Clinical Psychology Review, 26(5), 626–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.01.008
