1. Objects and Methods of Identification
Explicit attention must be directed to the central question of what is being identified. Historically, the objects of identification have included communities; legal persons; citizens with generalized rights and obligations; physical bodies; even clothing. We need a more precise and profound understanding of the cultural and symbolic determinants of how differing types of ‘person’ are identified. Arguably, the forms of identification through which we actively claim legal personhood or civic rights are qualitatively different from ascribed identities, notably those imposed by the state on the basis of our bodies. The history, ethics, and limits of using the body to identify legal persons and citizens need to be cross-culturally explored. How have different political, social, and semiotic contexts determined the generation and acceptance of identification technologies? How have they been legitimated and critiqued? What and who are the objects of identification practices in differing periods and contexts? How have protocols of identification been stabilized politically, legally, and culturally? How have individual identification and registration been demarcated from statistical data systems that collect information on aggregates?
2. Discipline and Rights
The disciplinary/surveillance dimensions of identification compared to its enabling aspects are unequally balanced in scholarship and current debate. The former has attracted disproportionate attention, with far less research focussed on how identification mechanisms have facilitated interpersonal transactions in the market and civil society, for example via seals, signatures, notarial marks and PIN numbers. What has been the historical relationship between the objectives and the outcomes of identification systems? How have disciplinary and enabling systems coexisted? To what extent has ‘function creep’ characterized past practices? In what circumstances have systems failed or been resisted?
3. International, Transnational and Imperial Dimensions
Existing approaches have been confined largely within national contexts: there is little comparative or transnational evidence. However, recent research on South Africa and India is suggestive of an important imperial and post-colonial dimension to identification systems. The current globalization of identification is unlikely to be understood without pooling knowledge about different national experiences. What has determined the development, geographical transmission and international standardization of identification technologies? Why have systems acceptable in one country been rejected in others? Was the experience of Empire a key factor in the proliferation of coercive identification systems? How have developments in one country influenced those in others? Can we talk of a specific transnational economy of technical/bureaucratic networks and appropriations?
4. The Longue Durée
Identification has come to be understood not simply as a feature of the contemporary world. Paper passes can be traced to the thirteenth century in Europe, and recognizable passports to the sixteenth century. Contemporary biometrics have their antecedents in nineteenth-century practices of fingerprinting and anthropometry in Europe, India and South America. What are the continuities and ruptures in this history? What are the implications of historical research for contemporary policy debates? To what extent does the historical record illuminate the ethical implications of contemporary biometrics?
