A - Holland, Dorothy et al. Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1998. (Chapters 1-3, 8, 13)
Anthropologists "write" and produce "texts" (fieldnotes, articles, books) [and, as per Latour, thereby make "culture" in their offices and classrooms]
By implication (and extensively developed by Derrida (Of grammatology [1967] 1997)) this applies to all human beings as they "make themselves" (or as they have writtent by others?).
A tribe, let us say, is warlike. The
successes for which it strives, the achievements upon which it
sets store, are connected with fighting and victory. The
presence of this medium incites bellicose exhibitions in a boy,
first in games, then in fact when he is strong enough. As he
fights he wins approval and advancement; as he refrains, he is
disliked, ridiculed, shut out from favorable recognition. It is
not surprising that his original belligerent tendencies and
emotions are strengthened at the expense of others, and that his
ideas turn to things connected with war. Only in this way can he
become fully a recognized member of his group. Thus his mental
habitudes are gradually assimilated to those of his group.
(John Dewey 1966 [1916]: 37)
Whence it is a slopperish matter, given the wet and low visibility (since in this scherzarade of one's thousand one nightinesses that sword of certainty which would indentifide the body never falls) to idendifine the individuone in scratch wig, squarecuts, stock lavaleer, regattable oxeter, baggy pants and shufflers... (my emphasis -- channeling Ray McDermott Joyce 1939: 51)
In our developmental approach, thoughts and feelings, will and motivation are formed as the individual develops. The indivitual comes, in the recurrent contexts of social interaction, to personalize cultural resources, such as figured worlds, languages, and symbols, as means to organize and modify thoughts and emotions. These personalized cultural devices enable and become part of the person's "higher mental functions," to use Vygotsky's terms. (Holland 1998: 100)
For a mode of speech to be understood, it must be a matter of course it must
be generally accepted. This ultimately presupposes that a mode of speech has
its analogue in other forms of speech based on the same pattern, But at the
same time it should not be habitual to the point of becoming indistinguishable.
It must still strike someone who hears it used, and its whole power of expression
derives from its not being identical with its competitors.
To express one is, therefore, a paradoxical enterprise, since
it presupposes that there is a fund of kindred expressions already established.
and thoroughly evident, and that from this fluid the form used should detach
itself and remain new enough to arouse attention. (Merleau-Ponty 1973: 35)
For more on my take on the fundamental issue see my blog entry for January 25, 2020 on "A warning to apprentice anthropologists: On 'Identity' in the New York Time"