It is generally understood that identity is one whole, unyielding concept. It is what defines a person, what distinguishes them from everyone else. While there is truth to that, I believe it to be more nuanced. This text is not a thorough investigation of identity and how it forms; rather, it is an alternative interpretation. (Note: of all the essays I have written thus far, this is perhaps the least precise one. I apologise for the lack of clarity at any part; I would appreciate feedback on how to improve, and, above all, I hope my texts encourage you to think.)
Let us start with whole identity (WI). WI is the accumulation of one's roles in all the contexts one has experienced and actions one had performed, as well as one's own features, from themself or elsewhere, such as past experiences, values, thoughts, social status and physiology. It is impossible to fully define one's WI, as it is too broad to signify anything in particular.
A role is one's particular influence or trait in a given context. Roles could be virtually anything, though they all differ in their validation. As a general rule, factual roles (being 178cm tall) are proven empirically (with a legitimate means of measurement); social roles (being friends with someone) are proven by a shared agreement amongst the participants (genuine reciprocity of the friendship); and aspiring roles are proven by one's affirmation to oneself, i.e. one aspires to have those roles as parts of their identity. All other roles are proven by one's self, in that one feels an affinity towards the roles and can prove to oneself the validity of said affinity. Roles can distinguish individuals as well as unite them in the experiences roles represent. Some roles' property of affirming people's experiences can be significant enough to birth a sense of unity.
Obviously, not all roles are present or relevant (or even valid) in every context. Contextual identity (CI) is the accumulation of one's roles relevant to a specific context. The relevance varies depending on the context. This type of identity can be rather difficult to define with precision, but assessing it is not impossible, and it can enlighten one in how they partake in a given context. At any moment, some of one's roles are present whilst others are hidden, either by circumstantial demand, by one's need or by one's desire. CI adapts to contexts, and it is the manner of adapting that influences other drives. The experiencer's WI blends into their experience.
Self-idealised identity (SII) is the accumulation of one's roles that one prefers to present or emphasise, as well as roles one aspires to have. Though one may not have total control over their other identities, the truth is largely contrary for one's SII: one can choose which parts of their identity they want to focus on. This, however, may come in conflict with another kind of identity.
External identity (EI) is the accumulation of one's roles perceived by other people. Naturally, one has very little control over this identity, yet people tend to worry about it, ignoring the fact that we all have an EI. Furthermore, it is impossible for one to precisely know what their EI truly is—one could ask people how they perceive them, but what they say and how one understands it may differ. So much for connection.
One is hurt by insults because they either paint a false image, or provide unwanted emphasis on certain roles, or distort a truth, upon one's EI, which people may confuse for one's 'true identity'. Genrally, people crave for their SII and EI to be connected: not just for social advantage, but also for authenticity and self-expression. The craving differs by context, but it is present, if faintly.
While the SII focuses on the ideal self, self-realised identity (SRI) is less wishful: it is the accumulation of one's roles according to one's self-assessment, regardless of context. This is broadly what people refer to when they speak of identity. People feel the need to identify with something in order to bring peace upon the question of who they are, a question that, despite being fundamentally unanswerable, is remedied through imagination. SRI is an indirect representation of one's reality.
By virtue of change, there are no 'core' parts of any type of identity—there are patterns, recurrences, iterations. Furthermore, there is no hierarchy for roles, but when one assesses any of their identities, certain influences will colour certain roles as more significant to oneself. What makes a role significant is if it affirms one's perspective of one's experiences, especially if said experiences have been doubted by other people. (Thus, when one is insulted for one's role, it is because the role has been denied: one's reality has been doubted.) A role could also be significant without affirmation, but I digress.
The roles of one's identity, and thus identity itself, is everchanging: from the places one goes to the thoughts one engages with, identity follows each moment. Knowing this, you can be at ease with the flow of your identity, existing and changing as you are and as you do. But, you could also change it, even if only to an extent—with your present actions, you can build a path towards your SII, and that could merge with your SRI. As for the EI, I would advise to mind it little, for its nature is very fickle; one unexpected act and it changes. Behave appropriately when appropriate, indeed, but do not conflict external opinions with your other identities.