Everyday citizenship: Identity and recognition
-
Upload
nick-hopkins -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of Everyday citizenship: Identity and recognition
Everyday Citizenship: Identity and Recognition
NICK HOPKINS1* and LEDA BLACKWOOD2
1University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 4HN, UK2University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9AX, UK
ABSTRACT
Recent theorizing on citizenship encourages a broader consideration of the degree to which
individuals are able to participate in social life without valued elements of their self-definition
being compromised. This paper seeks to illustrate how social psychology can contribute to such an
approach through providing an analysis of British Muslims’ accounts of how others orient to their
religious and national identities. The data are qualitative and derived from interviews with 28
Muslims. The analysis focuses on participants’ accounts of how, in everyday interaction, others’
assumptions about their religious identity affected their abilities to act on terms that were their own
and how this constrained their abilities to speak and be heard in the public sphere. The wider
significance of these data for struggles over citizenship and the recognition of identities are discussed.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key words: citizenship; identity; recognition; British Muslims
INTRODUCTION
In this paper, we consider how social psychological research concerning minority group
members’ identity-related experiences can enrich our understanding of citizenship. More
specifically we explore minority group members’ accounts of how they are construed by
others and how such construals may be discrepant with their own. At first sight this may
seem rather removed from the domain of citizenship. However, the conceptualization of
citizenship has been broadened in recent years to address previously un-theorized issues
concerning group identities and how their recognition is implicated in people’s abilities to
participate in the public sphere. Inevitably, the politics to, and implications of, recognising
group-level identities go well beyond the domain of social psychology. However, given the
centrality of issues of identity in such debates, social psychology has much to offer. Not
only do our theories address the psychological significance of group identities, they also
have much to say on the multiplicity, variability and contested nature of identity. Attending
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology
J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 21: 215–227 (2011)
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/casp.1088
*Correspondence to: Nick Hopkins, School of Psychology, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN, UKE-mail: [email protected]
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
to such themes may allow a more nuanced analysis of the nature and dynamics of
recognition and non-recognition.
We start with a brief consideration of citizenship and diversity before reviewing work
on identity. We then report interview data in which we explore British Muslims’ accounts
of how others orient to their Muslim identity in everyday life and what this means for their
abilities to participate in the public sphere on terms that are their own.
CITIZENSHIP AND DIVERSITY
In a classic account of citizenship, Marshall (1950) described an historical progression in
which civil rights (e.g. the right to hold property) were followed by political rights (e.g. the
right to vote), and more recently, the social rights (e.g. access to education, welfare, etc.)
necessary for the realization of the former. These developments were associated with
Keynesian approaches to wealth redistribution and have undergone further elaboration as
other economic/political philosophies emerged. In particular the societal diversity
associated with mass migration has encouraged reflection on the place of group identities
in theories of citizenship.
Although much talk of citizenship concerns individuals’ rights, issues of group identity
have always been implicated in the claiming of such rights (see also McNamara, Muldoon,
Stevenson, & Slattery, this issue). For example, it is striking that de Tocqueville’s classic
analysis of democracy and citizenship excluded North America’s aboriginal population
because, as Turner (2001: p. 13) puts it, he believed Christian monotheism was ‘the
necessary glue which pulled together the territorial basis of the nation-state as a unified but
exclusionary community’. Nowadays theories of citizenship are more attuned to the issue
of societal diversity and this has been manifested in a number of developments—most
obviously in the accommodation of various identities in institutional and civic life. Such
developments have been prompted by concerns about minorities’ psychological
experience, for example the political theorist Charles Taylor argues the recognition of
identity ‘is not just a courtesy we owe other people. It is a vital human need’ (Taylor, 1992:
p. 26). In turn our notions of equality have changed. As Modood (2005: p. 134) puts it, we
have moved from:
an understanding of equality in terms of individualism and cultural assimilation to a politics ofrecognition, to equality as encompassing public ethnicity, that is to say, equality as not having tohide or apologize for one’s origins, family or community, but requiring others to show respect forthem and adapt public attitudes and arrangements so that the heritage they represent is encouragedrather than ignored or expected to wither away.
However, some question the results of such an approach. For example, Sniderman and
Hagendoorn (2007) argue that orienting to group differences can be problematic because
it can subvert a sense of commonality. Feminist research has also cautioned that
the institutional recognition of group identities can reinforce the authority of traditional
(often male) authorities in minority communities. More generally, those attuned to the
socially constructed and contested nature of group identities caution that the practices of
group recognition can contribute to the reification of groups and the identities that they
support (with implications for individuals’ choice over identity—see Sen, 2006). All this
underlines the importance of clarity in how identities are approached. Certainly there are
problems with the assumption that people have a single coherent identity that they are
motivated to express across diverse contexts (Sen, 2006). However, this does not mean that
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 21: 215–227 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
216 N. Hopkins and L. Blackwood
recognition is itself a flawed concept or irrelevant. Rather it means that we need a more
nuanced understanding of identity and recognition. And social psychological theory on
identity has potential to help in this regard.
IDENTITY
Self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) argues the
self may be defined at different levels of abstraction: Sometimes in terms of individual
uniqueness, sometimes in terms of social categorical/group terms. Moreover, which social
categories are employed cannot be assumed but varies (both within and between
individuals). Thus, self-categorization is multiple, variable, and context-dependent.
Moreover, the categories employed in self-definition are social products and exist by virtue
of innumerable group-making practices (Hopkins, in press). So too they are sites of contest
as group members argue over everything from an identity’s breadth (who is to be included
as fellow group members) to its contents (the group’s values and prototypical group
exemplars) (Reicher & Hopkins, 2001).
Yet, if this work, therefore, cautions against any reification of self-categories, it does not
imply issues of recognition foregrounded in multicultural theory are irrelevant. Identities
matter and the point is that recognition requires orientation to the identity definitions that
people themselves hold. As these are multiple and variable, others’ orientation to just one
element of one’s self-definition, even if it is deeply valued, may be problematic. It is one
thing to willingly identify in terms of a particular identity, it is another to have one’s choice
over one’s identities limited by others. Sen (2006: p. 8) illustrates this with the observation
that whilst an individual’s Jewishness may be of immense personal value and political
significance (e.g. in collective action against anti-semitism) ‘it would be a long-run victory
of Nazism if the barbarities of the 1930s eliminated forever a Jewish person’s freedom and
ability to invoke any identity other than his or her Jewishness’.
IDENTITIES AND EVERYDAY CITIZENSHIP
Recognition can take a number of forms (Renault, 2007) but broadly speaking refers to
people feeling their own sense of identity is affirmed. In turn, non-recognition can entail
people feeling positioned or constrained to act in ways that compromise their self-
definition. Building on this analysis, contemporary approaches to citizenship increasingly
conceptualize everyday interaction as an important domain in which citizenship is
manifested (and denied). For example, geographers are attuned to how citizenship, if it is to
mean anything in an everyday sense, refers to ‘the ability of individuals to occupy public
spaces in a manner that does not compromise their self-identity, let alone obstruct, threaten
or even harm them more materially’ (Painter & Philo, 1995: p. 115).
In some respects such a broadening of the concept may dilute the meaning of citizenship
as an analytic category. However, social psychological research suggests much may be
gained through exploring people’s understandings of how they are positioned by others in
ways that compromise their self-definition. Such research explores how identities are
valued and identity threats experienced (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999).
Some threats arise with the experience of having one’s membership of a valued group
questioned (Cheryan & Monin, 2005). Some reflect the experience of being categorized in
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 21: 215–227 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Identity and recognition 217
terms of one social category when one would prefer to be categorized in terms of another
(Barreto, Ellemers, Scholten, & Smith, 2010). Still others may be bound up with the
nesting of identities such that individuals resent the attention given to their membership of
a superordinate category when that is experienced as undermining their subgroup’s
distinctiveness (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). The unifying theme is that we experience
psychological threat when we are miscategorized—that is, when others fail to recognise or
categorize us in terms that are consistent with how we see ourselves.
Research also documents the costs of identity threat and so can help inform the analysis
of non-recognition developed in citizenship research. For instance, research looking at the
consequences of being denied respect and recognition by one’s fellows has shown
diminished self-worth and attendant psychological malaise, including depression and a
sense of powerlessness (Smith, Allen, & Danley, 2007); reduced affective commitment
leading to the withdrawal of effort for the collective good (Tyler & Blader, 2003); and
anxiety about acceptance providing the motivation to over-conform to group norms and
exert greater effort towards group goals (Sleebos, Ellemers, & de Gilder, 2006). Yet, for the
potential for these insights to be realized in relation to the topic of citizenship, research
needs to move out of the laboratory to explore the everyday interactions that citizenship
research increasingly directs us to.
Survey research concerning everyday interactions suggests minorities and majorities
may experience the same interaction differently (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005). This is
likely bound up with the former’s anticipation of prejudice from the latter, and the latter’s
greater power to make their perspective (including their assumptions about the other’s
identity) count for the unfolding interaction. Available interview research is suggestive
in this regard. For example, Feagin’s (1991) analysis shows majority group members’
assumptions about minority identities can shape minority group members’ experiences of
public life in all manner of ways. Specifically, African Americans reported experiencing
heavy surveillance (e.g. in shopping malls) and that the identity ascriptions involved in this
violated respondents’ own sense of themselves. Moreover, respondents reported the task of
monitoring the degree to which their Black identity was implicated in routine interactions
was burdensome.
Our own research into the domain of identity and recognition focuses on the experiences
of Muslims in Britain and it is to Muslims’ identities that we now turn.
MUSLIMS’ EXPERIENCES
Muslims in Britain are often depicted as an alien and threatening other (Runnymede Trust,
1997). However, despite highly essentialized imagery, the reality is that Muslims’ faith
identities (like all others) are diverse and evolving. Whereas first generation Muslim
migrants tended to self-define in terms of ethnic/cultural identities (e.g. Pakistani,
Bangladeshi, etc.), succeeding generations have increasingly identified as Muslim.
However, this emergent identification is complex and contested. As the second and third
generation has loosened ties with their parents’ culture and developed a British
identification (Maxwell, 2006) there has been a questioning of traditional schools of
Islamic thought and a ‘return’ to the holy texts which are necessarily read and contested
in the light of the current context (Hopkins, in press, 2011; Hopkins & Kahani-Hopkins,
2004, 2009).
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 21: 215–227 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
218 N. Hopkins and L. Blackwood
Yet, if many identify as Muslim and British, and in terms of a host of other (e.g.
professional) identities too, others do not always orient to Muslims on the terms that
individuals themselves judge appropriate. Below we explore Muslims’ accounts of how
they think they are positioned by others’ assumptions about their identities, and how they
believe this affects their ability to participate in the public sphere. We explore accounts of
their feelings and reactions, and discuss how they contribute to our understanding of
citizenship. For example, we highlight some of the forms of resistance exhibited by our
respondents and discuss how citizenship may also be actively claimed in interaction.
METHOD
Sample
Twenty eight Muslim interviewees (19¼male, 9¼ female) were recruited through various
organizations (e.g. mosques, local and national Muslim associations etc.). Inevitably this
sample is unlikely to be representative (precluding simple empirical generalizations) but
for the present purposes it is ideal as it includes people keen to participate in the public
sphere.
Interview schedule
The interviews were semi-structured, lasted one to 2 hours, and took place in the
interviewees’ homes, offices or mosques. Topics included: Muslims’ position in UK
society; the dynamics to anti-Muslim stereotyping; experiences of exclusion; under-
standings of religious and national identifications; understandings of inter-group contact
and the opportunities to improve social relations, etc. Discussion referred to both personal
and group experience. The interviews took place 1 year after the London bombings of
July 2005.
Analysis
The analysis does not seek to make empirical generalizations about Muslim experiences
but seeks to highlight the various ways in which interviewees reported how others’
assumptions affected their ability to (i) act in terms that corresponded with their own sense
of identity, and (ii) contribute to social and political debate. In order to systematize the data
in a way that is meaningful for the theoretical perspective adopted here, the data were
subjected to a form of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This entailed the
thorough reading of the interview transcripts and the coding of references to experiences in
which they felt misrecognised. These sections were then inspected in detail according to
the method of constant comparison. Given our theoretical commitments in relation to
identity (Turner et al., 1987), it should be apparent that although we use qualitative data we
do not analyse identity-related talk as a Discourse Analyst might—e.g. to explore how
interactants accomplish particular versions of self and behaviour in the flow of
conversation (Antaki, Condor, & Levine, 1996; Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998). Rather we
treat it as revealing something of interactants’ understandings of their group identities and
their treatment.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 21: 215–227 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Identity and recognition 219
ANALYSIS
The analysis starts with an exploration of how interviewees described their experiences
of being defined by others in terms that were not their own. It then turns to their
understandings of what others’ assumptions about their identities implied for their abilities
to participate in everyday citizenship-related activities. In the extracts below, excluded
material is denoted by square brackets []. Where words are added to aid comprehension,
these appear inside such brackets.
Others’ assumptions about identity: Minority experiences
Participants recounted various scenarios in which they experienced a sense of exclusion.
For example, one (interviewee 18) explained:
Extract 1.
you just want the feeling that you are accepted. It shouldn’t be, I shouldn’t walk into anywhere orfeel that I’m not welcome or that I’m not supposed to be there or anything like that, I mean that isdifficult to describe to somebody else how that impacts you as an individual
In elaborating upon such feelings, participants often referred to discrepancies between
how they were viewed by others and how they self-defined. For example, interviewee 11
reported a conversation with a non-Muslim acquaintance following the 7 July 2005 London
bombings. Both were involved in inter-faith dialogue and after discussing the need to
‘bring people together’, the interviewee explained that as the conversation continued she
became aware she was vulnerable to an unfamiliar categorization which ‘totally shook me
beyond, beyond belief’. Referring to the bombings, the acquaintance observed ‘yeah, it’s
just ‘erm, it is a bit scary’ because ‘well, you know, it’s, it’s like your Muslim next door,
isn’t it. You just don’t know who, who it is’. Elaborating her experience, the interviewee
explained:
Extract 2.
And at that point you just get this sinking feeling of – God! I’m the Muslim next door! You know,he’s suspicious of Muslims because these guys were British born, you know, and they weren’tforeign, they weren’t from some, some country that no one can relate to.
Here there is no direct or explicit questioning of the interviewee’s identity. However, she
reports her shock on realizing her vulnerability to being seen in terms discrepant from her
own. Indeed, she continued ‘those are the things that make me feel insecure about myself as
a Muslim, and how people are perceiving me’.
Although the identities threatened could (as above) be rather imprecisely defined, there
were instances where the identities involved were more specific—e.g. a professional
identity. Thus, one interviewee (16), speaking of her pride in being a medical doctor,
described her shock at the realization of a disparity between how she saw herself and how
fellow medics oriented to her. For example, she described how in a casual conversation,
senior medical colleagues had said:
Extract 3.
that my career would never take off because people would never trust me because I don’t get drunkwith them in the pub.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 21: 215–227 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
220 N. Hopkins and L. Blackwood
This threat to her professional identity was keenly felt, and elsewhere the same
interviewee described some of her reactions to related threats to her self-definition. For
example, she described she was hurt to find patients treating her as if ‘you don’t belong and
you should be grateful’ and explained how this compromised her self-definition: ‘I’ve put
back more taxes than a lot of English people I know, so don’t tell me to be grateful. I am
very happy to put back into society but I don’t expect to be grateful for it!’ Indeed, she
continued:
Extract 4.
I have had patients telling me that ‘‘I am paying your wages you so and so’’. Unfortunatelysometimes I loose my rag, and I’ll turn around and say ‘‘No! Actually, I’m paying yourunemployment benefit’’.
This powerfully conveys the hurt occasioned by others’ failure to recognise her as she
saw herself. It also conveys something of the complexity to resisting others’
(mis)categorizations. Specifically, it hints at how one’s own affirmations of identity can
be double-edged: Whilst her response asserted her self-conception, she also admitted that
such responses brought discomfort because they compromised her identity as a mature,
responsible professional. In other words, there is a sense in which as she engaged with
others’ failure to recognise one aspect of her self-definition, she felt she further
compromised other aspects of her own self-definition. Indeed, referring to a similar
incident she commented explicitly on this discrepancy: ‘Isn’t that shocking? I am a
Cambridge PhD!’.
Similar dynamics were referred to by another (11) who explained she found herself
orienting to others’ categories and assumptions with attempts to allay these others’ fears.
For example, she reported making ‘special efforts to say ‘‘thank you’’, or to make
eye contact, or smile, you know, to make those kind of gestures, to make people feel, oh
well actually, I’m not who you think’. However, she continued that this performance,
because it was discrepant from how she would normally act, was itself unsettling. As she
put it:
Extract 5.
you don’t feel any different from anybody else but yet there’s this expectation because peopleview you differently, you know, to constantly act in a way that you wouldn’t act normally, youknow, it’s a most bizarre thing and it’s not easy to explain that either.
Indeed, she explained that the resentment at acting in terms that she would not normally
adopt, was such that:
Extract 6.
sometimes you get so frustrated you know, you’re tempted to do things which make people feellike ‘‘Oh!’’. You know, let’s just reinforce what they’re thinking. Do you know what I mean? Em,you know, silly things like em talking out loud and mentioning names like Osama [a reference toOsama bin Laden] and bla-bla-bla and, you know, people, you know, just doing things like thatjust to rile people up.
Even from these brief examples we see something of participants’ accounts of the hurt
they experienced when realizing others saw them in terms that were discrepant with their
self-definition. Moreover, they illustrate the complex feelings and behavioural responses
(e.g. appeasement and confrontation) associated with orienting to such misrecognition.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 21: 215–227 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Identity and recognition 221
They therefore illustrate the painful and varied consequences of misrecognition that
broader conceptualizations of citizenship orient us towards. In the next section we consider
interviewees’ accounts of how others’ perspectives affected participants’ abilities to enact
various identities on their own terms.
Others’ assumptions about identity: Implications for participation
In addition to reporting complex feelings of misrecognition, participants also reported how
they felt this influenced their ability to be heard and to speak in public.
a. Being heard as a Muslim. Several explained their Muslim identity was often construed
in terms that limited their ability to be heard. Sometimes this was because their Muslim
identity was assumed to imply a lack of identification with Britain. For example, one
interviewee (11) described how her opposition to Britain’s foreign policy in Iraq often
elicited the response ‘Oh, because you’re a Muslim’ to which she described her reply as
being ‘No, because I just don’t agree with, with the policies’ and continued that this
interpretation of her identity was painful because it revealed a distinction ‘between being
British and being Muslim whereas for me there is no, there’s no distinction’. Indeed, she
continued as follows:
Extract 7.
They’re our soldiers. I don’t see them as the British, the British soldiers, as if it’s something apartfrom me, you know, I don’t see that. I’m part and parcel of this society. They’re out thereprotecting British interests, which are my interests because I’m a citizen and so all these issuesaffect me and to say, ‘‘well, actually, you’re Muslim, you’re Pakistani, so stay in your box’’. No!
Here, being heard to speak as a Muslim was experienced as questioning her Britishness.
In important respects this involved a double misrecognition. Not only is her Britishness
overlooked, but her silencing as a British citizen (something she is motivated to resist)
involves the misrecognition of her Muslim identity (for example the interests of her
Muslim identity are assumed to be discrepant from her interests as a British citizen).
Other participants identified a different aspect to being heard as Muslim. For example,
some referred to the issue of being recognised as being rational and as having views worthy of
respect. Thus, one interviewee (12) drew a contrast between how hewas heard at work and in
the public sphere (e.g. meeting his Member of Parliament). At work ‘nobody asked my
religion so I can get away with blue murder [] I can go to senior management and say ‘‘look
these aremy views andmy opinions’’ and they’re heard’. However, the interviewee continued:
Extract 8.
as aMuslim talking about the Palestinian issue I was branded an extremist and I felt I was hobbled,so now my views can’t be heard. Not because I empathised with the Palestinians, but because I’maMuslim. [] I felt if I was coming from a different community I’d be taken a lot more seriously, ortreated with a lot more respect, and I know the difference between being treated with respect andnot being treated with respect.
Thus, far we have begun to explore how being heard in terms of one identity rather than
another may not only entail the non-recognition of valued identities, but may also impact
on one’s ability to contribute to everyday social and political life. In order to pursue these
issues we now consider interviewees accounts of how, if they were to speak as Muslims,
they felt constrained to speak in particular ways that were again discrepant from their own.
b. Speaking as a Muslim. Several interviewees reported others’ assumptions about
Muslims constrained them to speak in ways not of their own choosing. For example, one
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 21: 215–227 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
222 N. Hopkins and L. Blackwood
interviewee (14) argued Muslims were expected to ‘distance themselves from events that
are not events that they have anything to do with or are in anyway responsible for’ and that
Muslims were:
Extract 9.
asked to kind of demonstrate that you are not like that image that has been created, it’s not, there’sno assumption or benefit of the doubt given from the start. It’s a difficult position, as I said, it putsyou on the defensive from the start.
Again, there is a sense in which others’ assumptions violate one’s own self-definition.
Rather than being given any ‘benefit of the doubt’ and allowed to speak according to one’s
own agenda, one is positioned to adopt another’s. This is construed as limiting one’s ability
to speak (one is put ‘on the defensive from the start’). It could also be construed as
humiliating. Thus, interviewee 5 explained that whenever another Muslim expressed
unpalatable views on anything she felt a powerful expectation that she should distance
herself from that position as explained below.
Extract 10.
There’s that sort of continuous, continuously having to express that, which again, it undermines,its defeating your own purpose if you like. [] The fact the people feel obliged to have to keepsaying that, it’s a sign of something [] Muslims must say they condemn it so other people feelbetter about Muslims.
Here the felt need to distance oneself from unpalatable positions was painful because it
not only entailed orienting to an agenda that was not her own but to one construed as acting
against one’s own identity interests in order to make ‘other people feel better about
Muslims’. In short orienting to others’ misrecognitions of Muslim identity implied
adopting a compromised and humiliating position.
c. Being British. A third aspect of orienting to others’ assumptions about one’s Muslim
identity concerned the performance of national identity: Just as participants reported
having to present themselves as a particular sort of Muslim, they also reported having to
prove their Britishness and their loyalty to Britain on terms that were alien to their own
sense of Britishness.
For example, one (26) explained ‘I believe myself I am a British person, I am a Muslim,
very devout, I think, I hope, and yet still I am British’, yet complained he resented being
expected to prove it: As he put it ‘I shouldn’t have to stand there with the Union Jack all the
time you know’. Moreover, he explained that the performance of Britishness could entail
Muslims being forced to conform ‘to the desires of either the media or the government’ and
that this constituted a silencing of opinion and debate: He continued:
Extract 11.
I don’t think that people in this society should be made to adhere to the general consensus andshould be told to go into a corner and sit there quietly if they are to be accepted within the, if theyare to be accepted as good citizens.
Still others argued the requirement to perform their Britishness placed them under a
particular burden because the criteria with which one’s loyalty could be judged were
ambiguous. For example, one (22) argued as follows:
Extract 12.
What is the proof? You see the proof is you abide by the law of the country, you livehere peacefully, you are causing no offence to other people, and you paying your taxes,
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 21: 215–227 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Identity and recognition 223
you’re not trying to escape you duties as a citizen. That’s about it. I mean I don’t think you’ve gota proof.
In turn, some (e.g. interviewee 5) suggested that in the absence of more specific
performative criteria, Muslims could find themselves forced into displays of national
belonging that actually symbolized their marginality. This analysis of Muslims’ having to
perform national identity on others’ terms is well illustrated in the following extract which
refers to the complex symbolism of flying national flags.
Extract 13.
I saw in the summer of sort of 2004 lots of Muslims you know putting the England flag in theircar and stuff like this, for me you remember that kind of thing in the 70s and early 80s [when theflag was associated with the far-Right], it quite um shocking. And even some of those people that Iknow who did that, even remembering that, feeling that they just had to do that to prove you know,in the current climate, that they’re as British as everybody else. And you felt well, actually, peoplewho even remember that and actually felt the discomfort of it, feel they have to do this. It’s a greatway to show that they are actually the same as everyone else. It’s really quite vile actually, it’s ahorrible position for people to find themselves in, but people are almost desperately looking forways to just say ‘‘look don’t hate me, I’m normal’’, even if it means doing stuff that really is, itshould be enough, I can’t see why, I can understand someone who is 12 and didn’t know or didn’thave that association that someone of my age and above.
Here such displays of national identity are construed as doubly problematic. First,
they are geared to the majority group’s agenda. Second, the content of the performance
entails symbols of belonging (e.g. flags) that the interviewee (referring back to far-Right
campaigns in the 1970s and 1980s) took to be symbols of racist exclusion. Thus, for
this interviewee, the problem was that Muslims were positioned in ways that not only
misrecognised their Britishness, but positioned them as participants in versions of British
identity that were exclusionary and humiliating.
Thus far we have considered reports of the painful experience of misrecognition and of
how others’ assumptions about participants’ identity affected their ability to participate in
the public sphere on terms they recognise as their own. We now turn to participants’
theorizations of the social dynamics to their experiences.
The dynamics to misrecognition
Several participants advanced sophisticated analyses of the dynamics to their
misrecognition. One important theme was the ‘overvisibility’ of Muslim identity. Thus,
interviewee 14 commented that in the past it had been hard for Muslims to have their
religious identity recognised in a secular society: In his words the response had been ‘No
you can’t be a Muslim, you’re either Pakistani, Asian or Arab or you’re British but no you
can’t, this definition doesn’t exist, we’re a secular society’. However, he continued things
had changed:
Extract 14.
Now, certainly yes you are a Muslim, and that clouds everything else. You’re not a Muslim andalso British and also a professional lawyer and also. . ... now you’re just a Muslim and that’sbad news.
In turn, he argued people wanted ‘the right to define who they are themselves before
others define it for them’ and explained that this shaped his approach to evaluating his
interactions with others. As he put it:
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 21: 215–227 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
224 N. Hopkins and L. Blackwood
Extract 15.
It’s as basic as that. I do not wish somebody else to define who I am without even taking intoconsideration who I think I am
Such data make a number of important points concerning the issue of recognition. Apart
from the weight attached to others’ considering ‘who I think I am’, these comments return us
to the contingency of what counts as recognition. It can refer to the institutional
accommodation of cultural distinctiveness. However, here (and earlier too), recognition has
more nuanced meanings concerning the affirmation of interviewees’ various identities (e.g.
professional and national) as well as religious identity. That is, recognition is experienced in
relation towhichever identity oneself regards as relevant, and to be seen only as aMuslim can
also be a form of misrecognition. Indeed, the interviewee cited above offers a thoughtful
account of the oppressive nature of the ‘overvisibility’ of one particular identity.
In some accounts this misrecognition was construed as understandable given the climate
of fear created by recent events (e.g. the London bombings). However, in other accounts it
was construed as more purposive (and hence even more problematic). Thus, one
interviewee (6) described his experience of being asked for his passport when arriving at a
UK airport. Rejecting the official’s description of this check as ‘routine’ (on the grounds
that ‘routine’ checks took place at the official passport control desk further along the
corridor), the interviewee labelled the check as a ‘spot the Paki check’ calculated to
position one as subservient, and that he would not participate in such a process. Indeed,
reflecting on his refusal to participate in such a positioning (which he reported resulted in
his arrest), he observed as follows:
Extract 16.
My thing is that, you know, I will not play, you know, the neat little Pakistani Muslim or whateverand say ‘‘Oh yeah’’. You know? And that’s what’s very prevalent in our community - the fearfactor. A lot of our people will not stand up and actually question anything. [] If you’re gonna getpicked on youmight as well put on an identity and show yourself. Say ‘‘look here’s my plate this iswho I am’’ [] So I will get picked on but that doesn’t mean that I have to be subservient to all thisnonsense, which I believe is nonsense.
At first sight this interviewee’s refusal to show his passport when requested to do so may
appear to fall short of what one expects from a citizen—e.g. co-operation with authority.
However, it can be understood differently. If the dynamics to the check are construed as
designed to position one as subservient (‘the neat little Pakistani Muslim’), his refusal can
be understood as an assertion of his right to be treated with respect and on terms that accord
with his own self-definition. That is, his behaviour could be seen as testimony to the
humiliation associated with some forms of misrecognition and his resistance as actually
constituting a performance of citizenship.
DISCUSSION
Much insight into who is valued and on what terms may be gained through everyday
interaction and it is in such interactions that people discover something of the degree to
which others (intentionally or unintentionally) limit their capacity to participate in the
public sphere on terms that are their own. The data above illustrate the rich complexity to
these experiences. In many accounts participants reported a sense of shock and hurt at the
realization of their vulnerability to categorizations that were discrepant from their own.
Moreover, these discrepancies could be socially consequential. For example, some
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 21: 215–227 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Identity and recognition 225
reported others’ assumptions about their identities compromised their ability to be heard
and speak in the public sphere. Thus, we saw complaints that others heard them asMuslims
rather than as Britons (a form of categorization threat) and that this was experienced as
violating their capacity to participate in the public sphere. We also saw complaints that
when speaking as Muslims they were forced to orient to an agenda that was not their
own which could be experienced as both constraining their ability to speak and as
demeaning because it symbolized their need to pander to others’ prejudices. Such
complaints were not only voiced in relation to participants’ Muslim identity. For example,
participants reported having to speak on terms structured by others’ misrecognition of the
participants’ Britishness and explained that this constrained their ability to participate as
genuine citizens. And here too, where participants felt Muslims were constrained to
perform their Britishness on terms that were not their own, the result could again be one of
humiliation.
These data also show something of the resistance to others’ mis-construals of
interviewees’ identities. However, resistance can be complicated. For example, in some
contexts (e.g. a doctor snapping back at a patient) resistance could be experienced as
compromising other identities (e.g. a valued professional identity) and thus as
compounding the feeling of being positioned on terms that are not one’s own.
More generally, these data illustrate the importance of giving serious attention
to minority group members’ analyses of how they are positioned (and of the dynamics
involved). Whether participants’ theorization of the dynamics to their treatment is
analytically insightful cannot be guaranteed (at best participants’ accounts are partial).
However, such theories may help explain their behaviour and how it should be
conceptualized. For example, it might be tempting to view a refusal to cooperate in a
‘routine’ passport check (e.g. extract 16) as the antithesis of what is expected from ‘good
citizens’. Yet, understanding the individual’s theorization of their positioning allows a
re-conceptualization. Rather than manifesting a failure of citizenship, it can be understood
as an attempt to wrest control of the interaction and assert one’s right to be treated by others
and to act oneself in ways that do not compromise valued self-definitions. Indeed, it can be
seen as an attempt to challenge exclusionary conceptions of who belongs and on what
terms.
Such acts of resistance illustrate how citizenship is contested. Although this contest
may occur in legislative chambers and law courts, it also occurs in everyday encounters.
Sometimes the struggles may be to secure the recognition of an invisible identity.
However, misrecognition can take several forms (Renault, 2007) and that most prominent
in these data concerns the routine ‘over-visibility’ of participants’ religious identity
in which Muslims become nothing more than Muslims and all other aspects of their
being are distorted in ways that mark them out from others (e.g. other doctors, other
Britons). As these data hint, being positioned by others on terms discrepant from one’s
own can be deeply painful and compromise one’s ability to participate on one’s own
terms, and we need a politics of recognition attuned to the multiplicity and variability
of our identities.
REFERENCES
Antaki, C., Condor, S., & Levine, M. (1996). Social identities in talk: Speakers’own orientations.British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 473–492.
Antaki, C., & Widdicombe, S. (Eds.), (1998). Identities in talk. London: Sage.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 21: 215–227 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
226 N. Hopkins and L. Blackwood
Barreto, M., Ellemers, N., Scholten,W., & Smith, H. (2010). To be or not to be: The impact of implicitversus explicit inappropriate social categorisations on the self. British Journal of Social Psychol-ogy, 49, 43–67.
Branscombe, N., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of socialidentity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commit-ment, content (pp. 35–58). Oxford: Blackwell.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research inPsychology, 3, 77–101.
Cheryan, S., &Monin, B. (2005). ‘Where are you really from?’: Asian Americans and identity denial.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 717–730.
Feagin, J. R. (1991). The continuing significance of race: Antiblack discrimination in public places.American Sociological Review, 56, 101–116.
Hopkins, N. (in press). Religion and social capital: Identity matters. Journal of Community andApplied Social Psychology.
Hopkins, N. (2011). Dual identities and their recognition: Minority group members’ perspectives.Political Psychology, 32, 251–270.
Hopkins, N., & Kahani-Hopkins, V. (2004). Identity construction and political activity: Beyondrational actor theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 339–356.
Hopkins, N., & Kahani-Hopkins, V. (2009). Reconceptualising ‘extremism’ and ‘moderation’: Fromcategories of analysis to categories of practice in the construction of collective identity. BritishJournal of Social Psychology, 48, 99–113.
Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgrouprelations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143–156.
Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Maxwell, R. (2006). Muslims, South Asians and the British mainstream: A national identity crisis?West European Politics, 29, 736–756.
McNamara, N., Muldoon, O., Stevenson, C., & Slattery, E. (this issue). Citizenship attributes as thebasis for intergroup differentiation: Implicit and explicit intergroup evaluations. Journal ofCommunity & Applied Social Psychology.
Modood, T. (2005). Multicultural politics: Racism, ethnicity and Muslims in Britain. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
Painter, J., & Philo, C. (1995). Spaces of citizenship: An introduction. Political Geography, 14, 107–120.
Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Self and nation. London: Sage.Renault, E. (2007). What is the use of the notion of the struggle of recognition? Revista de CienciaPolitica, 27, 195–205.
Runnymede Trust. (1997). Islamophobia: A challenge for us all. London: The Runnymede Trust.Sen, A. (2006). Identity and violence: The illusion of destiny. London: Penguin.Sleebos, E., Ellemers, N., & de Gilder, D. (2006). The carrot and the stick: Affective commitment andacceptance anxiety as motives for discretionary group efforts by respected and disrespected groupmembers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 244–255.
Smith, W. A., Allen, W. R., & Danley, L. L. (2007). ‘‘Assume the position.you fit the description’’:Psychosocial experiences and racial battle fatigue among African American male college students.American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 551–578.
Sniderman, P. M., & Hagendoorn, L. (2007). When ways of life collide: Multicultualism and itsdiscontents in the Netherlands. Princeteon: Princeton University Press.
Taylor, C. (1992). The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism (pp. 25–73).Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudiceamong minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16, 951–957.
Turner, B. (2001). Outline of a general theory of cultural citizenship. In N. Stevenson (Ed.), Cultureand citizenship (pp. 11–32). London: Sage.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S., &Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the socialgroup: A self-categorisation theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity,and cooperative behaviour. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 21: 215–227 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Identity and recognition 227