“…being a Muslim is hard in Britain because we‟re labelled for the wrong reason and labelled in a negative way” (Sara; 9; 123)
All participants within this study narrated on feeling misunderstood, left out and different to many of the people around them. The relationship with others was often complex, with conflicting feelings towards Islamic teaching and other Muslims, as well as towards non- Muslim peers. There was often a political element to this, with Layla becoming particularly passionate about the expectation she perceived that as a British Muslim she needed to publicly condemn so called „Islamic‟ terrorism in order to prove her „Britishness‟. Similarly, Layla, Sara and Halima all identified specific examples of when they had felt they had been discriminated against due to their Muslim identity. The experience of anti-Muslim discrimination is, unfortunately, a common report within the academic sphere (Afshar, Aitkens & Franks, 2006; Moghissi, 2006). However, whilst the expression of feeling different to peers and ones non-Muslim network was discussed extensively by participants, there was also a sense of dissimilarity with other Muslims. For some the moral judgment from other Muslims was particularly difficult to manage, named by Mona as the „Haram Police‟. Haram is an Arabic term that refers to that which is Islamically forbidden, and Mona uses to term to refer to other Muslims she experiences as „policing‟ religiosity. In a similar way, Halima also
describes the way in which she is branded a „spoilt English girl‟ and Khadija refers to a „Muslim superiority‟ that she believes exists within the Muslim community. The manner in which the narrators experience their interactions with those around them is significant, as in knowing something of our prescribed group we are able to know something of ourselves (Lawler, 2014). In this way, individuals are aware that they fit into classified groups, such as „Muslim‟ or „British‟ and their behaviours may be based, in some part, on what they know of these groups (Lawler, 2014). Hacking (1999) suggests that ones identity is informed by the lens that society constructs of that identity. So, for these participants there were instances when the social construct of „Muslim‟ informed by their peers, seemed to be incompatible with their expressed behaviours, for example being a Muslim woman within a pub or club setting. This conflict results in a sense of inadequacy and guilt, implied by intrusive thoughts of “I shouldn‟t be here” or religious flaws being exposed by the „Haram police‟. Individuals attempt to reconcile such internal conflicts, and I propose that this was achieved through the concept of the „liberal‟ or „modern‟ Muslim. For my interviewees, when they spoke of their liberal religious standpoint, they seemed to be referring to an embodiment of Islam. This included disagreeing with traditional, perhaps more fundamentalist Islamic philosophy and teaching. For some, this was captured by the adoption of non-traditional western dress, and choosing to not wear the hijab, whereas for others this was captured by the conscious way in which they practiced their Islamic faith - focusing on the choice to be Muslim, rather than an adoption of the faith based on parental tradition. These ways of conceptualising one‟s liberalism are vague and abstract, as well as vastly subjective for each individual. Having worked through the research process I have found myself coming back to this term, and wondering if identifying themselves as „liberal‟ served a negotiating function between what are often perceived as incompatible identities. By referring to oneself as a „liberal‟ or „Modern‟ Muslim, one is able to bypass socially constructed notions of the Islamic extremist, whilst suggesting an evolved Islamic expression. For this sample, a liberal or modern Muslim identity allowed for the identity flux between Muslim and British identities, by engaging with elements of both.
“It‟s almost like being Jekyll and Hyde, you are one way there and another, and when I say there I mean with my Muslim friends or Muslim community or whatever, and a different way
when I‟m with my non-Muslim friends” (Sara, 19; 268).
Sara‟s use of the famous literary characters of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is quite striking and powerful. It gives the image of a split between who she presents to different populations, with a concealed, almost invisible, thread linking the two together. For Goffman, we constantly play different roles, the sum of which equate to what we would identify as ourselves (Lawler, 2014). It is not enough to just perform these roles, it is also important that we are seen to perform these roles. Goffman calls this dramatic realisation (1959), an example of this would be someone on a first date who talks about their most impressive achievements, or someone who works in the corporate industry who takes great care with their business wear attire. Does meeting a lawyer or accountant dressed smartly in a well fitting suit, with a tie, cufflinks and a briefcase make them a better lawyer or accountant, or is this part of their performance of these respective roles? Equally, this brings up the hijab, alongside other overt symbols of Islamic religiosity. To position the hijab in this way is not to doubt its religious or spiritual significance for the wearer, nor is it to suggest that the wearer is dishonest in their intentions of wearing the hijab. Rather, Goffman suggests that much of the behaviours done for the benefit of the social group to which we belong are not necessarily conscious processes, instead these can occur outside of consciousness (Goffman, 1959; Lawler, 2014). Goffman (1959) acknowledges that of the many roles that we occupy, and indeed perform, some of these may well be contradictory in nature; this forms a part of what Goffman called discrepant roles. In his writings, Goffman (1959) distinguishes between various types of discrepant roles; I am most struck by what Goffman refers to as the „go between‟. The go- between, sometimes referred to as the mediator, is able to switch between two groups giving the impression to each that they are loyal to one over the other. If these two groups are incompatible or otherwise opposed, as presented here in the groups of „British‟ and „Muslim‟, then the go between may be able to move between these groups giving a favourable
impression of the other group which they occupy, therefore fostering a closer relationship. To contextualise this, let us think of some of the narratives presented by these participants, particularly the presented duality of so-called Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Perhaps as a British Muslim by moving between these groups, one is able to give an impression to non-Muslim British group members that one is „liberal‟ and contrasting to the extremist presentation of Muslims on many platforms. Equally, by freely practicing ones Islamic traditions and religious practices, one is able to communicate to Muslim group members that Britain is liberal in its acceptance of the Muslim community. The conflict arises when one is in the presence of both of these groups, Sara specifically describes this situation “… if we‟re all in a group and the two collide [Muslim and non-Muslim social groups], I suppose I‟m then a totally different way…” (Sara: 14; 268). This situation is described by Goffman (1959) as “…a wonderful display, not unlike a man desperately trying to play tennis with himself” (page 93).
Theories of social categorisation have been discussed within the introduction chapter, particularly that of Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). According to Tajfel and Turner (1979) the process of intergroup distinctions is three pronged; of social categorisation, social identification and social comparison. The social categorisation process involves the mental categorisation of individuals into different groups; this could be Muslim, British, police officer and so on. Social categorisation is a way of categorising objects in the world so that we know and understand them; an example of this may be the hijab as a way of being identified within the group as a „Muslim woman‟. Similarly, as part of social identification, we adopt the cognitive and behavioural elements of the identity of whatever group we consider ourselves to be a part of. Here we can consider Mona, when she spoke of social gatherings with friends, while in these social setting she maintains the cognitive and behavioural elements of her Muslim identity by avoiding alcohol and instead having non- alcoholic drinks. This self-categorisation is particularly important for self esteem, self- consistency and self-regulation. The final stage of social comparison, involves the comparison made between one‟s own social group with others, this helps to facilitate the
self-identity as well as the boundaries between others and ourselves. We can see this when Khadija refers to Muslim superiority “…Muslim superiority, where they kind of say as if being Muslims makes us better than other people…” (line 209). We can see that in-group members (Muslims) strive to see their group positively compared to the out-group (non-Muslims). Therefore, by comparing oneself as a Muslim with what we understand of non-Muslims, or vice versa, we are able to differentiate more clearly where the line is between Muslims and non-Muslims based on shared characteristics. Due to this unconscious process, we can become dismissive of in-group diversity (Penning, 2009), and exaggerating of the intergroup differences (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). The implications of this can be to become dismissive of the range of religious experience amongst the Muslim population. We can see this described by Mona, who was the only participant within the group to describe herself as not fitting the „stereotypical‟ image of a Muslim; within Monas own social categorisation and social identification process she has an image of a Muslim woman that she does not fit. Mona describes that this leaves her feeling unfavourably about herself, which may result in an internalised concept of being a „bad Muslim‟.
However, Social identity theory suggests that while social identities can be influenced by meaning-making systems, such as religion, membership to other groups in society will typically reduce the commitment to this identity. From this it can be deduced, that for second generation Europeans, the more memberships held in other social groups the less significant the religious group identity becomes (Goli & Rezaei, 2011). However, the perceived or real threat of discrimination can lead to further psychological distress associated with identity conflict and result in isolation from the mainstream community. All of the participants were born in the UK, and held other social group memberships, yet of those women who openly shared a narrative of religiously motivated discrimination, none of them expressed isolating themselves from the mainstream British community. In this way Social Identity Theory oversimplifies the process of identity construction, as is minimises the role of individuality and fails to acknowledge the negotiation of group identity as complex, involving both intra-psychic
and group processes (Huddy, 2001; Postmes, Spears, Lee, & Novak, 2005). Similarly, this model fails to make a distinction between identities that are acquired and those that are ascribed, perhaps at birth. While all of the participants in this study were born into a Muslim family, some participants described a consciousness to their Islamic faith, often described as a journey of researching and learning about Islam before „deciding‟ to be Muslim. The concept of an acquired identity, which would be even more salient in someone who had converted to Islam, poses a challenge to Social Identity Theory, due to its lack of acknowledgement of autonomy and „choice‟ in identity process.
Within this research, the participants self identify as belong to at least two social group, that of Muslim and British. Within the introduction chapter, I discussed the various contributing factors that may result in the values, norms and behaviours of these identities being perceived as in conflict with one another. To integrate such conflicting identities is likely to be cognitively taxing, therefore these conflicting identities are mediated and resolved in other ways (Ashford & Mael, 1989). In order to consider this from an alternative theoretical perspective, I refer back to Identity Process Theory, a model that suggests that identity is a dynamic social and psychological process. Central to Identity Process Theory is the concept of identity threat; if the social structure changes and resulting in identity threat then an individual will engage in a coping mechanism to reduce this threat. Therefore, within this research is an acknowledgement of the socio-political factors that have impacted the perception of the Muslim, such that being Muslim may be experienced as a threat to ones identity of being British. In order to cope with this identity threat, I have proposed the emergence of the „liberal modern Muslim‟. This sits well within Identity Process Theory, as this suggests that as a result of receiving new information about ones Muslim identity (assimilation-accommodation), participants re-evaluate their identity contents in line with various motivating principles, resulting in value to religious identity being either inflated (in the case of Khadija) or deflated.
The women in this study were five functioning members of society, all of who had been through the education system, worked in paid and voluntary employment, maintained friendships irrespective of religion, and contributed to the communities in which they live. However, within the narratives these women shared with me were stories of inequality, discrimination, isolation and sacrifice. They engage in a process of letting go of parts of themselves because they are unfavourable to the community they are engaging with at that given time. This is relevant not only for Muslims or British society, but for the world. There is a very real threat from so-called Islamic extremism attacking society indiscriminately. The more we allow for the intergroup divide between Muslim and non-Muslims the more we may be pushing vulnerable members of society away from us. Research tells us that belonging to the homogenous „suspect‟ group of Islam, coupled with perceived or actual discrimination, increases the likelihood of the isolated Muslim seeking „relief‟ by joining extremist terrorist organisations (Ellemers, Spears & Doosje, 2002; Al Raffie, 2013). If we do not work to challenge discourses of discrimination, then we are implicit in the silent polluting of our community. Mona summarises this, “…the way the media portrays us [Muslims], it‟s like if you blindly believed it all you could almost be anti-Muslim yourself… (36:396).