Chapter V / A Practice Theory of Identity
An Explanation and Argument
For the analysis of my fieldwork, I have explored and examined identity through the lens of practice theory. To do this, I have transformed my view of identity from the classic sense of essential meaning to a complex social practice. This argument is a different from the arguments presented in chapter four in that I have placed a particular emphasis on the analysis of the process of identity rather than on the meanings that are created through it. I have taken this perspective for this project for two general reasons. First, meaning is fleeting and is highly dependent on context which in many instances can change drastically from moment to moment. What, then, is to be learned from documenting and preserving these capricious meanings?
Second, the literature in anthropology on feminine Muslim identity has tended to focus on either documenting or deconstructing identity meanings or the consequences of those meanings. This practice has led to several unfortunate consequences that have negatively impacted the lives of the women I have worked with as well as the level of understanding anthropologists have of the lived experiences of feminine Muslim identity. One of the core issues is the misuse of anthropological literature to essentialize the character of Muslim women for justification of political and social acts by mainstream media and governmental agencies. However, it is also important to note the considerable drawback of this approach for the social sciences. The immense diversity of the Muslim population makes any attempt to understand the “Muslim” identity dubious at best. Even when drilled down to a small population, such as the group I worked with, Muslim American women over the age 18 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana who all attended the same Masjid, the Muslim identity is as diverse as a random sample of the American population. Further, the Muslima I spoke to consistently expressed distrust for social science work on Muslims, particularly Muslim women. They found that the literature they had read was overly broad, overly simplistic and was not something they could relate to, even though they were the supposed topic of the studies. I would like to note that these women were not unfamiliar with social science literature; nearly every woman had obtained or was working to obtain a bachelors degree from a liberal arts university, some of these had obtained graduate degrees and a few of those were in social science fields. All of the women with college degrees stated that they had taken at least one college course in either Sociology or Anthropology.
My initial draw to working with Muslim women was not far from the fears that the Baton Rouge Muslima had expressed; I had wanted to give voice to the women by allowing them to combat popular stereotypes, or identity meanings, by redefining those meanings through my thesis and any subsequent publication. However, I now believe that to analyze their contributions to this thesis by creating yet another description of Muslim women would not do justice to the complexity and sophistication of the agentive and mundane actions they took to negotiate their identities in every interaction.
For these reasons I have chosen to explore identity from the perspective of practice and agency. I want to look at how identity is done in practice, what the main components of the process of identity are, how this perspective on identity can be situated in contemporary debates in anthropology, particularly those concerning culture, power, historicism and subjectivity, and how this perspective can benefit anthropological knowledge on identity and the Muslima experience.
I have found that my understanding on identity as practice is prominently non-linear and is as messy and boundless as the actual expressions of it that I observed. This chapter begins by taking this nebulous concept and presenting it in simplistic linear form. I have found this is the optimal way to explain my observations. However, this should in no way diminish the complexity and immeasurability of the concept itself. In the latter portion of the chapter, I have taken the simple model and problematicized it to demonstrate these complexities, particularly those closely related to the post-modern critique. The remaining chapters in this thesis will continue to explore these themes and draw out further facets through analysis of my field experiences.
Identity as Practice
My perspective on agency and practice is drawn heavily from the work William Sewell and Sherry Ortner that was discussed in chapter five. In general, for this project, practice should be understood as the processes and components described by Sewell (1992) and agency should be, as described by Ortner (2006), practice that involves projects and serious games or otherwise involves power negotiations. Identity thus fits in this model as a practice that when imbued with power and projects becomes agentive action. I have found that identity fits well within Sewell’s model. The self as self history and personal knowledge, relationships with others and elements from the context of the identity action both human and non-human make up the resources available to each actor involved in identity practice. These resources and their uses are organized and influenced by cultural schemas. The structuration of identity then comes in the dual actions of representation and feedback, which then contributes to both the agent’s self and greater social knowledge.
A single act of identity as practice can be understood in six steps (see figure 1 for a graphical depiction). (1) The agent gathers identity resources, the characteristics, meanings and symbols of identity, that will benefit her particular project or suit the current situations. (2) The agent organizes the identity resources using the cultural schemas available to her within the context of the interaction. (3) The agent creates a representation of herself in the form of action or language. (4) The other provides feedback on the agent’s representation. (5) The agent incorporates that feedback into her self as knowledge. (6) The interaction results in added social knowledge for the discourses involved in the interaction’s context.
Figure 1. An illustrative example of a single act of the identity process. The agent collects resources from her self, the context of the interaction and her relationship with the other. She then creates a representation of herself based on her current motivations, projects and play. The other provides feedback on her representation, which she then incorporates into her self.
The following narrative demonstrates this process in the context of an interaction I had with Adiba, a young college student and Muslim activist. This was a casual conversation, in which we were discussing my religious beliefs and my interest in Islam. Throughout the interaction Adiba and I gathered resources, create representations and provide feedback for one another. Adiba and I had only spoken briefly prior to this occasion. However, I found her quite amiable and forward; my liking for her stemmed predominately from our similarities. Adiba is only a few years younger than myself, we are both particularly outspoken and politically active and we are both particularly comfortable with talking about our personal histories and stances on various topics. During this particular encounter, Adiba was attempting to understand my interests in Islam and why my interest had not led to conversion, something she found entirely perplexing.
Angela and Adiba’s Narrative: Who are you?
Adiba: Why do you want to study Muslims?[1]
Angela: Well, I grew up in Michigan and I don’t know if you know but there is a rather large population of Muslims there.
(We both laughed.)
An: After 9/11 I was heartbroken to see the culture I had grown up admiring being publically denounced by such a large part of the country.
Ad: But you never converted?
An: No.
Ad: But you like Islam?
An: Yes, I find the religion and the culture associated with it very intriguing.
Ad: So, you don’t believe any of it? You just appreciate it like art?
An: Yes and no. My relationship with Islam is very much one of appreciation. However, that doesn’t mean that I believe it to be mythical or fanciful.
Ad: So, what is your religion? Christian?
An: No, I suppose if you were to call me anything it would be a humanist.
Ad: So, you are an atheist or agnostic then?
An: No, I believe in God. I just don’t believe that any one religion can fully know God’s will. So, I base my morals on logic based on the assumption that causing harm to others is bad. I have gleaned a lot from various religions but I have never really converted to any of them.
Ad: What is stopping you from converting to Islam? I mean if you accept most of the beliefs, why not just do it?
An: I take my personal relationship with religion very seriously and I don’t feel right claiming any particular religion as my own as I don’t feel I can fully commit to embracing them.
Ad: That is the nice thing about Islam, you only have to accept that there is one God and Mohammed is his messenger. The rest is just highly suggested. You don’t have to wear hijab.
An: (I laughed.) Actually, I don’t think I would have a problem with wearing a hijab. However, I have found no reason to believe that God is singular. I don’t see why God could not be multiple and singular at his whim. Actually, I don’t find the singularity or multiplicity of God to be particularly important to my faith in what is wrong and right.
Ad: If you had to choose a religion which would it be?
An: Honestly, if I had to choose, then I suppose it would be Islam, as I disagree with it less than any other religion I have studied.
(We both laughed.)
Ad: Then it is settled, you should be a Muslim.
(We continued to laugh at the prospect of me as a Muslim.)
Ad: Not that I am trying to convert you. That isn’t allowed in Islam, conversion comes from knowledge and choice not peer pressure.
An: Yet another thing I agree with.
(More laughing.)
Ad: You just need more knowledge. You will be a Muslima before you leave us, I know it!
An: We will see.
(We continued to laugh for a few moments before changing the subject to scheduling a formal interview about Adiba’s life.)
Analysis of Angela and Adiba’s Narrative
I chose this example as it was predominantly, although not entirely, a one sided identity negotiation. Most identity interactions I observed had many overlapping identity acts that identified both parties and those beyond those immediately present. Also, in this interaction, most of the identity negotiation and representation revolved around my identity. This is particularly beneficial as I can explicitly state my intentions and projects without assumption for a clear example of the entire process. My first identity act occurred when Adiba inquired about my purpose in studying Islam. My response is only a partial answer to the question; I have many other facets that have caused me to be interested Islam. However, I had a particular project in this instance to gain a rapport and trusting relationship with Adiba, as I wanted her to consent to doing a formal interview with me. My response to her question, “Why do you want to study Muslims?” did not include the parts of my self history where I was fascinated with alien conspiracy theories involving Egyptian pyramids, which led to a fascination with North African and Middle Eastern cultures. It also did not include the considerable influence of an Arab-Muslim college professor, who taught me to truly appreciate the Arabic language and his Muslim heritage. Instead, I drew resources from another portion of my self history, my experience of the sad events that occurred in my home state and nationally after September 11, 2001. I also wanted to present myself as a compassionate and scholarly individual. During my time at the masjid and in talking to the Muslima there, I learned that the identity characteristic, Michigander, had a particular meaning that I have not encountered in other contexts. Michigan was seen as a bastion of Arab and Muslim culture in the United States and its non-Muslim residents were expected to be more knowledgeable and tolerant of Islam. This was generally due to their knowledge of the large Arab and Muslim population in Michigan and that they had heard positive things about the availability of Muslim products, particularly women’s clothing, in the area. I pulled from this part of the masjid’s discourses to position myself, not as an ignorant outsider, but as a sympathetic insider using these resources.
These resources were gathered and structured with the social schemas associated with the interaction. For example, it would have been socially unacceptable as well as detrimental to my goals, to have admitted that my eleven year old self had once identified with a rather racist and ethnocentric story of a “primitive” ancient culture that could not have created pyramids without outside help. I also relied on schemas concerning humor. I made the statement, “Well, I grew up in Michigan and I don’t know if you know but there is a rather large population of Muslims there,” in a rather tongue-in-cheek manner. I played upon my relationship with Adiba, me as an anthropologist studying her as my subject, and me as an ignorant outsider and her as the knowledgeable insider, to overplay my position as an anthropologist and to inform Adiba about her own culture. This further emphasized my insider status in the form of a joke. These resources and the schemas that organized them constructed a representation of myself as an informed and sympathetic insider to Adiba’s culture.
Adiba provided feedback to this representation through a steady stream of questions about the part of my representation that Adiba rejected, my non-Muslim status combined with my being sufficiently informed about the religion. In another conversation, Adiba informed me that she firmly believed that no one who had been presented with the “truth” about Islam could resist conversion. This theme is present throughout the conversation. By the end of the conversation, my self representation had shifted to a potential candidate for conversion. Although, this representation was played with lightly, there were serious implications for my self history as well as the resources available to Adiba during our future encounters. I added a new facet to my self knowledge; I could be a convert to Islam, something that was contradictory to my earlier self knowledge as a staunch non-religious person. Although, I have not converted, the potential for conversion is now a part of my self knowledge that has an impact on my interactions with Muslims. Adiba continued to represent me as a potential convert throughout our interactions and used it as a resource to position herself as a mentor more than an ethnographic informant.
Complicating Identity as Practice
In the last section, I have shown how the process of identity as a practice is done, by gathering resources, organizing those resources with schemas and one’s goals, creating a representation, receiving feedback and incorporating the knowledge gained into one’s self and the applicable social discourses. However, I also noted previously, that this was an overly simplistic view of a complex system that is rarely linear and never complete. During my conversation with Adiba, there were other identity practices occurring besides my own representation of myself. I was also creating representations of Adiba. This form of identity practice, while still following similar processes is more subtle in narrative one. In the creation of my responses to Adbia’s questions, I framed my answers to reflect who I thought she was. More accurately, I created a representation of her with the identity characteristics that I found most salient in the current interactions. Another identity process that occurred in narrative one was Adiba creating representations of herself. In some cases these were clearly present in the dialog, such as the when she represents herself as a good Muslim who does not proselytize. In other cases, they were more subtle as in the questions she asks about my identity. Finally, Adiba created representations of me. These representations, when viewed from my point of view are a form of feedback on my self representations. However, they also go beyond feedback on my representations, they add new resources and are supported by different goals and projects that stem from Adiba as an agent, particularly the goal of educating me on my own potential for becoming Muslim.
Beyond these immediate practices of identity, larger identity representations affected the course of our interaction. Identity characteristics are powerful symbols in discourse. While on an individual and personal level the meanings of these characteristics can be quiet malleable, the meanings associated with identity characteristics in larger discourses can be far more rigid and lasting depending on the power associated with the institutions or individuals who support them. For example, when Adiba informed me that I would not need to wear hijab as a requirement of Islam, she was pulling not from my representation of myself but from representations that had been incorporated into larger discourses. These instructed her that non-Muslim American women were opposed to wearing hijab. Thus, her representation of me was a woman who denied Islam because of modesty beliefs. I negated her representation of me by citing that it was not modesty beliefs that caused me to resist conversion but more fundamental beliefs. This negation, however, only negated my position in relation to the characteristic that Adiba had associated with me. It did not negate the characteristic itself either within our interaction or in the discourses she pulled it from. In this way, these characteristics become hegemonic. While with each personal interaction I had with the Muslima I emphasized that I was not opposed to the hijab, I was not able to escape this characteristic. Moreover, I observed strong indications that some women never fully believed that I found neither the hijab fundamentally oppressive nor those that wear it naïve, because I was a white, non-Muslim woman.
Methods of Analysis and Questions to Ask
By viewing self and identity through the lens of practice theory, I have sidestepped some of the questions and problems that have plagued endeavors into these two problematic concepts. Prominently, the problem of essentialism is irrelevant to this type of analysis. To take on this perspective, identities are necessarily fleeting and in constant flux. Thus, it must be understood that no characteristic or associated meaning can fully define any individual or any part of an individual. This understanding means that ethnographic emphasis should not be on the meanings but on the processes and projects that create, maintain, alter and cast aside these meanings and characteristics. Further, each actor intends the representations she creates of herself and of others to be an essentialism. By successfully creating a representation that seems complete and timeless, one is able to create more power and validity for the representation. Representations that fail to essentialize seem to lose authenticity during the interaction.
As Ewing presented in The Illusion of Wholeness (1990), the self as a concept in anthropology has been overwhelmed with the debate over the universal organization of the self and the relativistic organization of the self. Viewing the self as a repository of identity knowledge shifts the relativistic self organization away from the self and into the realm of representation. Cultural schemas as a resource for the creation of representations allows each representation to reflect the observations of relativistic selves made in other ethnographic studies (see Shweder and Bourne 1984; Spiro 1993). In fact, I argue that these cultural schemas or self-types, when used successfully aid in creating authenticity for the representation. Yet, the self as I have described it allows for the universal construction of self argued for by Ewing.
While these challenges are met, there are still lingering questions concerning identity and its place in anthropology. Particularly, if describing identity characteristics and meanings are not the goal of an ethnographic project on identity, then what should be examined? Also, what can anthropology and society gain from the knowledge created by these new analytical focuses? It is my aim to preliminarily answer these questions with this thesis. Further exploration into this perspective will evolve this perspective and may answer these questions differently with new ethnographic data and new insights. Thus, I do not claim to have created a complete refined perspective. Yet, for this project, I have found this perspective to be beneficial for analysis and theoretical thinking. It is my goal to create a base on which to build.
Through the remaining chapters, I have chosen to analyze not the identity characteristics and meanings I observed in my fieldwork, but the process that utilized them. In chapter seven, identities of kinship, I look at how representation in the family and in the masjid creates bonds and roles between individuals. Identities in Everyday Life, chapter eight, is an examination of multiplicity in meanings between discourses, places and individuals and how this multiplicity effects the interactions of individuals. Chapter nine, Citizenship and Ethnic Identities, explores conflicting representations and how power and hegemony manipulate identity interactions and the knowledge they create. Finally in chapter ten, (Anti?)-Feminist Identities, I look at identity agency where power is asserted by agents to alter identity meanings and characteristics in powerful discourses. Through these chapters, I hope to demonstrate how focusing on identity as a practice rather than as a series of meanings gives a thicker understanding of my informants and of identity as an anthropological concept.
[1] Narrative one was not a conversation that I digitally recorded like most of the narratives presented in this thesis. Therefore, the exact wording of the dialogue is lost. However, this dialogue is well documented in my field notes and as the interaction caused me to question long held beliefs about myself, the discussion is quite strong in my memory.
