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


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).


DOI: 10.1002/casp


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.


DOI: 10.1002/casp


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.


DOI: 10.1002/casp


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.


DOI: 10.1002/casp


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


DOI: 10.1002/casp


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,


DOI: 10.1002/casp


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:


DOI: 10.1002/casp


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


DOI: 10.1002/casp


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.


DOI: 10.1002/casp


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.


DOI: 10.1002/casp


Everyday citizenship: Identity and recognition

Documents

Transcript of Everyday citizenship: Identity and recognition