Religious identity, challenge and clothing

Introduction

Aims and Background This paper examines aspects of the relations between clothing and the development and expression of religious identity. Religious rulings about women’s head covering in Islam and Judaism are examined, and then the paper goes on to explore — using qualitative methodology — what this practice means to practising Muslim and Jewish women in terms of their identity development. Views on the development of religious identity have shifted. Early work looked at religious conversion — whether individuals remained in the religion of their family of origin, or shifted their religious identity, and whether this shift happened suddenly or gradually (e.g. Scobie, 1975). This work tended to treat religious identity as yes/no, all-or-or-nothing, in keeping with social identity theory (SIT) (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), which is concerned with identity based on group membership, and inter-group relations. The approach is also consistent with Marcia’s (1966) proposals (and the work which followed), which rest on the Eriksonian (1963) idea that identity development is the outcome of adolescence. This work is based on Marcia’s Erikson-based proposals that identity may be developed along several routes — for example foreclosed to what is expected by family and society, or may remain diffused, but identity is nevertheless seen as all-or-nothing. Later work recognised the complexity of themes (or motifs) (Lofland and Skonovd, 1981), moved towards the view of continual lifelong development (Day, 1993; Fowler, 1981). Acts of describing religious change could have effects on identity; Staples and Mauss (1987) for example advanced the interesting argument that talking about ones religious development had various effects on this development, for instance on ones feelings about the events selected for description. A further perspective that enables important features of the socio-cultural environment to be considered comes from Berry’s (1997) suggestions about acculturation strategies. In a multicultural society, Berry suggests, individuals may place higher or lower value on their own cultural identity vis-a-vis the value of the surrounding culture/s. For example one might feel that the identity acquired from ones’ own cultural-religious group may not be as esteemed

as aspects of identity from the host society. Acculturation strategies emerge from these comparative evaluations: integration or segregation result from a positively valued own-group identity; assimilation or marginalisation from unvalued identity. A valued host-group identity is associated with integration or assimilation, but where the host-group is devalued, there will be segregation or marginalisation. A final perspective to be drawn upon is Breakwell’s (1986, 2010) Identity Process Theory (IPT), in which identity is conceived as a dynamic process, involving constant self-monitoring, and assimilation of, and accommodation to the social context. Identity involves structured, hierarchical content, with elements varying in centrality and salience, and with values appended to elements. The content of identity includes both social elements (group memberships, roles etc.) and individual elements (values, beliefs etc.). Changes in social context can call forth changes in identity, depending on personal relevance and involvement, amount of change demanded and how negative the change is considered to be. An important feature of IPT is the notion of threat to identity — threats to esteem, efficacy, distinctiveness or continuity will trigger coping, and responses to diminish threat may be of any kind. While accepting the usefulness of the concept of social identity, we wish to draw on the view of identity seen as complex, adaptive and dynamic.

The Relationship of Clothing to Identity, Identity Development and Identity Management Clothing has been said to play a major role in the expression of religious identity. There is some sociological and anthropological literature (e.g. Humphreys, 2002; Boswell, 2006) but little social psychology. There have been some socialscientific studies describing religious change in both Islam (e.g. Peek, 2005) and Judaism (e.g. Loewenthal, 1988). In both faith traditions, women report head/hair covering as a hot topic, involving the sense of identity and strong feelings. Political/historical factors are important. The decision to cover the head/hair is seen as a major reflection and determinant of identity. This paper offers a phenomenological perspective, which focuses on the issues surrounding dress codes for Muslim and Jewish women, particularly head covering. It should be borne in mind that the moral, spiritual and social values — particularly modesty — said to underlie head covering also govern rulings about other clothing.

Dress Codes The following presents the sources of Sharia (Islamic law) and Halacha (Jewish law) on modest dress were used to set the context of religious rulings in which women wrestle with decisions about head-covering (Wikipedia, originally accessed 2012, verified against the knowledge of the authors — a practising orthodox Jew and a practising Muslim, and also confirmed by checking against other websites accessed via the key terms sheitel and hijab). Muslim dress codes re head covering: A “hijab” or “ḥijāb” is a veil which covers the hair. It is worn by Muslim women particularly in front of non-related adult males (who are not members of the woman’s immediate family). According to Islamic scholarship, hijab is given the wider meaning of modesty, privacy and morality. The Qurʾan (33:59) mentions the use of covering and veiling with the words khimār and jilbab ( ,) not hijab. Hijab is required on women in public in some countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, but is banned in schools in France, and formerly in Turkey and Tunisia. In most of the world, the decision to wear a hijab is left for individuals to make. The term hijab or veil is not used in the Qurʾan to refer to an article of clothing for women or men, rather it refers to a spatial curtain that divides or provides privacy. The Qurʾan instructs the male believers (Muslims) to talk to wives of Prophet Muhammad behind a hijab. This hijab was the responsibility of the men and not the wives of Prophet Muhammad. However, in later Muslim societies this instruction, specific to the wives of Prophet Muhammad, was generalized, leading to the segregation of the Muslim men and women. The modesty in Qurʾan concerns both men’s and women’s gaze, gait, garments, and genitalia. The clothing for women involves khumūr over the necklines and jilbab (cloaks) in public so that they may be identified and not harmed. Guidelines for covering of the entire body except for the hands, the feet and the face, are found in texts of figh (or fiqh) (Islamic jurisprudence) and hadith (collections of the sayings and practices of Mohammed) that are developed later and not in the Qurʾan (Aslan, 2005). Surat: AlAhzab 33:59; O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and (the) women (of) the believers to draw over themselves [of] their outer garments. That (is) more suitable that they should be known and not harmed. And is Allah Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Surat AlNour 24:31; And say to the believing women (that) they should lower [of] their gaze and they should guard their chastity, and not (to) display their adornment except what is apparent of it. And let them their head covers over their bosoms, and not (to) display their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers or fathers (of) their husbands or their sons or sons (of) their

husbands or their brothers or sons (of) their brothers or sons (of) their sisters, or their women or what possess their right hands or the attendants having no physical desire among [the] men or [the] children who (are) not aware of private aspects (of) the women. And not let them their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah altogether O believers! So that you may succeed. Jewish dress codes regarding hair covering are widely said to derive from the biblical verse Numbers 5:18, in which the hair of a married woman suspected of adultery is uncovered by the priest. From this it is inferred that uncovering the hair of a married women involves shame, for example in the commentary of Rashi on this verse: “From here [we derive] that a bared head is considered a disgrace for the daughters of Israel”. The Talmud in Tractate Ketubot (72a) states that married Jewish women may not appear in public with their hair uncovered. Two levels of obligatory hair covering are delineated: complete and partial covering, respectively. Partial coverage of the hair fulfils the more basic standard of “Dat Moshe”, or the “Law of Moses”. This level is the one that the Rabbis say is alluded to in the Bible (Numbers 5:18, see above). Complete coverage of the hair, though not mentioned in the Torah, is still considered necessary by some rabbinic authorities in order to satisfy the requirements of “Dat Yehudit”, or “conduct deemed proper for a Jewish woman” (Ask the Rabbi 12.7.12). A range of hair-covering practices are carried out and/or recommended. Sheitel ( שייטל ) is the Yiddish word for a wig worn by some Orthodox Jewish married women in order to conform with the requirement of Jewish law to cover their hair. This practice is a feature of the modesty-related dress standard called tzniut. The Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish law) cites the opinion of Rabbi Joshua Boaz ben Simon Baruch that wearing of wigs is a permitted form of hair covering. But rabbinic views on this issue vary. In some hasidic sects, sheitels are avoided as they can give the impression that the wearer’s head is uncovered. In other groups women wear some type of covering over the sheitel to avoid this misconception. In contrast, the Lubavitcher Rebbe encouraged all married Jewish women to wear only sheitels, to enhance their well-dressed appearance. However, most orthodox married women (especially Sefardim) and Israeli National Religious do not wear wigs because their rabbis believe that wigs are insufficiently modest, and that other head coverings, such as a hat or tichel, are more suitable (Baskin, 1999). Many/most married orthodox Jewish women will cover their hair in the home (as well as in public). This paper examines what the practice of head-covering means to practising Muslim and Jewish women in terms of their identity development.

Methods

Descriptions of women’s attitudes to, and experiences of, head-covering were drawn from five adult Muslim women and five adult Jewish women, all selfdescribed as religiously-practising, including head-covering, all now-married with the exception of one single Muslim and one widowed Jew. The mean ages were 32.7 (Muslim) and 49.0 (Jewish). The age discrepancy between the groups would be corrected in more extensive research but was not considered to affect the nature of responses in this study. Participants provided answers to a short set of questions (see appendix) about head-covering, either written or in an interview, as preferred. The interviews/questionnaires were administered by the authors, both female, one Muslim and one Jewish. Responses were read and arranged into thematic groups, as described more fully in Loewenthal (2012), and Elliott, Fischer and Rennie (1999). In the illustrative quotes from the interviews, M=Muslim source, J=Jewish source.

Results

Historical and political factors were said to set important contexts for decisions about whether or not cover ones head. In some Muslim countries governed by Muslim law, women are required to dress modestly and wear Hijab, so they have little choice. In non-Muslim countries, especially following 9/11 and other attacks led by extremist Islamic groups, some Muslim women became afraid to wear Hijab for fear might provoke anti-Muslim remarks or even attacks. Many Jews are still conscious of the shadow of the holocaust, and of Stalinist suppression of religious practice, and may fear, or have relatives who fear looking too obviously Jewish. In these contexts, women described three broad groups of factors relating to the decision to cover their hair/head: identity, relations with men, and spiritual and religious feelings. Theme1: Identity It became apparent that head/hair covering is a key feature of identity expression, and was seen as indicating ones distinct difference from the surrounding society. In the Quran the hijab was asked of the wives of prophet Mohammed (peace upon him) to distinguish them from other women (M). As a part of practicing Islam — to identify themselves as Muslims (M). It’s important in my opinion to wear hijab with faith, not because you want people to think you are a good Muslim (but) because hijab represent Islam and should be respected (M).

An important feature of her Jewish identity (J). A good example . . . as to how we are a different people and have different ethics and code from others in society (J). When becoming more religious (and was about to get married), I wanted to do things properly and I saw that wearing a sheitel was one of the crucial features. It was expensive and uncomfortable and awkward but all those disadvantages were outweighed by the feeling that it was the right thing to do as a Jewish woman (J). Theme 2: Relations with men The message here is that head-covering and other aspects of modest dressing give the woman (in Islam) a sense that she is safe from masculine attention, and (in Judaism, where hair-covering is done at marriage) preserves and builds closeness to her husband. There is the view that caring about appearances may include being attractive to men, and modest dress including hair/head covering protects from masculine attention and strengthens the marital bond. Provides a sense of privacy, modesty and morality and also women wearing hijab can control how much man can see them or cannot, so that they feel protected (M). To be modest in dress. Women, more than men, are judged by their looks so they might be wearing hijab because they don’t want to be judged by their looks. It’s one less thing to worry about at a time when women are obsessed with looks and image, when you wear hijab you are less aware of trying to look “right” all the time with the perfect hair and clothes (M). To create a unique intimacy and the deepest bond with one’s husband (J). By keeping such a crucial aspect of a woman’s whole persona for the unique benefit of her husband is a key tool in building their whole relationship, trust & bond over time (J). It helps create a kind of wall around the holiness of marriage (J). Theme 3: Spiritual/Religious feelings For both Muslims and Jews, head/hair-covering is understood to be a religious commandment. There are two sets of concepts and feelings here — firstly, that to disobey would be wrong, going against religious law, and a cause of guilt. Secondly, head/hair-covering is reported as a source of positive, sometimes mystical, feelings. Some respondents felt their self-control was enhanced by this practice. (Wearing Hijab makes one) more aware of God on a daily basis and hopefully become more practicing as a Muslim in many other ways (M). She will be sinful if she wouldn’t do it (wear Hijab) (M). It is a requirement in Jewish Law as set out in the Torah (J).

Appreciating the mystical significance & tremendous benefits that such selfcontrol can have (J). I really do not understand the spiritual aspects even though I accept that they are there (J).

Summary and Discussion Head/hair covering were seen by the women interviewed as important in the development of identity, in setting boundaries in their relationships with men, and in spirituality. From the experiential perspective, the notion of development is clearly useful — women see their decisions about head-covering as key features of personal and spiritual identity development. Head-covering and dress are seen not only as expressions of identity, but as ways of managing identity. Spiritual growth is thus not seen as a solely inner process, but one in which behaviour and ritual — in this case with respect to dress — exert an influence deserving more attention from social psychologists. The effects of action and discourse on inner feelings and beliefs are important (e.g. Vygotsky, 2012). Head/hair covering has been described in this paper as a “hot topic” — this applies to both Muslim and Jewish women. In the case of women’s headcovering, it appears that women are aware that their identity and many associated beliefs and behaviours are contingent on decisions made about specific aspects of religious practice, and head/hair covering is one such specific aspect, crucial in predicting key features of the woman’s religious trajectory. A young Jewish or Muslim woman who decides that she is going to cover her hair/head allows those who know her to infer that religion and spirituality are central and salient features of her identity (IPT). Head/hair covering also signals another key feature of identity, female physical maturity: the attainment of puberty for a Muslim woman, and married status for a Jewish woman. Others who do not know the women, but who are aware of the significance of head/hair covering will make appropriate inferences about maturity and spirituality when they meet her or even see her in a public situation. Modesty is seen as a key issue in the decision about hair/head covering. The practice of modesty downgrades the importance of physical attractiveness to men, reserves the woman’s physicality for her husband, and is a key signal and aid to heightened spirituality. Another aspect of this practice: head/hair covering may be an aspect of a separatist acculturation strategy: wherein (close) relations with members of wider society are seen as unimportant, while own group identity and values

are important. Acculturation strategy has important implications for decisions about identity, and what is regarded as a threat, as when women see their head/hair covering as not simply an expression of identity but of the morals and values and religious tradition that are part of this identity. Head/hair covering makes a strong statement about the salience of religious identity and the inherent values and practices that are to be guarded. In considering what interviewees said, we are aware of issues that must be considered when people talk about their religious practices and values (indeed when people talk about any practices and values). The first is the issue of apologetics, whereby doubts and dissension are not expressed. The respondent may offer solely or mainly positive perspectives on the values and practices under discussion. Is this “faking good”? It has been recognised that asking people to give an account of their religious development exerts an influence on that development. We recognise that this effect cannot be ruled out: indeed we suggest that — like any religion-related activity, there is a developmental effect (this is not confined to religion). We follow Staples and Mauss’s (1987) perspective on “language and rhetorical devices as actively chosen tools and methods in converts own efforts at self-transformation, rather than as indicators of what really happened”. Head covering for women in Islam and Judaism has been and is a hot topic for women in both religions. It appears to be a crucial feature in religious identity, apparently closely linked to profound issues of faith as well as practice. More attention could be given to the ways in which practical “expressions” of spirituality are also determinants of spirituality.

Acknowledgements I am grateful to Rusi Jaspal for nurturing her interest in Identity Process theory, and to Dennis Nigbur for convening the British Psychological Society symposium at St Andrew’s University in 2012, on conceptual and methodological developments in the study of cultural identities, which provided the impetus for the work described in this paper.