Psychosocial Aspects of Niqab Wearing

Religion, Nationalism and Identity in Bosnia and Herzegovina

N. Bosankic

• Publisher: Palgrave Pivot
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781137431615
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

In Psychosocial aspects of niqab wearing Nina Bosankic explores the various motives which lead young women living in post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina to adopt the niqab (full face veil). She uses a grounded theory approach to examine this decision which is often viewed as controversial from both within and outside Islam.

1

Introduction

Abstract: The issue of the niqab (full-face veil), more specifically, woman behind the niqab, is often treated in a sensationalist manner and with inaccurate references, regardless of different socio-cultural and ethnic backgrounds women have. This book explores, not neglecting historical roots and debates over Shari’a practice of clothing, motives of young women living in post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina that led them to make a decision to adopt the practice of wearing niqab, as well as psycho-social aspects of the decision-making process itself. The motives (multi-layered and extremely complex) to accept teachings that promote such Shari’a clothing practices appear to be significantly driven by the Bosnian milieu. In view of that, the Bosnian context is elaborated from the sociological, anthropological and gender perspective. A grounded theory method was used as a methodological framework, and 25 interviews were conducted and subsequently analysed in order to explicate various psycho-social aspects of the decision-making process to wear the niqab.

Keywords: Basic Social Psychological Process; gender; grounded theory method; niqab

Bosankić, Nina. Psychosocial Aspects of Niqab Wearing: Religion, Nationalism and Identity in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. DOI: 10.1057/9781137431615.0004.

Over the past ten years Islam and Muslims’ beliefs and practises have been given a lot of media space and both public and scholarly attention. In addition, few issues cause as much controversy and bile-filled discussions as the issue of gender relations in Islam. The matter of the niqab (full-face veil), more specifically, woman behind the niqab, is often treated in a sensationalist manner and with inaccurate references, following the same “recipe”, regardless of the different socio-cultural and ethnic backgrounds these women have. “Yet, so little is known of its culture and traditions and even less about its women” (Ahmed, 2010, p. 214).

Qur’an and hadiths leave room for (re)interpretation, allowing manipulation of those parts that have the potential to highlight women’s inferiority and justify putting women in a submissive position. Therefore, the main focus of Islamic feminist research addresses veiling within the field of Islamic studies and Religious studies (e.g. 1999, 2006; Mernissi, 1991, 1993; Ahmed, 1992, 1999) and Sociocultural Anthropology (e.g. Mahmood, 2001, 2005). Studies are largely situated in the Middle East, with the exception of prolific writings on the mainly political debate on the veil and human rights in Western Europe, in particular France and the United Kingdom (e.g. Scott, 2007; Zempi & Chakraborti, 2014). There are a few exceptions, social-psychological research wise, on (hijab) veiling (e.g. Dwayer, 1999; Wagner et al., 2012; Traversa, 2012). In the Bosnian milieu, the practise of hijab wearing with its implications on public and private life, was explored mostly in the last decade (e.g. Šeta, 2011; Spahić-Šiljak, 2007, 2012), but again framed in Gender and Religious studies. Ethnologist Andreja Mesarič (2010) conducted an ethnographic study on Shari’a practice of clothing, exploring the nature of niqab wearing to a certain extent. However, the practise of niqab wearing in Bosnia and Herzegovina has not, so far, been sufficiently treated from an alternative point of view, mainly social psychological, paying particular attention to the gender aspects. “Because of its connections to cultural representations of others, prejudice and social identities, such an analysis needs to be both cultural and psychological” (Wagner et al., 2012, p. 523).

This book explores what may have led young women living in post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina to make a decision to adopt the practice of wearing niqab that many, and nominal adherents in particular, often condemn and/or associate with Islamic fundamentalism and female submission. In order to understand the decision to adopt, as participants in the study refer to it, a true Islam, and clothing practice typical of the 7th century, inductive reasoning and grounded theory method were employed. “What is needed is a shift to a more nuanced and multifaceted analysis, which takes as a starting point that the veil is a lived, situated, social experience and can be a means of asserting identity and even resistance” (ibid.). Various psychological and context-driven (global and local) motives were explored throughout the steps in the process of decision-making, whilst the main focus was on the identification of the common decision-making denominator – Basic Social Psychological Process (BSPP) in the construction of religious identity of women who wear niqab.

Twenty-five interviews were conducted and subsequently analysed. The motives (multi-layered and extremely complex) to accept teachings that promote such Shari’a clothing practice appear to be significantly driven by global Orientalist heritage and rising Islamophobia and the Bosnian milieu in particular, “hence the need to examine women’s dress from a multiplicity of perspectives, with attention to more contextual local meanings and disagreements” (Rasmussen, 2013, p. 246). In view of that, global views and debates on (veiled) woman are presented, and the Bosnian context is elaborated from the socio-cultural, anthropological and gender perspective.

Nonetheless, based on the empirical findings, and no matter the variety of motives to accept the teachings that promote such clothing per se, Basic Social Psychological Process, seeking means to affirm the new religious identity, was what all the narratives had in common. Therefore, it appears that the instrumental value of niqab is reflected in the process of women’s self-affirmation and self-actualization, where reinforced by reaction from the environment, becomes a powerful tool for women in the construction of their religious identity. More specifically, it becomes an instrument for the construction of the believer at a higher level of spirituality identity.

2

Determinants of Religious Behaviour

Abstract: Since the end of World War II, in Bosnian-Herzegovinian society covering for the religious reasons had only a form of hijab (head scarf), even in light of the “return to roots” and the awakening of national and religious identity in the 1990s. However some women decided to adopt clothing practice manifested through practice of wearing a niqab (full-face veil), unspecific for Bosnia and Herzegovina. This chapter provides an overview of various psychological and sociological theories of religiousness, with particular emphasis on gender differences in religious precise and beliefs, exploring what may have led some women to adopt such a form of religious behaviour. In addition, fundamentalist construction of gender is explored.

Keywords: fundamentalism; gender; religious behaviour; religiousness; Salafi; Wahabee

Bosankić, Nina. Psychosocial Aspects of Niqab Wearing: Religion, Nationalism and Identity in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. DOI: 10.1057/9781137431615.0005.

Religion and religiosity have been a focus of interest to psychologists ever since psychology separated itself from philosophy at the end of the 19th century, even though the psychology of religion as a distinct discipline has existed only for several decades. Important theorists like Wundt, James, Freud, Jung, Allport, Bowlby and many others have offered their views on religion in general, or explanations of religiosity, each from his/her own perspective. James (1890/1950) is, for example, one of those that has a positive attitude towards religion and considers it important for the development of the individual and society as a whole, but emphasizes that it is not possible to single out one factor which would be crucial for understanding religiosity, but rather a specific situation of every individual must be taken into account. For Freud (1927/1989) religiosity is a result of obsessive neurosis, which is itself caused by the perception of God as an authoritarian and omnipotent being that actually signifies a personification of the Father brought up on a pedestal, meaning that by throwing away the illusion of God one starts the journey of liberation. In his later works he speaks of religion as an illusion that serves the function of satisfying and channelling needs in an acceptable manner. For Frankl (1947/1976), in line with his logotherapy, his teaching on the significance of finding meaning in life, religiosity, depending on the individual choice, can be very useful as a tool that aids finding meaning. He considers it to be innate, unlike for example Skinner (1948), who finds it to be purely a result of instrumental learning, that is, socialization. According to Allport (1950), religiosity is one of six types of values that are important for forming the individual personal style, and it results from the action of biological factors and early socialization.

So, according to some authors (e.g. Bandura, 1977) religiosity is a result of socialization, whether early, through the influence of the family, or late, through the influence of peers and other social agents. For others (e.g. Freud, 1914; Adler, 1935; Spilka & Schmidt, 1983) it is a consequence of certain pathology and/or attempts of the individual to compensate for their feeling of inferiority, anxiety, or alienation; or to meet a certain need, whether it’s socio-economic, a need for finding one’s identity, belonging, or power, but also coping or finding meaning and happiness in life (e.g. Frankl, 1947/1976; Maslow, 1963; Seligman, 1975).

Authors like Piaget (1936/1948), Kohlberg (1984), Goldman (1964) and Fowler (2001) emphasize the developmental aspect of religiosity, that is, the significance of a certain level of cognitive development for adopting and manifesting religiosity. Freud (1914), Adler (1935), Fromm (1950/1985) and Glock and Stark (1965) accentuate the functional aspect (whether it serves a function of satisfying a certain need or avoiding/overcoming frustration), while according to Boyer (1994) religious beliefs can be explained by the evolution of the human brain, that is, the adaptive role of cognition. Sociological theory differs between substantive and functional theories of religion. The former (e.g. Otto, 1917/1958; Elijade, 1983; Luckmann, 1967; Luhmann, 1977) aim to find a common factor, that is an element that is characteristic of all religions (including institutions, practices, beliefs, language, symbols); while the latter (e.g. Weber, 1922/1963; Durkheim, 1912/1965) are trying to answer the question about the purpose of religions, for the individual or for a group, and most often ascribed to it are the functions of integration, normativity and regulation.

The subject of research is often the nature of mystic experiences, as well as the creation of image of God, the phenomena of religious conversion, various influences of religion to the integration of personality, the development of religious and cognitive development of man, and the connection of religiosity to various attitudes, behaviours and personality traits (Ćorić, 1998). An important contribution to the study of religion is conducting research that tries to answer why, in spite of very different religious and cultural experiences, people still develop very similar religious beliefs, and vice versa, why in spite of cognitive-psychological similarities as well as cultural influences people still adopt various religious beliefs and practices (Petrovich, 2007).

Depending on the initial theoretical framework, studies have often been conducted (see, for example, Feltey & Poloma, 1991; Spilka et al., 2003; Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle, 1997, Bao et al., 1999) that have dealt primarily with “social” determinants of religiosity (age, sex, socio-economic status, the level of education, relationship with parents and peers), as well as those (see, for example, Adorno et al., 1950; Kahoe, 1974; Wulff, 1997; Ellison, 1991) that have tried to find the connection between neural factors, cognitive factors, personality traits and proneness to religiosity. But, there is still no consensus regarding the findings of these studies, since the results greatly depend on the instruments and samples on which the studies were conducted. The influence of religiosity to mental and bodily health, satisfaction with life, sexual behaviour, and prejudice and so on, has been also thoroughly studied. Consistent results were obtained only with regard to the link between religiosity and traditional values, and those values like salvation of the soul, which are related to increased satisfaction with life (see, for example, Emmons & Crumpler, 1999).

“When it comes to the nature of religiosity, the most empirically supported are the hypotheses on projection” (Beit-Hallahmi & Argyle, 1997, p. 255) that can take various forms so “the religious phenomenon can be a projection of individual factors, like the early relationship with caretakers, or social factors, like the ways society is organized” (Main, 2006, p. 163). In general, when religiosity is discussed in psychology, the following are usually mentioned: religious belief (cognitive component), manifest through the belief in the supernatural being or beings; religious sentiments (emotional component), manifest through a certain affect, that is love, admiration, humility and so on, towards the supernatural being; religious behaviour (the behavioural component) is manifest through language, rituals, that is, ritualistic behaviour, and ways of clothing.

The key characteristic of religion is religious grouping. Like other groups, religious groups have explicit and implicit functions, leaders and members with prescribed roles, norms and standards, and mechanisms in place for both developing and sustaining these standards (Main, 2006). One of the most important roles of religious groups, although methods and target groups differ significantly, is proselytism which is performed by recruiting new members but also by keeping the existing ones. Through the process of implosion, new members’ connections to the wider social network gradually wane and he/she becomes more oriented toward other members and subsequently becomes more and more dependent. This in turn contributes to creating conditions for beliefs and practices that deviate from norms of a wider social community (Bainbridge, 1997).

Why do a number of people, especially women, decide to join religious groups, especially those that seem rather radical in the explicit or implicit demands they make before their members? According to some authors (e.g. Lofland & Skonovd, 1981) the phenomenon cannot be explained by grouping in certain types of motives, but rather only by combining different motives. They distinguish between intellectual (reading holy scriptures), mystical (consequence of mystical religious experience), experimental (the person is trying out various alternatives) and social (the person is introduced to the group by a friend or a family member) motives, where intellectual and experimental motives are most common. Most people, especially the ones raised in a religious environment, despite the public perception that people “turn to religion” at once, are committed to contemplating about conversion for a long time, and possibly moreover fight with indecision, prior to gravely committing themselves to religion (Loewenthal, 2000). Thus, drastic conversions are generally the exception to the rule, as well as an adopting of religious beliefs in individuals raised in a nonreligious milieu (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1997). There are often intense emotional experiences behind making such decisions.

Several theoretical explanations of the proneness to making a “radical” conversion are offered by various authors, ranging from attachment styles in early childhood (Kirkpatrick, 1992), to high levels of anxiety and styles of adaptation (Witztum et al., 1990). Yet, similar to the case of religiosity in general, in spite of numerous attempts to establish the link between various types and personality traits, primarily authoritarianism and the need for belonging, that is, joining religious groups (especially the radical ones, that often have the hallmarks of fundamentalism), there was no significant correlation found. Or the results are inconsistent and often contradictory. The same applies to changes on the level of personality due to belonging to certain groups. Conversion makes a minimal influence to the basic personality functions (character and the “Big five” traits). However, it can result in profound transformations that change one’s life when it comes to mid-level functions, goals, feelings, attitudes and behaviours, as well as in self-determining functions of personality such as identity and the meaning of life (Paloutzian, Richardson & Rambo, 1999). “The most consistent empirical findings in the psychology of religion are not in terms of basic personality functioning, but rather in terms of identity, meaning, and sense of purpose in life” (Paloutzian et al., 1999, p. 4). It is the specific systems of belief that has been internalized, not personality, behind adopting radical beliefs (Herriot, 2008).

Gender and religious behaviour

According to Bradshaw and Ellison (2009) religiosity is the result of both biological and social factors, and complex joint effects of both can lead to gender differences in religiosity. Yet, among the most important demographic factors when it comes to religiosity is gender. “As much as we know based on historical sources and by this day, religious movements have been more successful in recruiting women than men, with an exception of those movements that exclude women altogether” (Stark, 2002, p. 495). “The fact that women are more religious than men is one of the most consistent findings in the sociology of religion” (Lizardo & Collet, 2009, p. ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• 1  Introduction
• 2  Determinants of Religious Behaviour
• 3  Sharia Practice of Clothing: Debates and Controversies
• 4  Nationalism, Gender and Religion in Bosnia and Herzegovina
• 5  To Veil or Not to Veil: A Decision-Making Process
• 6  Conclusion
• Methodological Appendix
• Glossary
• References
• Index