Doing the readings this week reminded me of a story my mom had told me a few years back. She was born and raised in India, then moved to live in Qatar and then Bahrain, and finally she moved to Canada. It was when she was traveling to Canada that she was first presented by the question of race on a government document. She had interacted with people of other races throughout her life, yet to see it as something measurable was something new to her, and she was unable to comprehend the question. The man at the counter told her to put down white when she asked for clarification of the question. An identity that she would not identify with today.
The Jenkins reading had highlighted the notions of categorization and group identity, something which I found extremely interesting and applicable to my own experiences. The idea that "Categorisation may be more significant for the categoriser(s) than for categorised" (Jenkins) was something that makes sense, yet something that I had never thought about. Growing up in Canada, and not yet having attended school, I was living comfortably within a large community of family friends that my parents had found through the Muslim community. I had interacted with others in my neighborhood, yet it was the family friends group that I saw more regularly. Looking back now, I realized that I never saw myself as the "other" in a majority white community, because for me, the Muslim community was more prevalent in my life. It wasn't until I moved to the US and went back to Canada for visits that I realized quickly that I was apart of the minority, and as such my identity as being an Indian Muslim was more significant for the larger community I lived in, and not to my own community.
It was when coming to the US, where I was distinctly labeled as the "other"that I really began to understand the concept of a racial divide. I grew up being the only Indian or the only Muslim in my entire school, and neighborhood. It was because of this divide that I subconsciously felt, that I chose to wear the scarf. For me, going into 6th grade, wearing the scarf was more of a political decision than a religious one- to show that my Muslim identity was one that I carried with pride. Yet even when making the decision to wear the scarf, I had never consciously thought of the scenario being an "us vs. them". Jenkins also states how similarities cannot be recognized without also acknowledging the differences. It wasn't until I found myself going to a diverse high school that I realized the power of having similarities and differences, and what it felt to have a group identity. Because, previously my religious or ethnic identity was something I only applied to myself and family, and it wasn't until I was able to be in an environment where I could find differences between populations, that I accepted that identity as a group identity.
When reading the Jenkins piece, I was also interested in the Marx idea of 'class in itself' verse 'class for itself'. The idea that intrinsically a group has similarities that perpetuate its own advancements and own interests, rather than being categorised by others. However, this is something I struggled to understand, as their own social experiences have value, yet often times identities need to be compared to one another in order to fully understand the ideas of privilege or oppressions, which I see as being understood only by interactions between different groups. Also, how is one able to distinguish between 'class in itself' and 'class for itself' in case studies? I think it might be possible to have a group believe that they are a 'class for itself', but I am inclined to think that even that mentality is a construct of stratification, which is defined as Massey as "the unequal distribution of people across social categories that are characterized by differential access to scare resources," (Massey). It isn't until you can acknowledge the qualitative and quantitative differences between your own group and everyone else that you're able to see the social construct created by exploitation, and opportunity hoarding, and exclusion. These are all extrinsic factors that affect you intrinsically which is how I believe most social identification is primarily affected by.
Some times being categorize into a race can be confusing in it self. This story reminds me of when I first moved to the united State. I never had a problem with anybody back in Africa about where I was from or what tribe I belonged to, but for some reasons people with the same skin color made me feel as though I didn't belong where they where. I spoke the same English they did and looked like them but why they didn't accept me was a mystery. TO what point am I that different from these people?We are both considered minority so what makes them think they have a superior position or power above me?
ReplyDeleteBoth millicent and sarah have extremely similar experiences to mine but almost reversed. I am indian, but both my parents were born in the United States so my family has grown up very american (which ironically is a social identity in itself). I went to india to visit the family that still lives there two years ago and when I went it was a very surreal experience to me. My aunts and uncles had servants and drivers who basically did everything for them but beyond that it really made me question my social identity and assocation.
ReplyDeleteBefore I visited I knew I was indian, but when I got there everything was so obscure to me. People looked at me differently like I was foreign just by the way I dressed and when we went to the Taj mahl we actually got charged more because we were recognized as out of the country tourists instead of the going 'indian' price.
These experiences really took a toll of my social affiliation because it showed me that just because I was indian and in india I was considered to be 'home'.
As a Bengali American, I grew up in a small Bengali community where categorization did not seem as a big difference because the schools I attended had many students from the Bengali background. It was not until high school that my ethnicity played a huge role. Even my religion started to take a toll. I was always asked about what I believed. Since I was the only Hindu Bengali girl in a school of 2000+ students and the majority was from a Christian African American background, I would always have to explain who I am. People mistook me for an Indian American or Hispanic just by my appearance. I would have to describe where Bangladesh was on the map or the difference between being Hindu and speaking Hindi. So, I understand where Sarah is coming from with carrying the Muslim Identity with pride. Although, students and a few teachers did not quite know me, I never felt bad about it. Instead, I was glad to inform others about my culture, what I believed in, or who I am.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I totally agree with Nathan of being treated foreign in Bangladesh because of the way I dressed or my odd Bengali-American accent when I took trips to Bangladesh. Although I am a Bengali, people treated me different based on my appearance even if I wore native or “desi” clothes. My family and I were charged more at restuarants, shopping malls, or anywhere we decided to visit because we are from America.