An interactional analysis of Muslim women resisting discourses of othering through humour: an autoethnographic reflection of a critical micro-analytic approach

ABSTRACT

This paper considers the application of a micro-analytic approach to critically explore how a Muslim women’s Sister’s Circle (SC), based at a British university, interactionally resists discourses of Islamophobia and othering through humour. I reflect on how I navigated methodological tensions during my PhD, specifically around context in Conversation Analysis (CA; Schegloff, 1997), and explore the benefits of synthesising CA with other critical approaches. Through applying an EM/CA informed discourse analytic approach, this paper showcases how the SC employs humour as a tool for subversion to discursively ‘undo’ othering and reject victimhood. Humour serves as a tool to reverse a social order that otherwise positions Muslims as ‘other’. In summation, this paper argues that applying a synthesised micro-analytic approach enriches the analysis and discussion of implications, demonstrating the benefits of applying such an approach to the study of how (racially) minoritized communities (re)produce and respond to their respective realities.

KEYWORDS:

• conversation analysis
• discourse analysis
• humour
• Islamophobia
• micro-resistance
• othering

Introduction

Qualitative research in the field of Psychology (QRiP) has seen a consistent growth since the 1980s (Howitt 2016), with approaches such as Thematic Analysis, Discursive Psychology, and Conversation Analysis developing as analytic tools of inquiry (Stainton-Rogers and Willig 2017a). Indeed, as Lester, Cho, and Lochmiller (2020, 96) note, ‘qualitative data analysis means various things’, contingent upon the methodological and theoretical orientations of the researcher and area of study in question. My point of interest lies in the ‘turn to language’ in QRiP (Stainton-Rogers and Willig 2017b), with a specific focus on discursive practices in talk, and the possibility of making connections between language use (i.e., the micro) with macro-level, critical perspectives of social organisation (Shrikant 2022).

As Shrikant (ibid) notes, debates around the extent to which the connections between the micro and macro can be made continue to persist among analysts researching social interaction. For example, Shrikant (ibid) points to conversation analysts focusing on the sequentiality of conversation and interactant orientations as determinants of (macro-level) context (Schegloff 1997), and critical discourse analysts asserting the need for a more critical, problem-oriented approach whereby macro-level understandings of social organisation are considered to hold omnirelevance (see van Dijk 2001; Flowerdew and Richardson 2018).

With this in mind, this paper considers the possibility and value of conducting a micro-analysis to explore how the ‘emotional injuries’ (Evans and Moore 2015) of Islamophobia are interactionally resisted through humour – specifically with the aim to connect the micro with the macro (Shrikant 2022). I draw from my PhD study, completed in 2021, that examined how a Muslim women’s Sisters’ Circle (SC) at a British university navigated socio-politics in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States, and the vote for Brexit in the UK (both occurring in 2016).

The possible tension around the suitability of employing a micro-analysis on the data I had collected was something I contended with at the time. The issue lay in my growing discomfort with Conversation Analysis (CA) and its seeming (in)compatibility with a critical interrogation (Wetherell 2014) of the ways in which the SC navigated a ‘Trumpian’/post-Brexit reality. My main point of concern was related to the extent to which episodes of talk can be tethered to the broader context of the positioning and experiences of Muslims as ‘other’, along with the material and social-psychological consequences that come with Islamophobia as a structural issue (Ali and Whitham 2021; Manzoor-Khan 2022).

To unpack this further, this paper will first attend to the methodological tensions I contended with at the time of my PhD (and continue to navigate). I will consider the issues around CA and context and explore the tensions between a ‘Schegloffian’ lens, and other critical perspectives (e.g., Wetherell 2014; van Dijk 1984). I will then present a qualitative micro-analysis of the SC interactionally resisting Islamophobia (discursively and as experienced) and demonstrate the connectedness with the broader context and implications. Thus, the focus of this article is primarily empirical to showcase how linkages between ‘language use [(micro)] and macro forms of social organisation’ (Shrikant 2022, 237) can be made, and it secondarily offers an autoethnographic window into a methodological tension I continue to work through as a minoritized (Muslim woman) academic myself.

Defining Islamophobia and contextualising my position

Although the construction and positioning of Muslims as ‘other’ in and by the West – and the consequent oppressions Muslims have been subjected to – is not a new phenomenon (see Said 2003; Meer 2014), the rise in the use of the term ‘Islamophobia’ in just over the last two decades locates it as a relatively new addition to the vernacular of British and global Englishes (Saeed 2016). Discussions on Islamophobia have seen definitions such as: ‘unfounded hostility towards Islam’ leading to practical consequences for Muslims constituting ‘unfair discrimination’ and ‘exclusion (…) from mainstream political and social affairs’ (Runneymede Trust 1997, 4); or put more simply, ‘anti-Muslim racism’ (Runnymede Trust 2017, 7). Kundnani (2014) and Massoumi, Mills, and Miller (2017) similarly view Islamophobia as a form of racism, although they point more specifically to its structural nature. Kundnani (2014), for example, links Islamophobia to the war on terror as he posits that:

Its significance does not lie primarily in the individual prejudices it generates but in its wider political consequences (…) The war on terror (…) could not be sustained without the racialised dehumanization of its Muslim victims.

(ibid: 10)

Massoumi, Mills, and Miller (2017) take a similar stance, with an emphasis on the materiality of Islamophobia – in other words, the real, material impact of Islamophobia as a structural and systemic form of racism. Building on this view, Manzoor-Khan (2022) traces the colonial roots to Islamophobia, noting that it ‘is the outcome of colonial histories of white supremacist racist hierarchy and global capitalism that have generated a story about Muslims as threats, barbarians, and misogynists’ (p18). In fact, Manzoor-Khan (ibid) critiques the viewing of Islamophobia simply as a discriminatory bias as reductive. While the motive of this paper is not to supply a critical analysis of how Islamophobia should be defined, the significance of delineating and pointing to the criticality Manzoor-Khan (ibid) and Kundnani (2014) employ is pertinent to consider in order to ground Islamophobia as a more complex phenomenon than individualised experiences with bad individuals. It is also key to understanding the premise of the social order and resistance explored in this paper – for example, the treatment of Muslims as suspect vis-à-vis counterterrorism and pre-crime (Qureshi 2017, Qurashi 2018, Qureshi 2019, Younis and Jadhav 2019; Sabir 2022).

The pertinence of understanding social order from this perspective, as well as the need to ground Islamophobia as a complex, omnipresent reality for Muslims, is pointed out here as part of the aforementioned analytic tensions I continue to contend with, specifically in relation to studying interactional data involving racially minoritized communities. The parameters around context set by CA (Schegloff 1997) have been a point of contention with respect to critical enquiry (e.g., see Wetherell 2014). My aim with this paper is to demonstrate the capacity of a synthesised microanalytic approach that uses the principles of CA to interrogate dialogical data from a critical perspective, as prescribed by van Dijk (1984, 1999), and to showcase how such an analysis can offer a qualitative insight into the study of how emotional injuries of Islamophobia can be discursively resisted by a group of Muslim women.

(Micro-)analytic tensions, and minding the contextual gap

In the early stages of my PhD study, I spent quite some time grappling with the tensions dividing the worlds of Conversation Analysis (CA) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) – a tension that has long existed between the two approaches. I sought to locate a medial point that could allow for a micro-analysis of Muslim women interactionally navigating socio-politics and othering from a critical perspective, without breaching the parameters set by CA and CDA; one that bridges the context interactionally produced on a moment-by-moment basis with extrinsic contextual components that construct the reality of Muslim women. As such, as a researcher, my aim was (and continues to be) to explore the linkages between the everydayness of minoritized experience(s) with the broader discourse world; that is, how the everyday reality of (racially) minoritized communities is produced, navigated, and co-constructed through talk, and its broader implications.

On this analytic journey, I came across Teun van Dijk’s monograph entitled ‘Prejudice in Discourse’ (1984), which unpacks the mechanisms behind the ways ‘majorities’ talk about racially minoritized people, constructing them as ‘other’. What I found particularly interesting was van Dijk’s tool-house for exploring how people interactionally ‘do’ racism. Within his framework, van Dijk incorporates the use of CA as a tool for unpacking dialogical data, and to observe the micro-level moves in talk and conversational storytelling as a constituent of interactional strategies that contribute towards ‘doing’ prejudice in talk – although it is not his primary mode of analysis. The analysis in this paper follows a similar thread.

To thus trace the roots of CA, growing out of Garfinkel’s theory of Ethnomethodology (Atkinson 1988; Heritage 1984), CA gained prominence in the 1960s and 1970s through the works of Harvey Sacks, Emmanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson (ten Have 2007; Wiggins 2016). CA, as a study of social interaction (Sidnell 2007), is a bottom-up approach examining the social workings of everyday life (van Dijk 2014) through interrogating the organization of talk, and how understanding, or intersubjectivity, is signalled as interactions unfold. CA is therefore ‘an approach (…) that aims to describe, analyse and understand talk as a basic and constitutive feature of human social life’ (Sidnell 2011, 01). However, as previously mentioned, my primary point of contention with respect to CA has been that of context. As per Hopper (1990), many researchers within the field traditionally view(ed) ‘talk extrinsic’ contextual factors as extraneous, as the relevant interactional elements are embedded within the ‘empirical details’ (p163–164). Application of talk-extrinsic context in analysis is therefore often problematised by ‘traditional’ CA researchers (de Kok 2008) as it is argued that analytical consideration of significant contextual features should be based on and limited to what participants explicitly attend to as opposed to analysts drawing from socio-political theory, which de Kok (ibid: p887) labels ‘theoretically informed assumptions’. Additionally, the use of context to explicate or develop analytical points regarding participants’ social actions is seen to position them as ‘cultural dopes’, which ostensibly, as per Schegloff (1997, 167), raises the risk of ‘theoretical imperialism’ and ‘hegemony of the intellectuals’. In other words, with this view, contextual relevance is determined solely by participants’ orientations.

Billig (1999b, 1999a) countered Schegloff’s position, highlighting CA’s ostensible inadequacy to deal with episodes where ‘power is directly, overtly and even brutally exercised’ (Billig 1999b, 554). His critique essentially focuses on traditional CA practitioners’ view of attending or disattending to context that is or is not specifically oriented to by interlocutors, respectively, as he states: ‘to imply that CA must disattend to such a matter (or must do as a first step) is to say something about the limitations of an orthodox CA and its implicitly uncritical theory of the social world’ (ibid: p555, original emphasis). Wetherell (2014) furthered this critique, noting that the issue critical scholars take with Schegloff’s (1997) position is that his ‘sense of participant orientation may be unacceptably narrow’ (Wetherell 2014, 110), and subsequently points to a ‘gap’ between the micro-episodes of talk we inhabit and the broader ‘subjective phenomenological sense of the passing moment’ (Wetherell 2012, 85). She does not, however, disregard CA; in fact, she explicitly rejects the notion of CA as a methodologically redundant tool for critical analyses (ibid). Rather, she notes the value in CA’s focus on participant orientations as an important method in understanding subject positions, and supports a synthesised approach as part of the field of critical discursive social psychology. This entails a focus on ‘the situated flow of discourse’ and how ‘psychological states, identities and interactional and intersubjective events’ are formed and negotiated, along with a view of ‘the collective and social patterning of background normative conceptions’ (Wetherell 2012, 112). Van Dijk (1999) too asserted, amid the debate between Schegloff, Billig, and Wetherell (see Weatherall 2016), that there is scope for CA and critical approaches to compliment each other to account for both the micro and the critical. In fact, I find that there is scope within Ethnomethodology (EM) to employ a synthesised approach. Given that EM is not in itself a method – focused instead on the methods people employ to produce, as Rawls (2002) puts it, ‘recognisable social orders’ (p6) – there is space to synthesise and draw from broader context as part of a process of discerning the ‘recognisability’ of the social order(s) produced, specifically on the grounds of ‘unique adequacy’. As Rawls (2002) notes:

‘Ethnomethodologists generally use methods that require immersion in the situation being studied. They hold it as an ideal that they learn to be competent practitioners of whatever social phenomena they are studying. This ideal is referred to by Garfinkel as “unique adequacy.” When the subject of research is something that most persons participate in regularly, like ordinary talk, (…) driving, walking, etc., then unique adequacy can be assumed for most persons (…). However, with regard to practices that have specialized populations, like science or policing, unique adequacy can be very hard to achieve.’

(pp 7–8)

The significance here lies in how ‘competency’ is viewed in the process of discerning ‘recognisable’ (re-)productions of social order and depths of immersion. Arguably, to maintain a level of competency in the study of how (racially) minoritized communities navigate the social world involves an understanding of racialisation processes and subsequent oppressions that lead to social-psychological and material ramifications. Therefore, I argue that to understand the ways in which the SC at the heart of this paper engages in interactional resistance practices, it is important to understand the broader and multi-layered elements of their realities; i.e., an understanding of the positioning of Muslims, specifically Muslim women, as ‘other’ in a UK context, where Islamophobia structurally persists, resulting in real, social-psychological and material consequences (see Runnymede Trust 2017 Manzoor-Khan 2022; Sabir 2022). This, I argue, allows for a critical understanding of how the SC (re)produce and respond to a social order that positions them as ‘other’. Not doing so would affect the recognisability of the situations the SC may be attempting to interactionally navigate, for example – the ability to recognise and make a distinction between a discussion on microaggressions and isolated cases of general unpleasant encounters with unpleasant people is crucial. Therefore, this paper sits in alignment with the position Shrikant (2022) proposes, where “immediate interactional and identity concerns and analyses of analysts’ concerns for studying social inequality are not divergent but require one another to produce a better understanding of language in society” (238).

Research design and procedures

As previously mentioned, this paper draws from my PhD study conducted between 2016 and 2021. The study itself took place at an Islamic Society (ISoc) at a British University in the North of England, focusing specifically on the women’s (or the ‘sisters’) division of the ISoc. ISocs in UK universities are student-led and -run associations with the objective to cater to the ‘spiritual and social needs of students’ (Song 2012, 146). The Sisters’ Circle (SC), from which the data was collected, would meet once a week as a means for Muslim women (myself included) studying at the university, of all degree levels, to come together and offer each other advice, support, and general conversation and company.

A topic of discussion was generally selected in the days leading up to each meeting, however this was not strictly practiced as the SC functioned as an informal space – it was treated as a ‘catch-up’ of peers/friends to touch base with on a weekly basis. Some examples of the topics that were chosen include: Donald Trump’s election, experiences of Islamophobia, and Feminism and Islam.

With respect to the participants, or ‘sisters’ themselves, they were all members of the University’s Islamic Society, and attendees of the ‘Sister’s Circle’ meetings. As such, the data collected for this study was naturally occurring. There was a total of 13 participants (including myself), with ages ranging from 19 to 26. Data collection commenced soon after Donald Trump was elected as President and was completed in the summer of 2017.

Reflexivity

To address my presence on both sides of the research sphere (i.e., researcher and participant) and any potential adversities this may pose, I begin with referring to Said’s (1993, 2003) work on Orientalism where he meticulously demonstrates the ways in which the Western gaze and interpretations of the Orient have worked to the detriment of ‘Orientalized’ peoples. Although his focus has been on literary and media outputs, I argue that Western institutions and the field of academia are not untouched by Orientalist knowledge production. For example, Kapoor (2004) draws from Gayatri Spivak to highlight the ways in which the ‘Third World subaltern’ in the field of Development is othered through intellectual output. They note how an Us/Them dichotomy results where researchers and workers in the field are positioned as the ‘Us’, the ‘saviours’ helping and observing ‘Them’ – whether such othering is intended or not (ibid). This is not to claim that any research carried out by one considered an ‘outsider’ from a community will yield Orientalist output; however, what I am putting to question is whether null researcher impact and absolute objectivity are ever possible to attain. I do not intend to imply that processes of academic rigour hold no value; rather, I question the modalities in place to achieve this rigour-one being the exclusion of the observer’s theoretical and political positionings (Duranti 1997).

Therefore, I consider being reflexive towards my position as a member of the SC as a benefit rather than a disadvantage. I propose that my presence as both the observer and the observed works to disrupt an ‘Us/Them’ binary vis-a-vis ‘Us’ academics studying ‘Them’ subjects. I am both, the observer and the subject.

I endeavour to analyse the data with an understanding of the socio-political context in which Muslim women, and Muslims more broadly, exist in the UK, with a view to analyse discursive (re)productions in accordance with the positions the sisters interactionally take.

Micro-analytic approach

As discussed in the previous section, this paper aligns with a synthesised micro-analytic approach to attend to the ‘micro’ and the critical. I hesitate to ‘label’ this approach solely as ‘critical discursive psychology’ or CDA given that there is a lot of overlap with respect to employing criticality in the analysis of interactional data. I also hesitate to solely label it as EM/CA given the tensions around the applicability of broader context from a ‘pureist’ CA perspective – something I breach throughout. Instead, I position the approach in this paper in alignment with van Dijk (1984) vis-à-vis the utilisation of CA to critically unpack dialogical data and the great value it holds in interrogating micro-moves in talk. As such, I consider this approach as EM/CA informed discourse analysis, in line with Wetherell et al.’s (1987) view on such analyses being ‘concerned with questions about the organization of language and the consequences of this organization’, and thereby focusing on ‘extended sequences of talk and discussion (…) as [the] database’, which is subjected to a ‘detailed examination of the structure of [the] discourse’ (ibid: p60).

Analysis

This section considers three separate interactions whereby the SC employs humour as an interactional tool for resistance. The first excerpt (Excerpt 1) directly follows a discussion on the possible implications of Trump’s new presidency, where the SC collectively expresses concern.

Excerpt 1:‘Orange is the new Black’

Faiza orients to the possibility that Obama’s Presidency may have been a contributing factor in Trump’s election, as she launches the closed query: ‘do you think Obama’s 8 years had an affect on-’ (lines 01–02). Sara affirms this, asserting that the election was effectively a retaliation on the grounds of race, specifically orienting to anti-Blackness as the impetus as she states: ‘I think White people were sick of having Black people’ (lines 03–04). Faiza then orients to the possibility of Obama’s policies serving as a catalyst for the retaliation: ‘what policies do you think he-’ (line 05); however, her query is left incomplete as Sara interjects, refuting the notion that policy played a role, at which point she reorients to and unequivocally asserts race as the dominant factor (lines 06–08).

Faiza then attends to this reorientation to race and elicits further confirmation from Sara as she poses the question: ‘d’you think it was just cause it was a Black man in Office as president’ (lines 09–12), which Sara, indeed, affirms with tokens of agreement (line 11). As Faiza’s utterance progresses, it evolves into a hypothetical scenario narrating the retaliation, marked by a footing shift. Using hypothetical reported speech (HRS), Faiza essentially embodies retaliation voters and voices their initial (hypothetical) refusal: ‘people were like no’ (line 12). After a short pause (see line 12), both Faiza and Nazia overlap each other in adding to the HRS, with Faiza further detailing the refusal (‘we’re not having (this)’, line 13), and Nazia marking rebellion as a call for action (‘need to rebel against this’, line 14). At this point, the interaction takes a jocular turn; Faiza follows with further HRS to voice the desired alternative to having ‘a Black man in Office’: ‘instead let’s have an Orange’ (line 17). The functionality of this HRS is multifaceted; first, Faiza effectively juxtaposes the seriousness of a real racial identity subjected to discrimination and oppression (historically, systemically, and structurally) with a colour used for satirical purposes that mocks excessive and artificial tanning – orange. In fact, it seems that she uses ‘orange’ not only as a descriptor – it’s effectively used as a metonym for Trump as she highlights the preference for ‘an orange’ over ‘a Black man’. Indeed, such tactics of discrediting Trump with the placement of ridicule on his appearance was not uncommon within the media at the time of and following his election, from mocking his ‘orange glow’ (Wade 2019), his hair (Bruner 2018), to his hand size (Horton 2016). From this lens, then, Faiza’s employment of satire can thus be seen to be both mocking voter retaliation and invalidating Trump himself as a credible politician.

Second, the reference to Trump as ‘an orange’ effectively categorises him as an inanimate object, which Nazia then explicitly declares in her subsequent turn by referring to him as a ‘thing’ (line 19), and Faiza then repeats this with a token of agreement: ‘yeah thing’ (line 20). This categorisation works to further invalidate Trump as his ‘human-ness’ is now explicitly rejected. Not only does this advance the ridiculing of his very existence in a leadership capacity, one may argue it also dislodges and repurposes the functioning of dehumanisation – which racially minoritized communities are otherwise subjected to – to comically reduce his being-ness and perhaps political presence as a ‘man’ to a ‘thing’. As this elicits laughter from the group (see line 21), I refer to an internet ‘meme’ that had been heavily circulated at the time of his election: ‘have you seen that meme’ (line 22). Without any need for further inquiry or excavation of what I may have been referring to, Nazia recalls the meme: ‘Orange is the new Black’ (line 23), eliciting further laughter, and a proclamation from Maryam: ‘oh yeah that one is hilarious’ (line 25). The source of this meme is unknown, however it was created in reference to an American television series of the same name where Trump’s election was comedically likened to the title, repurposing it for political satire.

While this is not necessarily a joke or use of satire produced by the sisters themselves in situ, referring to the meme nonetheless discursively reinforces the previous invalidation of Trump, and his categorisation as ‘an orange’. More broadly, although this interaction does not specifically showcase a resistance towards Islamophobia or Islamophobic discourse directly, it caricaturises a politician that the SC is concerned about with respect to Islamophobia and racism, and with that the jocular categorisation of Trump as an in-/non-human object cumulatively serves to invalidate him as a politician. As such, there is, in effect, a resistance occurring at a micro-level of a right-wing political figure that the SC otherwise views as a threat to their safety, as well as the safety of Muslims and People of Colour (PoC) more broadly.

Essentially, this interaction showcases a process of sense-making, and how this then transforms into a site for micro-resistance; from trying to elucidate points of motivation that may have encouraged people to vote for Trump, micro-resistance unfolds through humour, which is carried out as a mode of subversion and ridicule to effectively turn ‘oppression upside down’ (Sorensen 2008, 175). The ‘oppression’ in question here is not specifically regarding an overtly and/or a physically violent incident per se, rather it refers to a symbolic oppression vis-à-vis the Islamophobic and racist oppression Trump symbolised through his rhetoric. Therefore, the SC collectively ‘rearticulate and disarticulate dominant ideology, knowledge, meaning, common sense, and power relationships’ (Rossing 2015, 617); in other words, the subversion of the hegemonic power of whiteness both representing a threat to racially minoritized communities and producing actions of anti-Blackness (i.e., retaliating against Obama) is achieved through ridiculing Trump, along with the choice of voting for an ‘orange thing’ as a retaliation against ‘having Black people’.

The following excerpt shifts gears slightly, as it focuses specifically on an encounter Maryam had at a stationery store in the UK.

Excerpt 2: ‘it’s the small things’

In the conversation that directly preceded this interaction, the SC collectively discussed how they had not experienced any overtly racist encounters prior to the vote for Brexit, and that a hostile environment may now ensue. Following this discussion, Maryam launches a narrative whereby she shares an incident she experienced at a stationery shop in the UK (WH Smith), perhaps to exemplify the type of hostility that may lie ahead.

In lines 01–15, Maryam shares a telling of how she had been refused access beyond the food section of a WH Smith store as she entered the store 10 min earlier than the opening of the main shopfloor. Maryam then proceeds to recount her request to access the main shop floor that had been cordoned off from the open food section, to which the ‘lady who’s like cleanin’ says ‘no’ (lines 13–15). The interactional mechanics at this specific juncture of Maryam’s telling, I argue, proceeds to position this encounter as a microaggression.

To develop this point, it is important to consider the micro-level elements at play that serve as mechanisms to implicitly construct this experience as a microaggression – the first one being the very fact that Maryam shares this telling following discussions on racism and a rising hostility in the socio-political environment. If one were to erase the contextual elements of this narrative, such as the space and time in which this telling is shared, there may have been scope to categorically deduce that this telling, in isolation, is simply describing a case of a customer being refused early entry to a store – and essentially representing a response to ‘breaching’ (Heritage 2001). However, the spatiotemporal locus of this telling, as well as the corroborative responses from the sisters that follow suggests that there is a shared knowledge of such encounters.

Returning to Maryam’s telling, she proceeds to add descriptive detail to build nuance to the refusal of entry into the main shopfloor, which (I argue) subsequently strengthens the framing of this encounter as a microaggression – specifically an Islamophobic microaggression. She first asserts that the cleaner appeared to be ‘terrified’ (lines 15 and 16), after which she invokes a stereotype (‘terrorist’) that is an otherwise common tool as part of the Islamophobia apparatus (Kundnani 2014): ‘like I’m some kinda terrorist with a bomb’ (lines 16 and 17). The very description of the cleaner’s response as being ‘terrified’ as opposed to annoyed or frustrated is interactionally consequential, as it invokes an element of fear in the cleaner’s response to Maryam and/or her query, as opposed to it being bothersome. With that, the choice to ironically self-categorise as a terrorist further marks Maryam’s position as being treated as suspect and fear worthy. With that, invoking this stereotype can serve to illustrate the disproportionately of the cleaner’s reaction, which subsequently elicits laughter from the group (see line 18).

Maryam then proceeds to further emphasise the degree of fear expressed by the cleaner as she reiterates the abruptness of the one-word refusal she received (line 19), which is punctuated with a micro-pause before uttering ‘no’. She further stresses her point by describing the cleaner’s timid body language: ‘she was like hiding in the corner’ (line 20). The consequent framing of the magnitude of the cleaner’s response as disproportionate and unnecessary is further established with the juxtaposition of Maryam’s own mundane-ness against the terrorist stereotype and the cleaner’s timidity. Her narration of her response to the cleaning lady’s fear seems non-descript, however this lack of detail – in comparison with her description of the cleaner’s fright and timidity – depicts her non-threateningness, and the everydayness of her existence in that space. She employs direct reported speech (DRS) to express the non-threateningness of her response where she ‘was like ok fine’ (line 20–21), ‘I’ll just come back in ten minutes’ (line 21–22) in which time, she would ‘walk around town’ (line 24). Effectively, this juxtaposition subsequently functions as a subversion of the distorted reality in which Muslims (or visibly Muslim persons) are treated as suspect, and every day micro-aggressions subsist (Bilici 2010).

The discursive outcome to the use of the terrorist stereotype as micro-resistance is thus two-fold: as already mentioned, it works to ridicule the cleaner’s response, in turn ridiculing the very process of othering foundational to (Islamophobic) microaggressions. Additionally, it works to diminish the power of the stereotype itself as its functionality is reduced to metaphorically marking the profiling of Muslims as threatening subjects as a far-fetched view of Muslimness, thereby highlighting the absurdity of the stereotype. That is, the degree to which Maryam evinces the fear embodied by the cleaner, and her response to Maryam as suspect and/or threatening, ridicules the very act of othering Muslims as Bilici (ibid: 207) denotes: ‘the power of comedy becomes a means of undoing otherness’. With that, Maryam’s illustration of her mundane-ness in response to the cleaner serves as a ‘rehumanisation’ through humour (ibid). Maryam effectively subverts both othering and the stereotype itself, as often seen in racial humour by comedians whereby ‘artists leverage an opponent’s power in order to neutralize or defeat the opponent. Rather than directly attacking (…) the dominant narratives or racial oppression, humour manipulates these forces against themselves’ (Rossing 2015, 624). In this instance, the treatment of Muslims as suspect could be classed as a discursive or symbolic ‘opponent’, and indeed, Islamophobic oppression is not explicitly or directly attacked – it is subverted through humour. Taking this approach of humourising the incident may in turn be tension reducing as researchers observing the effects of humour suggest that it may ameliorate the impact of hardships in life, given that it is seen to ‘shift situations from the negative to the positive’ (Hylton 2018, 330).

Given the multi-dimensionality of the effects of utilising this stereotype through humour, it creates the space for other members of the SC to share their own view on the ‘small things’ they experience – which subsequently cements the positioning of Maryam’s experience as a microaggression, and opens up the forum to discuss the broader experiences of everyday othering. As Rossing (2015) states in reference to comedians, ‘humour allows these artists to reclaim their agency, assert their voice, and affirm their experiential knowledge’ (p623), as it creates a space in which ‘unfiltered venting of cultural and political anger’ is deemed safe (Haggins 2007 quoted in Rossing 2015, 623). What unfolds after Maryam’s account of her experience then is an interjection from Sara and Nazia where they repeatedly assert that they too have experienced ‘small things’ and ‘little things’ (lines 30–51), to which Nazia adds some nuance to explain that she ‘can tell when people are givin me looks’ (lines 36–37), ‘I think maybe said the odd word’ (line 40), concluding with the position that she has not otherwise had any encounters with more explicit or direct forms of Islamophobia (line 41). Sara aligns with this view and proceeds to validate the experiencing of microaggressions as she shares her account on ‘small things like when you’re at the checkout’ (lines 44–45), and ‘the person’s smiling at everyone else’ (line 46), “’n you get there and they stop smiling” (lines 46–47), which Nazia once again corroborates as she agrees that she too has had ‘little things like that happen before’ (line 53).

Within this short exchange between Nazia and Sara, the phrase ‘small things’ occurs three times, and ‘little things’ occurs twice; in effect, there is observably a shared knowledge and understanding of such everyday occurrences of othering, and with that, Maryam’s experience is corroborated. It is subsequently used as a springboard to validate that they share a common ground in experiencing such ‘small things’. This is demonstrative of how Maryam’s use of micro-resistance via humour catalyses sense-making insofar as the members of the Sister’s Circle not only validate Maryam’s experience, they proceed to register the dynamics of their own existence as Muslim women where they too experience ‘little things’. This is not uncommon, as Sue et al (2007, 279) posit that in determining whether a microaggression has occurred, PoC ‘rely heavily on experiential reality that is contextual in nature and involves life experiences from a variety of situations.’ This further explains Nazia and Sara’s interjections as they treat the interaction as a collective exercise, where Sara then shares her view of experiencing microaggressions at checkouts.

As the interaction comes to close thereafter, the concluding remarks by Maryam in response to Sara’s account once again employ humour as a tool of subversion. In stating ‘less serotonin for you’ (line 56), with the clarifier ‘smiling’s good people’ (lines 56 and 59), she reconfigures who is at a loss in such a situation – it is not the one subjected to a microaggression, rather the one who is committing the act as they put themselves at a disadvantage through a deprivation of serotonin.

A similar form of subversion is evident in the next excerpt as Nazia describes a social experiment she internally engages in to see if people avoid sitting next to her on public transport. That is, Sara uses humour to reconfigure how such microaggressions ironically work in favour of Muslims.

Excerpt 3: ‘the only perk of Islamophobia’

Nazia begins with recounting a ‘mini social experiment’ (lines 05–06) she internally engaged in whilst on a bus journey, where she says she was ‘just tryna see if people would sit next to me or not’ (lines 06–07). She felt that people were, indeed, avoiding the seat next to her (lines 09–10), enunciating the degree of avoidance by stating that it was happening ‘a lot’ (line 12). As Nazia relays the outcome of her ‘mini social experiment’, Maryam interjects to validate of Nazia’s experience, however she then proceeds to mitigate the problematisation of such behaviour (line 13). Despite her mitigation, Maryam’s comments go unacknowledged, and instead this interaction takes on a jocular turn where Sara attends to the outcome of Nazia’s social experiment. First, it is pertinent to point out that Sara explicitly categorises this as Islamophobia (in line 18); with that, she reframes it as a ‘perk’ (lines 16 and 18), offering a practical benefit to the experience as she claims: ‘I’m like yes two seats’ (line 18). Maryam overlaps with Sara as she simultaneously concedes to the irony of this framing: ‘I guess that is actually a perk’ (line 19). Faiza then furthers the comedic trajectory and supplies a further practical benefit to the additional seat in line 21: ‘can put my bag there’.

The humourisation of such occurrences of Islamophobia, and its reframing as a ‘perk’ works to subvert a distorted reality that positions Muslims as ‘other’; that is, as opposed to adopting a position of a victim of Islamophobia, there is a repositioning here as beneficiaries of additional space on busy public transport. In doing so, it subverts the Islamophobia underpinning such avoidance behaviour, and works to ‘undo othering’ – which is common in Muslim humour as Bilici (2010, 207) notes:

(…) the power of comedy becomes a means of undoing otherness. The comic vision rehumanizes Muslims and allows comedians to engage in a symbolic reversal of the social order. Muslim ethnic comedy is the world of Islamophobia turned upside down.

In essence, we can see once again how the SC rearticulates an incidence of othering and reclaims agency through humour (Rossing 2015) that, in turn, can work to resist the ‘emotional injury’ (Evans and Moore 2015) of such a reality, which is marked by laughter in response to Sara’s comments (see lines 17 and 20) and Faiza’s (line 22).

Discussion and implications

This analysis empirically showcases the possibility of employing an EM/CA informed discourse analysis – or a synthesised micro-analysis rooted in a critical discursive interrogation of dialogical data – as a possible qualitative approach to analyse how Muslim women interactionally resist othering/otherness. To further explicate this, and to further illustrate how connections between the micro and macro can be made, I will now turn to consider the broader implications of what has arisen in these excerpts.

Considering the interactions analysed in this paper, humour is employed as a tool for subversion and, in turn, resistance at the micro-level. That is, there is evidence of a discursive ‘micro-resistance’ of othering vis-à-via experiences with Islamophobic microaggressions, problematic political figures (namely Trump), illustrating ‘a symbolic reversal of the social order’ (Bilici 2010, 207) at an interactional level. Indeed, studies examining marginalised subjects’ use of humour as a tool for resistance point to its emancipatory potential as it discursively works to ‘turn oppression upside down’ (Sorensen 2008, 175) and subvert the distorted reality Muslims find themselves in to reassert one’s ‘own sense of what is real’ (ibid: 205). Humour then becomes a ‘safety valve’ through which to filter life and can effectively serve as a coping mechanism (Weaver 2010). With respect to the othering the SC has faced, the focus of this paper is not to dissect the mechanics of oppressions that the SC may or may not be orienting to in talk; rather, it operates from a position of acceptance that Islamophobia, as defined earlier as a systemic issue with social-psychological and material consequences, does exist. The aim has thus been to interrogate how the SC responds to (and subvert) this reality through humour.

I view this as a form of ‘micro-resistance’ insofar as it showcases everyday resistance enacted at a micro-level that constitutes a discursive ‘undoing’ of otherness (i.e., Islamophobia). In other words, the resistance is interactionally performed within the confines of the SC and is not outwardly actioned in a way. Evans and Moore (2015) acknowledge the everyday-ness of micro-resistance, positing that resistance need not be outwardly visible to be recognised, and can instead serve ‘as a means of to resist and reject the emotional injury of white racism’ (ibid: p447), or othering more broadly:

…people of color in white institutional spaces negotiate their responses to racist institutional practices in such a way that creates avenues to resist racist objectification and degradation and emotionally protect themselves from the damaging consequences of racism.

(p441)

Similarly, El-Khoury (2012) also opposes outwardly, organised actions as sole determinants of ‘resistance’. She argues that Black people’s resistances to oppressions also constitutes ‘silent non-compliance, acts of empowerment (…) and autonomy that do not necessarily have to create a new order’ (p87). In fact, El-Khoury (ibid) positions rejection as an important facet to such forms of everyday resistances; for the participants in her study, it involved a rejection of imposed criminalisation (Davis 1998; Daley 2019). This essence of rejection is similarly reflected in the humour deployed by the SC as a method of subversion and, with that, refusal. This includes a refusal to accept Donald Trump as a respectable President of the United States, the positioning of Muslims as suspect, and victimhood.

Collins (1990) further offers some nuance as to how the everydayness of daily interaction, whether serious or through humour, allows for African American women to ‘affirm one another’s humanity, specialness and right to exist’ (p102), thereby grounding a shared recognition of who they are in the world, and provides the scope for refusal and self-definition. Byng (1998) similarly notes the importance of such spaces in the development and embodiment of resistance, in positing that safe spaces where marginalised and oppressed people can find their voice is a condition for cultivating and doing resistance as they ‘provide a place for self-definition’ (ibid: p482). Bhimji (2009) points to the function of such spaces as ‘counter publics’, where the public and private spheres are enmeshed, and minoritized groups can collectively put forward counter-discourses that permits ‘them to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests and needs’ (ibid). Wilkins‐Yel et al. (2022) similarly meditate on the benefits of ‘counterspaces’ for Women of Colour in STEM as a site for resistance (symbolic or overt), and a place to cope with, ‘counteract, mitigate and/or resist the psychological consequences of marginalisation and oppression’ (p4).

At this point, it is important to note that much of this commentary on ‘space’ is rooted in Black feminist thought and embodied knowledge, however the dynamics, framework, and the politics of existence and otherness for the SC are entirely different (as none of the SC members are members of a Black Muslim community, and this is a British context). Nonetheless, the space within the SC enabled similar functions insofar as the interactions considered within this paper showcase attempts at sense-making political happenings (namely Trump’s election) and shared knowledge of othering/Islamophobia – all of which they subvert through humour. This cumulatively serves to collaboratively deconstruct and reconstruct a discriminatory social order, or as Bilici (2010) puts it, inverts a distorted reality.

From an analytic standpoint, this paper has empirically showcased the potential for making linkages between the micro and macro through analysing talk. Through employing a synthesised lens in line with van Dijk’s position on the relationship between dialogical data and broader social context (van Dijk 1984), as a qualitative approach in Psychology, there is scope for a critical exploration of how (racially) minoritized groups collaboratively (re)produce and respond to a social order that positions them as ‘other’. The counter-discourses embedded within the interactions at hand showcase how minoritized people can engage in micro-resistance work to resist the emotional, or social-psychological injuries of othering (Evans and Moore 2015), to discursively disrupt and reverse (or invert) a social order that ‘others’, and to disavow victimhood. As such, I argue that synthesising a micro-analytic perspective of exploring moves in talk alongside a critical view of the oppression(s) minoritized communities experience and navigate has benefited the overall analysis of this paper. This has allowed for an analytic space whereby the linkages between the micro and macro can be critically embedded.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Hanain Brohi

Hanain Brohi is a Lecturer in Intercultural Communication at Manchester University. Her work focuses on discourses of Othering and its impact on racially minoritized communities in Britain, and experiences of vulnerable migrants in the UK.