Identity, sexualities, and religion

Introduction

This chapter engages with the concept of identity and how it has been varyingly applied by scholars of religion and sexuality. Giddens (1991) has been influential in theorising the implications for selfhood in a context of declining traditional significance. His reflexive projects of the seifare reliant on choice-based opportunities to enable individuals to construct their identity in a coherent manner. Negotiation is central to this, where individuals are no longer bound by traditional anchorages and ties, but instead follow out pure relationships where a sexual relationship is sustained only for as long as both parties remain satisfied. Despite the feminist critique of Giddens for overplaying the role of choice, especially the inequalities women in heterosexual relationships continue to face (e.g. Jamieson, 2002), this reflexive project of the self and the navigation of identity in a context of choice has been influential. The demise of tradition-bearing forms of religiosity, replaced with greater choices, as we noted in the last chapter, also create the potential for reflexive religious and sexual identities. Yet this is still undertaken in contexts of constraint and power imbalances. This chapter will begin by focusing on the notion of identity and how identity-work is achieved, followed by four ways we note that it has been deployed in religion and sexuality research. This comprises narrating identity, performing piety, stigma, and commodified identities. The chapter will then focus on three theoretical frames which recognise the significance of identity, including lived religion, intersectionality, and queer theory.

Identity

Identity has been a fundamental concept in the study of religious and sexual identities, but its importance has increased in recent years (Greil and Davidman, 2007).

Many studies profess to examine Jewish identities or Catholic identities or Muslim identities. Likewise, scholarship has focused on lesbian identities, trans identities, gay identities, and so forth. And more recently, studies have brought religious and sexual identities together and focused on the identities of lesbian Muslims or bisexual Christians or gay Jews (Schnoor, 2003; Shannahan, 2009; Toft, 2014). The concept of identity can be used unconsciously and unthinkingly; a project focused on, say, gay Muslim identities, may be deemed self-evident. Indeed, the notion of identity is frequently invoked outside of academia too, especially the idea that everyone has a “real” identity to be unearthed (Lawler, 2008). But theoretical claims are being made by utilising the term of identity; not all branches of social thought are positive towards its usage (e.g. Braidotti, 2011). It is therefore helpful to return to sociological perspectives on identity and the diversity in evidence in how sociologists conceptualise identity.

Identity-work and the achieving of an identity

There are both sociological and common-sense understandings of identity. One populist idea is that everyone has a core identity that remains unchanged and embedded deep within the individual - a real “self” that can be revealed once the outer layers are removed. However, this idea is challenged within sociological thinking (Lawler, 2008). Sociological perspectives tend to emphasise the way in which identity is socially constructed, thereby critiquing the idea of a core self. Sociologists examine the work individuals undertake in cultivating and achieving their identity; in other words, sociologists explore exactly how identity-work is undertaken.

Of sociological interest is also how one’s identity connects with, or disconnects from, various groups we become associated with as a result of our identity (e.g. if I identify as a Liberal Jew this gives me a connection to other Liberal Jews). This is very pertinent in studies of religion and sexuality as one may find inclusion on the basis of one element of one’s identity but exclusion on the part of another. For example, a gay Christian attending a conservative church may need to conceal their sexual orientation within their church but conceal their Christian identity in their workplace (Yip and Page, 2013). The identity tensions that are perceived to underpin queer and religious individuals’ experiences are often the very reasons why these identities become the focus of scholarly attention and broader public interest in the first place. As Gray and Thumma argue in relation to the US context, ‘it seems that the nation’s press and the public’s attention are captivated by accounts of conflict between religious entities and gay men, lesbians, bisexual, and transgender individuals’ (2005a, p. xi), and there is less focus on cases where there is compatibility between religious and sexual identities. Indeed, in order for tensions between identities to emerge, this needs to be created - the tension is not inherently there but is instead made to appear natural, through emphasising small differences between groups and magnifying them (Lawler, 2008). In this way, being a heterosexual Christian is naturalised so that to be anything other than heterosexual is deemed unnatural or at least non-normative in many Christian contexts.

There are various sociological understandings of identity; here we focus on four that have been pertinent to the study of religion and sexuality - narrative accounts of identity-work, identity as a performance with a particular focus on performing piety, identity as a stigma, and commercialised forms of sexual identities.