THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN SOCIO-CULTURAL STRUCTURES AND TWO MUSLIM STUDENTS’ TEXT-COMPOSING AGENCIES: A CRITICAL REALIST ANALYSIS By Lance Aaron Wheatley A DISSERTATION Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education–Doctor of Philosophy Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of 2020 THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN SOCIO-CULTURAL STRUCTURES AND TWO MUSLIM STUDENTS’ TEXT-COMPOSING AGENCIES: A CRITICAL REALIST ANALYSIS ABSTRACT By Lance Aaron Wheatley This dissertation is an exploration of how critical realism can help educational researchers think about the relationships between socio-cultural structures and the text-composing agency of youth in classrooms. By demonstrating how critical realism helps English educators understand the relationship between socio-cultural structures and two Muslim students' text--composing agencies, this work offers important theoretical, methodological and pedagogical implications. Theoretically, Archer’s (1995) critical realist Morphogenetic theory can help scholars make sense of the interplay between structure and agency. Methodologically, Fairclough’s (2003) critical realist Critical Discourse Analysis allows researchers to examine the interplay between socio-cultural structures and individuals’ text-composing agency. What is unique to this work is that I put Archer’s theory in conversation with Fairclough’s methodology to create a general theoretical-methodological apparatus that can be used by researchers interested in questions of the ways socio-cultural structures affect text-composing agency and vice versa. Pedagogically, I show how an application of this theoretical-methodological approach illumines the interplay of Islamophobic socio-cultural structures and two Muslim students’ text-composing agencies. One of the most important findings of this work is that if critical literacy scholars want students’ texts to be a determining factor in positive social change, then students’ texts need to be combined with the political influence of Corporate Agents (e.g. activist groups that have clear organization and a clear agenda). Copyright by LANCE AARON WHEATLEY 2020 This dissertation is dedicated to my loving wife, kindred spirit, and partner in life, Rebecca. Adventure is out there! iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation is a result of the love, labor, and friendship of many individuals. First, I am grateful to Bassim and Fatima who shared their poetry and their experiences with me. I hope that I have done justice to the ways you encounter and resist discriminatory forces in hopes for a brighter future for yourselves and other Muslim young people. Thank you to Dr. Shireen Al-Adeimi for her help in coaching me through the bewildering ways Islamophobia can affect Muslim women, particularly women who wear the hijab. Thank you to Dr. Vivek Villanki who in the early stages of this work pointed me to where my “gaze” should be directed. Thank you to Dr. Mandie Dunn, Sam Evalt, Dr. Marcos Gonzales, Dr. Scott Jarvie, Dr. Ashley Johnson, Alba Lamar, Andrew Masarik, Peter Nelson, Dr. Rae Oviatt, Dr. Cierra Presberry, and so many others for your conversation, words of wisdom, feedback, encouragement, and critical friendship. Of course, thank you to my dissertation committee: Dr. Mohammad Hassan Khalil, Dr. Mary Juzwik, Dr. Kyle Greenwalt, and Dr. Jen VanDerHeide. Without your support, this work would not have been realized. Thank you for the hours you spent in conversation with me and in review of this work. I am truly blessed to have had an all-star lineup for my committee. Thank you to my family for your unwavering support. To my sister, Leah Jones, and my brother-out-law, Jason Jones, and my nephew, Henry Jones, I’d like to say, “Teamwork makes the dream work!” To my parents, Tony and Cindy Wheatley, thanks for teaching me that when I start something, I need to finish it. To my children, Wren and Lincoln, thank you for making this experience so wonderful! I hope that when you look back on these “Ph.D. years” there will be many, many fond memories! To my lovely wife, Rebecca, I could not have asked for a better friend to walk beside me through this experience. You are a rock, and I could not have done this without you. And, finally, last but v not least, I thank Jesus Christ whose grace, mercy, and love are sweeter to me today than when I started this journey five years ago. I lay this dissertation and this Ph.D. at Your feet. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study Critical Literacy and Youth Writing Increasing Students’ Text-composing Agency Through Choice Writing to Develop and Reflect Students’ Critical Consciousness Writing to Raise Awareness and/or to Make a Change Addressing a Gap in the Literature What is Critical Realism? Ontological Realism Epistemic Relativism Judgmental Rationality Cautious Ethical Naturalism Organization of the Dissertation Part 1: A Critical Realist Theoretical Framework: Archer’s Morphogenetic Theory Chapter 2: The Components of Archer’s Morphogenetic Social Theory: Social Structures, Cultural Structures, and Agents Structure of This Chapter Why This Approach? Three Prior and Competing Sociological Theories Holism Individualism Dialecticalism Archer’s Theory of Morphogenesis/Morphostasis Critical Realism, Stratified Reality, and Emergence Critical Realism Stratified Reality Emergence Social Structure Culture Agency Persons, Agents, and Actors Persons xiii xiv 1 3 4 5 7 10 11 14 14 15 15 16 20 21 22 22 24 24 25 25 26 26 26 27 28 31 32 33 34 34 vii Agents Corporate and Primary Agents Actors Students’ Text-Composing Agency Chapter 3: Analytic Dualism and Social Morphogenesis Structure of This Chapter Analytic Dualism and Social Morphogenesis/Morphostasis Analytic Dualism Social Morphogenesis/Morphostasis Socio-cultural Emergent Properties and Their Role in Morphogenesis/Morphostasis Structural Emergent Properties Cultural Emergent Properties Structural/Cultural Emergent Properties and the Initial Conditioning of Agents Initial Conditions Involuntaristic Placement Vested Interests Opportunity Costs Degrees of Interpretive Freedom Directional Guidance Archer’s Four Types of Socio-cultural Configurations and Their Situational Logics Four Socio-structural Configurations and Their Situational Logics Necessary Complementarities and the Logic of Protection Necessary Incompatibilities and the Logic of Compromise Contingent Incompatibilities and the Logic of Elimination Contingent Compatibilities and the Logic of Opportunism Four Cultural-structural Configurations and Their Situational Logics Necessary Incompatibilities with a Logic of Compromise Necessary Complementarities with a Logic of Protection Contingent Incompatibilities with a Logic of Elimination Contingent Compatibilities with a Logic of Opportunism Morphogenesis of Agents Part 2: Critical Realist Methodology: Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis Chapter 4: Fairclough’s Method of Critical Discourse Analysis Structure of This Chapter Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis 35 36 36 39 41 42 42 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 49 49 50 51 52 53 55 55 56 56 57 58 59 61 62 63 64 68 69 70 70 viii 70 Why This Approach? 71 What is Critical Discourse Analysis? 72 Linking Critical Realism, Reasons, and Critical Discourse Analysis 72 Ontologically Real Even When Not Observed or Activated 74 Causal Powers and the Production of Change 74 Text-composing Agency: Reasons, Causation, and Change 75 Social Reality: Socio-cultural Structures, Social Practices, and Social Events 76 Social Structures 76 Social Practices 77 Discourse and Social Practices 78 Discourse as a Social Activity (Genre) 79 Discourse as Representation (‘Discourses’) 79 Discourse as Being (Style) 80 Social Events 81 Critical Discourse Analysis and Islamophobic and Anti-Islamophobic Ideologies 82 Critical Discourse Analysis and Representation: Limits and Affordances 82 Limits of Critical Discourse Analysis 83 Affordances of Critical Discourse Analysis 85 Operationalizing Critical Discourse Analysis 85 Intertextuality Clauses 88 Representation of Agents/Social Actors Through Agentive Representation Variables 88 89 Merging the Theories of Archer, Beydoun, and Fairclough Theory and Methodology Combined 91 Part 3: Applying the Theoretical-Methodological Apparatus: A Critical Realist Analysis of Socio-cultural Structures and Two Muslim Students’ Text-composing Agencies Chapter 5: A Critical Realist Analysis of the Interplay Between Socio-cultural Structures and Two Muslim Students’ Text-composing Agencies Structure of This Chapter Contextualizing the Study Islamophobia Beydoun’s Theory of Islamophobia Islamophobia and the White House Islamophobia in the Media Islamophobia in U.S. Schools Statement of Purpose and Research Questions 96 97 97 102 102 103 106 107 109 94 ix 110 113 116 117 117 118 122 124 Researcher’s Positionality Definition of Key Terms Chapter 6: Meeting Bassi and Fatima Tayah Structure of This Chapter Bassim Abbas A Snapshot: Racism at an Anti-Racist Conference Fatima Tayah Decision to Wear the Hijab 127 Chapter 7: Data Collection and Analysis 128 Structure of This Chapter 128 Meeting Bassim and Fatima 129 Data Collection 131 Data Analysis 132 Phase One: Initial Coding for Discrimination and Responses to Discrimination Deductive Coding: Islamophobic Socio-cultural Structures 132 Inductive Coding: Listening to Two Muslim Students’ Text-composing Agencies 136 Phase Two: Creating an Intertextual Chart 140 Phase Three: Linguistic Analysis Using Critical Discourse Analysis 144 Chapter 8: Inductive Findings: Two Muslim Students’ Text-Composing Agency in Response to 146 Socio-cultural Structures 147 Structure of This Chapter 148 Identifying Patriarchal White Supremacist Discrimination Identifying the Results of Patriarchal White Supremacist Discrimination 149 Critiquing Private Islamophobia and Discrimination of Non-Muslims by the Media 151 Writing in Response to Discrimination 152 153 Critiquing the Minimization of the Value of Muslim and Non-White Life 155 Respecting Differences of Others Expressing Hope 156 Inviting Dialogue 157 Chapter 9: Deductive Findings: Islamophobic Socio-cultural Structures and the Text-Composing Agency of Bassim Abbas, “a Muslim Poet” 159 161 Structure of This Chapter 161 The Interplay Between Bassim’s Text-Composing Agency and Islamophobia A Critical Discourse Analysis of Cultural Private Individual Islamophobia 162 170 A Critical Discourse Analysis of Structural Islamophobia x Bassim’s Text-Composing Agency and Social Morphogenesis or Social Morphostasis? 177 177 Bassim as Person->Primary Agent->Social Actor 179 Analytic Dualism and Socio-cultural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis Phase one: The structural conditioning phase 180 181 Phase two: The socio-cultural Interaction phase Phase Three: Socio-cultural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis 182 Chapter 10: Deductive Findings: Islamophobic Socio-cultural Structures and the Text-composing 185 Agency of Fatima Tayah, “ . . . a Muslim woman who wears a hijab” Structure of This Chapter 187 188 The Interplay Between Fatima’s Text-Composing Agency and Islamophobia 193 President Trump’s Islamophobia influencing Private Individual Islamophobia Fatima as Person->Primary Agent->Social Actor 200 202 Analytic Dualism and Socio-cultural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis 203 Phase One: The Structural Conditioning Phase Phase Two: The Socio-cultural Interaction Phase 204 Phase Three: Socio-cultural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis 205 207 Chapter 11: Discussion and Implications 208 Structure of This Chapter 208 Development of a Theoretical-Methodological Apparatus 211 Islamophobic Rhetoric and the Unwanted Other 211 Continual Hyperawareness of Being Muslim 212 Fear of Islamophobic Treatment 213 English Classrooms as Spaces of Support for Muslim Students Importance of Choice in Structure and Content of Writing Assignments 213 English Classrooms Allow Muslim Students to Leverage Their Religious Literacies 214 English Classrooms Can Be Spaces to Support Critical Consciousness 214 Students’ Texts Need to be Combined with the Political Power of Corporate Agents 215 The Effect of Bassim’s Text-Composing Agency on the TSA: A Thought Experiment 217 APPENDICES Appendix A: Sample Semi-Structured Interview Protocol Appendix B: Sample Field Notes Appendix C: Sample Coded Essay Appendix D: Sample Coded Poem Appendix E: Table 4: Agential Coding Chart Appendix F: Table 5: Sample of Coded Intertextual Chart 221 222 223 224 228 230 235 xi REFERENCES 237 xii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Examples from the Agential Coding Chart Table 2: A Row from Bassim’s Intertextual Chart Table 3: An Example from the Intertextual Chart of Cultural Islamophobia Table 4: Agential Coding Chart Table 5: Sample of Coded Intertextual Chart 139 143 163 230 235 xiii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The Basic Morphogenetic/Morphostatic Cycle with Its Three Phases 45 Figure 2: Structural Conditioning of Strategic Action and Processes of Directional Guidance 54 xiv Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study 1 What can attending to students’ texts tell educators and educational researchers about the ways various socio-cultural structures affect these students? Relatedly, how might students’ texts affect socio-cultural structures? Critical literacy scholarship explores these important questions and has made advances in understanding the dynamic relationship between socio-cultural structures and students’ text-composing agencies. Specifically, and as will be addressed in greater detail shortly, many critical literacy scholars have argued for the importance of increasing student agency by expanding students’ choice in writing assignments (Behizadeh, 2014a; Borsheim & Petrone, 2006; Everett, 2018; Haddix, 2018), by using writing to develop students’ critical consciousness (Bishop, 2014; Everett, 2018; Muhammad, 2012; Muhammad, 2015), and by encouraging students to use their writing and text-composing to bring about social change (Bishop, 2014; Haddix, 2018; Haddix, Everson & Hodge, 2015). However, in my opinion, much of the critical literacy scholarship has not framed its inquiry within a robust and explicit meta-theoretical position that also has a corresponding and coherent theoretical-methodological apparatus. One important consequence of this is an undertheorization about the ways students’ texts can positively change socio-cultural structures and contribute to “ . . . an emancipated worldview and . . . transformational social action” (Morrell, 2002, p. 73). Alternatively, this research takes up critical realism (Archer, 1995; Bhaskar, 2008; Collier, 1994) as its meta-theoretical starting point, which holds that socio-cultural structures are ontological realities that affect and are affected by individuals. Further, I have developed a critical realist theoretical-methodological apparatus that is informed by Archer’s (1995) Morphogenetic theory of social change and couples it with Fairclough’s (2003) Critical 2 Discourse Analysis methodology to examine students’ texts to understand what these texts reveal about the reality of socio-cultural structures that affect students and how students’ texts might affect socio-cultural structures. By bringing to bear Archer’s theory about the dynamic interplay between socio-cultural structures and students’ text-composing agencies, researchers can better understand the ways socio-cultural structures exist independently from, operate upon, and change in response to engagement with students and the texts students compose. Specifically, Archer’s theory advances the understanding of how students’ texts might be used to achieve positive social change when they are combined with the work of “Corporate Agents” (e.g. groups of people who are organized, have a clearly articulated agenda, and consequent political power). In addition to developing this theoretical-methodological apparatus, this research applies the apparatus to understanding more about the ways two young Muslim students, Bassim Abbas and Fatima Tayah, experience various soci-cultures (e.g. Islamophobia, White Supremacy, etc.), how they create texts in their English classrooms in response to those structures, and how their texts might affect those socio-cultural structures. However, because this research builds upon foundational work in critical literacy, I want to begin with some of the important contributions this field has offered regarding the dynamic interplay between socio-cultural structures and students’ text-composing agency. Critical Literacy and Youth Writing There are three important contributions I have identified from this body of work that seeks to understand how students’ texts reflect their understanding of the ways socio-cultural structures affect them, as well as how they might use their texts to change socio-cultural structures toward emancipatory ends. 3 Increasing Students’ Text-composing Agency Through Choice Much scholarship in this field highlights the importance of students having the choice to write about topics that are important and relevant to their own lives (Behizadeh, 2014a; Borsheim & Petrone, 2006; Everett, 2018; Haddix, 2018). Often, this injunction was presented in contrast with standardized, high-stakes writing that can predominate the educational landscape (Behizadeh, 2014b; Haddix, 2009; Haddix, 2018). In contrast to writing for standardized tests that often circumscribe students’ text-composing agency by prescribing writing topics and assuming formulaic writing responses, Behizadeh (2014b) advocates for “authentic writing” that centers the “ student’s judgment of the connection between a writing task and his/her life” (p. 290). She continues, “ . . . authenticity depends on the values and life experiences students bring to the writing task, not the inherent value of the task itself.” (p. 292). Allowing students the latitude to write about things that are important and meaningful to them grounds the writing task internally, in the lived-experience of the student, rather than the potentially constraining, external writing tasks that can manifest in high-stakes test preparation. Borsheim and Petrone (2006) echo Behizadeh’s sentiments and suggest that English classrooms and research essays could be spaces where students develop a topic of significance to their school or community that they want to learn more about and change. Everett’s commentary on “consequential writing” also speaks to the importance of giving students the choice to engage in writing that is “developed by, for, and with communities . . .” (p. 37). She studied the essay “Incarcerated Students”, the work of Shawn, a young Black man, which spoke to the disturbing similarities he observed between his school and prisons. Everett writes that in his essay, Shawn, “ 4 . . . critiqued systems of education that negatively profile and mistreat students because of complex intersections of race, gender, neighborhood origin, and presupposed life trajectories” (p. 35). Haddix’s (2018) work explores the types of texts students create through an after-school writing group called “Writing Our Lives”. She comments, “Through Writing Our Lives, we aim to offer opportunities for students to write about their experiences, to tell their stories, and to participate in the global conversation” (p. 10). This space pushes back on increasing pressures requiring standardized, formulaic writing. She believes not all writing should be geared to help students become better test-takers.Taking on "writerly identities" and being "'seen' as writers" is an end in itself (Haddix, 2018, p. 10). By giving students opportunities to write about topics that are important to them, teachers can help students develop not only their writing abilities, but also their abilities to understand themselves and the world around them. This understanding of the self and the world is what the concept of critical consciousness is about. Writing to Develop and Reflect Students’ Critical Consciousness This scholarship also advocates for the importance of youth writing to both develop and reflect their critical consciousness. Freire (1990; 1996) speaks of critical consciousness as a person’s developing awareness of oppressive social, political, and economic contradictions that submerge oppressed people. Raising one’s critical awareness then helps the oppressed make sense of their circumstances and find ways to resist oppression. Critical literacy scholars see youth writing as a space where youth can develop and communicate their critical consciousness. Bishop (2014) asserts that critical literacy approaches are vehicles for the development of critical consciousness: 5 [Critical Literacy] is also grounded in the ethical imperative to examine the contradictions in society between the meaning of freedom, the demands of social justice, the obligations of citizenship and the structured silence that permeates incidences of suffering in everyday life. It is a kind of literacy about structures, structural violence, and power systems. Critical literacy uses texts and print skills in ways that enable students to examine the politics of daily life within contemporary society with a view to understanding what it means to locate and actively seek out contradictions within modes of life, theories, and substantive intellectual positions. (p. 52) In Everett’s (2018) study, she offers that the opportunity that Shawn had to write “Incarcerated Students” allowed him to engage in reflective work that developed his critical awareness. She writes, “Overall, Shawn’s literacy experience facilitated his divergent thinking and positioned him to juxtapose deep critical, creative, and cognitive literacy work” (p. 51). His work spoke to the deep-seated contradictions of freedom and equality that this country often presents to young, Black men. His writing was a way to explore these contradictions and then articulate them to the world. Similarly, Muhammad’s work with African American Muslim girls used “poetic broadsides” to write about “war and violence” and “abuse, violence, and the mistreatment of women and girls” (pp. 311-312). Muhammad finds that “educative spaces” can be “conduits for youth to understand, negotiate, makes sense of, and empathize with the experiences of others in society” (p. 312). This work reinforces the need for students to be afforded opportunities to think about their worlds, problems with the world, and students’ “desires to improve this world” (p. 6 312). This study endeavors to show how students writing might be a vehicle whereby socio-cultural structures might be improved for the better. Haddix (2018) notes that the students who participate in the “Writing Our Lives” project also use those writing opportunities to develop their critical awareness. Of the youth, she writes, “Their writing is often directed and driven by the everyday experiences in and with their local and global communities. Writing is one way that students can give voice to their experiences and think critically about how their personal perspectives are part of a broader dialogue” (p. 10). But what are the ways youth can take part in “a broader dialogue”? Critical literacy scholars argue that writing can allow youth the opportunity to not only make sense of their place in the world but also to formulate ideas and actions that can change the world for the better. It is to this final theme that I turn. Writing to Raise Awareness and/or to Make a Change Finally, many of the critical literacy scholars emphasize that students’ texts can be created to have an impact, to make a change, and/or to be received by an audience (Behizadeh, 2014a; Behizadeh, 2019; Bishop, 2014; Borsheim & Petrone, 2006; Everett, 2018; Haddix, 2018; Haddix, Everson & Hodge, 2015). Morrell (2002) writes, “ The critically literate can understand the socially constructed meaning embedded in texts as well as the political and economic contexts in which texts are embedded. Ultimately, critical literacy can lead to an emancipated worldview and even transformational social action” (p. 73). These notions of emancipation and social action are important elements of critical literacy scholarship. That is, an important goal in critical literacy is to move beyond the audience of the teacher or even one’s classmates. Youth 7 are encouraged to share their writing with a broader audience in the hopes that positive social transformation will occur. In Behizadeh’s (2014b) study, Xavier, a young Black man wrote a piece comparing his teen generation of youth with current pre-teen generations and desired to share his reflections with others. One critique Xavier had of pre-teen youth was their disrespect toward women (p. 293), and yet one of the goals of his writing was to reach the young people and show them there was a better way. He shares that he wants his writing to reach beyond his classroom, “ . . . to go above and beyond the room and just touch people, like touch people’s hearts so they can know like that it’s not okay to do what they’re doing” (p. 294). Xavier wants his words to have a meaningful impact on a younger generation. Behizadeh suggests that publishing student work like this on the Internet may help students reach larger audiences and perhaps change lives (p. 295). Elsewhere, Behizadeh (2014a) finds that many students want to use their writing to change others’ opinions, as well as the world. This desire to write for an impact increased authenticity in students’ writing (pp. 35-36). Everett (2018) shares about one of the ways Shawn wants to make a positive impact is by becoming a teacher. He shared in his essay: My experiences with education make me want to become a teacher. I could use my education to influence the people around me. I would purposely work in an urban school in an urban community. I want to show students it is possible to succeed no matter where you come from. . . . I want to show them sports aren’t the only way. (p. 49). 8 In this essay, Shawn uses his writing to envision his future self having a positive impact and educating students in an urban environment. As a teacher, he wants to encourage students to fight against the odds that are stacked against them so that they can “succeed”. Haddix (2018) holds that “. . . radical youth literacies [are] ways of knowing, doing, writing, and speaking by youth who are ready to change the world” (p. 9). One example that Haddix offers is that of Josanique, a young Black woman who was dissatisfied about inequity at her high school. In response Josanique used digital tools to voice concerns about police brutality and its connections to violence and racial inequity and this resulted in “ . . . moving a school reform agenda forward” (p. 10). A number of scholars have spoken about various ways they might write for an authentic audience and thus increase the opportunity to change others and the world. Behizadeh (2019) writes about “Presentation Menu Options” that gave students the chance to share their work in various formats with their class, a group of friends, family, or they could post their work via “social media, personal blog, or other internet site” (p. 416). Similarly, Borsheim and Petrone (2006) advocate for the production of an authentic documentary, newspaper article, presentation, brochure, etc., which is inspired by the findings from their research article. Subsequently, they encourage students to distribute the text to real audiences to help raise awareness or change some aspect of their school or community (p. 79). Some of the possibilities they suggest are, letters to the editor of local newspapers, articles for the school and local newspaper, PowerPoints for school and community, documentary for Channel One, letters to organizations like MTV and Channel One, brochures for health or counseling offices (p. 81). 9 Addressing a Gap in the Literature I find one important gap in this scholarship: although there are many calls to use students’ texts to change socio-cultural structures, there is very little, if any, implementation of a social theoretical frame that delineates how socio-cultural structures engage with, change, and are changed by agents. One consequence, perhaps, of this undertheorization is that the connection between the texts students create and the effects they have on socio-cultural structures remains unclear. If one conceives of socio-cultural structures as entities like legislation, government organizations, racism, Islamophobia, etc., does the critical literacy scholarship go far enough when it encourages students to create texts for authentic audiences like their classrooms, school boards, local newspapers, MTV, etc.? This is not to say that students shouldn’t create texts for these audiences, but if the goal is “. . . an emancipated worldview and even transformational social action” (Morrell, 2002, p. 73), then a robust social theory like Archer’s (1995) is needed to assist in offering a general view of the ways socio-cultural structures are real, ontological entities that have causal effects. Additionally, Archer’s theory in conversation with Fairclough's (2003) methodology provides a much-needed framework for understanding how these socio-cultural structures are organized politically and how they might be changed politically if they are harmful and/or supported politically if they are beneficial. One important insight of Archer’s theory to be explored, is her insistence that only Corporate Agents, those groups that are well-organized and that have a clearly articulated agenda, can achieve lasting social transformation. Therefore, one important implication of this work will be to explore how students’ texts might join forces with Corporate Agents to achieve positive social transformation. 10 This dissertation, then, is an exploration of how critical realism can help educational researchers think about the relationships between socio-cultural structures and the text-composing agency of youth in classrooms. By demonstrating how critical realism helps English educators understand the relationship between socio-cultural structures and two Muslim students' text--composing agencies, the dissertation offers important theoretical, methodological and pedagogical implications. Theoretically, Archer’s (1995) critical realist Morphogenetic theory can help scholars make sense of the interplay between structure and agency. Methodologically, Fairclough’s (2003) critical realist Critical Discourse Analysis allows researchers to examine the interplay between socio-cultural structures and individuals’ text-composing agency. What is unique to this work is that I put Archer’s theory in conversation with Fairclough’s methodology to create a general theoretical-methodological apparatus that can be used by researchers interested in questions of the ways socio-cultural structures affect text-composing agency and vice versa. Pedagogically, I show how an application of this theoretical-methodological approach illumines the interplay of Islamophobic socio-cultural structures and two Muslim students’ text-composing agencies. One of the most important findings of this work is that if critical literacy scholars want students’ texts to be a determining factor in positive social change, then students’ texts need to be combined with the political influence of Corporate Agents (e.g. activist groups that have clear organization and a clear agenda). What is Critical Realism? Because critical realism is the overarching framework that weaves its way through theory, methodology, findings, and discussion, I want to begin with a sketch of some of the 11 philosophical commitments that this meta-theory holds. Critical realism orients itself between scientistic varieties of positivism with their quest for “law-like forms” and strong interpretivist and radical social constructivist views of the “postmodern turn” which deny explanation and causation in favor of description and hermeneutics (Archer, Decoteau, Gorski, Little, Porpora, Rutzou, Smith, Steinmetz, & Vandenberghe, 2016). Gorski (2013) elaborates: Realism is making a major comeback in philosophy and sociology these days. Everywhere, one hears realist phrases like ‘‘causal mechanisms’’ and ‘‘social ontology.’’ Why? The shortcomings of positivism and empiricism are old news by now. Strong forms of interpretivism and constructivism seem equally problematic. Realism seems like the only way forward if one wishes to call off the search for ‘‘general laws’’ without simply abandoning the goal of causal explanation. (p. 659) As Gorski posits, critical realism seeks to understand and offer explanations regarding causation in the natural and social worlds. It offers a framework for explaining why things are the way they are. For this study, the leveraging of Archer’s (1995) Morphogenetic theory and Fairclough’s (2003) Critical Discourse Analysis methodology reveals how various socio-cultural structures (e.g. Islamophobia, White Supremacy, etc.) affect and are affected by two Muslim students’ text-composing agency. Although there is not complete agreement about what critical realism is even among critical realists, there are some widely agreed upon “family resemblances”. One such commonly acknowledged attribute of critical realism is that it is a “meta-theoretical position: a reflexive philosophical stance concerned with providing a philosophically informed account of science and social science which can in turn inform our empirical investigations” (Archer, et al., 2016). 12 Critical realism is a meta-theoretical position in that it provides some fundamental assumptions for developing theories which can explain the way the world is. It is reflexive in the sense that it continuously calls the theorist to carefully examine the logical relationship between the claims they make about the way the world is and all the available evidence to support those claims. It prioritizes only those claims which have the greatest explanatory power. Archer, et al. (2016) offer a three-layered heuristic which helps explain critical realism’s relationship between the empirical world and theoretical constructs we use to explain the empirical world: Layer One: The empirical world, i.e., nuclear explosions or institutional Islamophobia Layer Two: The theories we use to explain the empirical world, i.e., theories of fission or fusion or Islamophobia (Beydoun, 2018) Layer Three: The meta-theories or theories/philosophies behind our theories, i.e., empiricism or critical realism As indicated, critical realism becomes a meta-theory that informs the process that generates the medium level theories that supply explanations for what occurs in the world. In generating medium level theories, critical realism seeks to develop a “normative agenda” (Archer, et al., 2016) for natural science and social science through four philosophical commitments; each will be elaborated in turn: 1. Ontological realism 2. Epistemic relativism 3. Judgmental rationality 4. Cautious ethical naturalism 13 Ontological Realism Essentially, a crucial distinction between critical realism and other views of knowledge like empiricism or radical social constructivism is that critical realism posits an external reality “that exists and operates independently of our awareness or knowledge of it. Reality does not wholly answer to empirical surveying [positivism] or hermeneutical examination [interpretivism]” (Archer, et al., 2016). Simply, there are some aspects of reality that are not constructed socially nor, can they be accounted for or articulated through empirical investigation or socio/linguistic constructions. Critical realism suggests the ways we can know more about these “hidden” aspects of reality is to look at their effects. By attending to the effects, we can develop a chain of causal analysis in which the causal agent can be “reconstructed through retroductive or abductive inference [or] arguments which move from a social phenomena to a theory which is able to account for that phenomena” (Archer, et al., 2016). Epistemic Relativism Although critical realism affirms an ontological social reality, it acknowledges that, “...our knowledge about that reality is always historically, socially, and culturally situated” and because of this “all of our representations and our particular perspectives, have limitations” (Archer, et al., 2016). Nevertheless, it is important to note that critical realists do not advocate a thoroughgoing skepticism of our ability to know reality; they point out that just because our knowledge is limited in these ways, it does not follow that we can know nothing about reality. In some sense, they posit a weaker form of epistemic relativism than radical social constructivist views. This is a crucial distinction between radical social constructivists who say all knowledge is socially constructed and has no correspondence with the way the world really is. Critical 14 realists argue that even though we might not be able to comprehend reality in its totality, we can discover and apprehend at least some aspects of it, and consequently make some claims about actual states of affairs. In fact, critical realists suggest that one way of mitigating our perspectival knowledge is that we employ “methodological pluralism” (Archer, et al., 2016). Critical realism allows for, even necessitates, looking at phenomena from a number of angles and contexts. This gives the researcher more information to use so that she can build a coherent and factually grounded account of causes and effects. Judgmental Rationality Critical realists who hold a realist view of ontology and a (weak) relativist view of epistemology, “accordingly assert that there are criteria for judging which accounts about the world are better or worse” (Archer, et al., 2016). The critical realist seeks to take her object of investigation and provide a relatively stable descriptive or explanatory account of it (Archer, et al., 2016). Generally, those accounts that provide the greatest explanatory power are bestowed greater authority. Cautious Ethical Naturalism Critical realism’s commitment to reality also suggests the possibility of a “normative dimension to our knowledge” (Archer, et al., 2016). Critical realists offer that just as facts are “value-laden”, similarly, values are “fact-laden” and can be gleaned from certain ontological accounts of the social world; this entails that values “of the good” or “human...flourish[ing]” might also be empirically investigated (Archer, et al., 2016). Thus, critical realism leaves the door open for the possibility that moral facts like justice exist, can be discovered, and have 15 implications for our lives. That is, they are more than social constructs which are mere opinions that we create for ourselves but have no real authority regarding others. With these critical realist underpinnings in place, this dissertation seeks to use a critical realist social theory along with a critical realist methodology to understand the ways socio-cultural structures interplay with two Muslim students’ text-composing agency. Accordingly, this dissertation is organized into three parts. Organization of the Dissertation Because this dissertation seeks to address a gap in theoretical and methodological approaches within critical literacy scholarship, it is is organized into three parts: Part 1 is theoretical, Part 2 is methodological, and Part 3 is the application of the theoretica-methdological apparatus to understanding the dynamic interplay between various socio-cultural structures and Muslim studnets’ text-composing agency. Part 1 explicates Archer’s critical realist theory of structure and agency and explains why it is a robust theoretical framework that can be used to explore questions regarding the interplay between society and the individual. Archer, a critical realist, asserts that social and cultural structures can take on an ontological reality that enables them to exert causal influence in the world. And although these social and cultural structures may not be directly observable, we can learn something about them by examining their effects (e.g. the ways they influence the texts two Muslim students compose). Further, we can look at their effects and make judgments about the ways they might be operating in the natural and social worlds. This has particular import for those who have commitments to justice because by studying the effects of these socio-cultural structures, we can better understand if they are resulting in just or unjust ends. Those unjust 16 structures can be resisted politically, and those just structures can be supported politically. Archer’s theory is explored in chapters 2 and 3. Chapter 2 outlines some historical approaches to the question of structure and agency and then turns toward Archer’s theory as an alternative to these approaches. This chapter also explains how she conceptualizes the three components of social structures, cultural structures, and agents. Having laid the groundwork of the parts, chapter 3 then moves into the process of social Morphogenesis. This chapter addresses Archer’s theorization of the ways the interplay between socio-cultural structures and agents results in society’s changing (Morphogenesis) or in society’s staying the same (Morphostasis). Part 2 explores Fairclough’s critical realist Critical Discourse Analysis methodology and argues that this methodology is well-suited to help researchers understand the interplay between various socio-cultural structures and individuals’ text-composing agencies. Like Archer, Fairclough’s work assumes a critical realist substructure, which holds that socio-cultural structures are ontologically real and that they form an interplay with the texts that agents compose. So, just as socio-cultural structures influence the texts agents compose, so too, agents’ texts can influence socio-cultural structures. And even though we may not be able to completely understand this interplay, we can examine both texts and socio-cultural structures and theorize about the nature of this influential interplay. Similarly, as stated in the preceding paragraph, regarding scholars who are concerned with justice, it is through this examination socio-cultural structures and individuals’ text-composing agencies that we can better understand the just/unjust natures of socio-cultural structures and respond politically to resist those that are unjust and support those that are just. Further, Fairclough calls Critical Discourse Analysis scholars to conjoin his methodology with robust social theories. Therefore, one of the important goals of this 17 dissertation is to develop a theoretical-methodological apparatus that combines Archer’s Morphogenetic theory with Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis methodology. In doing so, I provide a generally applicable framework for scholars who are interested in the ways socio-cultural structures interplay with individuals’ text-composing agencies. And given the focus of this research being Muslim students and some of their encounters with Islamophobia, I will nuance Archer and Fairclough with the lens of Beydoun’s (2018) theory of Islamophobia. This is explored in Chapter 4. Thus, Parts 1 and 2 answer the following research question: RQ1: How might Archer, Beydoun, and Fairclough’s work be joined together to create a theoretical-methodological apparatus capable of examining the interplay between socio-cultural forces and two Muslim students’ text-composing agency? Part 3 of this dissertation, in response to Fairclough’s call to join Critical Discourse Analysis with social theory, applies this theoretical methodological apparatus to learn more about the ways socio-cultural structures (e.g. Islamophobia, White Supremacy, etc.) influence the text-composing agencies of two Muslim students and also offers some pedagogical implications of this understanding, as well as a thought experiment regarding how a Muslim student’s texts might influence socio-cultural structures. Part 3 seeks to answer the following research questions: RQ2: What types of socio-cultural forces do two Muslim students identify and how do they respond to these forces via their text-composing agency? RQ3: How do Islamophobic socio-cultural structural forces affect the text-composing agency of two Muslim students? 18 RQ4: How might a Muslim student’s text-composing agency influence socio-cultural forces? Chapter 5 contextualizes the study by outlining the Islamophobic socio-cultural milieu in which the two Muslim students, Bassim and Fatima (both names are pseudonyms), live and write. This chapter also lays out the research questions explored in Part 3, my positionality as a researcher, and key terms. Chapter 6 introduces the reader to Bassim and Fatima, their backgrounds and their families. Chapter 7 explains data collection and data analysis procedures. Chapter 8 offers an inductive review of the ways Bassim and Fatima exerted their text-composing agency in response to various socio-cultural structures (e.g. Identifying the Results of Patriarchal White Supremacist Discrimation, Resisting Discrimination, Expressing Hope, Inviting Dialogue, Respecting Differences, etc.). Chapters 9 and 10 then narrow the study’s focus by applying the theoretical-methodological apparatus developed in Parts 1 and 2 to examine the interplay between Islamophobic socio-cultural structures and the two Muslim students’ text-composing agencies. Chapter 9 focuses on Bassim’s engagement with structural Islamophobia from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), as well as with private cultural Islamophobia from individuals in the form of religiously discriminatory rhetoric from peers at his high school. Chapter 10 takes up Fatima’s text-composing agency and how she perceives Islamophobic rhetoric emanating from the executive branch and how President Trump can underwite the actions of private Islamophobes, causing her to live in an environment of fear. Chapter 11 ends with a discussion of the findings and the implications this research has for education. 19 Part 1: A Critical Realist Theoretical Framework: Archer’s Morphogenetic Theory 20 Chapter 2: The Components of Archer’s Morphogenetic Theory: Social Structures, Cultural Structures, and Agents 21 Structure of This Chapter The purpose of this chapter is to give an introduction to Archer’s realist social theory: the Morphogenetic/Morphostatic approach. Archer’s theory involves many parts and concepts, and in this chapter I have tried to provide an account which fits the parts into a comprehensive whole. My hope is to not lose the forest for the trees. Because Archer’s theory is rather elaborate, I want to lay out the general flow of this chapter. First, I begin with the reasoning for selecting Archer’s Morphogenetic approach. I then briefly gesture toward three historical conceptions of social theory (Holism, Individualism, and the Dialectic) and mention Archer’s critique that these three approaches tend to conflate structure and Agency which precludes their full analysis. Next, there is an account of how Archer theorizes culture, structure, and Agency within a reality that is both stratified and has emergent properties. Why This Approach? Archer’s Morphogenetic/Morphostatic approach will be key to investigating the ways socio-cultural structures interplay with two Muslim students’ text-composing Agency. Morphogenesis entails change whereas Morphostasis entails sameness or reproduction. Archer’s (1995) Morphogenetic/Morphostatic approach examines the nature of the relationship between the individual and society. Archer describes this as “ . . . the central sociological problem . . . ” (p. 1). For individuals, society can alternately induce flourishing or constraint--and often both (p. 2). Archer’s Morphogenetic theory does not necessarily yield predictability but rather explainability and consequent “ . . . incremental increases in the understanding of how structure conditions Agency. . .” (p. 213) as well as how Agents mediate and alternately change or sustain socio-cultural structures. Thus, the aim of Archer’s realist social theory coheres with my research 22 questions that examine the ways social structures, cultural structures (or socio-cultural structures for short) interplay with the text-composing Agency of Muslims students to understand how society alternately helps and/or hinders them and how these students’ texts might change those socio-cultural structures. I assert that Archer’s Morphogenetic theory can offer critical literacy scholars specifically, a general framework that explains the relationship between social structures and individual agency. Up to this point, much of the critical literacy scholarship has talked about positive social transformation as an end goal (Behizadeh, 2014a; Behizadeh, 2019; Bishop, 2014; Borsheim & Petrone, 2006; Everett, 2018; Haddix, 2018; Haddix, Everson & Hodge, 2015), but has not used a social theory like Archer’s Morphogenetic approach that describes the interplay between structure and agency. Absent a theory of how structure and agency interact with one another, it is difficult to theorize how structure affects agency and how agency might also affect structure. Because Archer offers a detailed and general account of structure and agency, those who have a stake in this conversation can deploy Archer’ theory to imagine ways students’ text-composing agency can be used to support beneficial social structures or to resist detrimental ones. Another important reason I am choosing Archer’s Morphogenetic approach to explore the ways structure and Agency interplay in the texts Muslims students create is because Archer (1995) offers a general model for social change which can be scaled from the very wide to the very local. She comments: Methodologically, this approach could be applied to a wider social canvas or to more localized settings since it is meant to be generic to the elaboration [or change] of Social Agency – and Agents themselves come in all shapes and sizes. The appropriate 23 [Morphogenetic/Morphostatic] cycle is thus delineated according to the scope of the problem in hand. (p. 274) Therefore, Archer’s theory can help us understand how socio-cultural structures bear upon the text-composing Agency of two Muslim students and how these Muslim students' texts might, in turn, bear upon those socio-cultural structures. Thus, Archer’s framework supplies guidance in the data analysis and findings sections of this work. Three Prior and Competing Sociological Theories Apart from Archer’s Morphogenetic/Morphostatic approach, historically, there have been three sociological mainstays to explain the relationship between structure and Agency: holism, individualism, and the dialectic. I will only briefly describe Archer’s critique of these views and note she is critiquing them from her critical realist perspective. Holism The first approach is the idea that social structures hold the predominant influence over individuals or Agents. This idea is most notably associated with Durkheim (Durkheim & Thompson, 2004) and has been labeled as structuralism, collectivism, or holism. Archer writes that this view suggests, “Individuals are held to be ‘indeterminate material’ which is unilaterally moulded by society, whose holistic properties have complete monopoly over causation, and which therefore operate in a unilateral and downward manner” (p. 3). An extreme example of this view might hold that schools are social structures that merely manufacture stu dents who will perpetuate the current social order. Students may have the appearance of Agency, but that is an illusion. They are “parts” being fabricated to meet the needs of socio-cultural structures. Briefly, Archer’s critique is that this view commits the fallacy of “downward conflation” where social 24 structures ride roughshod over the Agency of individuals by reducing them to automatons who merely exist to fill their social slot and to perpetuate the present social order. Individualism Opposite Durkheim is the view that Agents predominate over social structures. This idea is most notably associated with Weber (Gerth & Mills, 1958) and has been labeled individualism or atomism. Archer comments that this view commits the fallacy of “upward conflation” which entails that the explanation of social reality as rooted in atomistic causes of individuals and not the influence of social structures. For example, this view might see schools, not as entities in themselves with their own ontology and causal powers, but merely as aggregations of individuals: administrators, teachers, students, parents, etc. who come together and have decided on particular goals. Aggregations of individual actions are all that exist. People, then, “ . . . are held to monopolize causal power which therefore operates in a one-way, upwards direction” (p. 4). Dialecticalism One attempt to harmonize the explanatory strengths of holism and individualism and alleviate their contradictions has been the “dialectical” approach. Archer (1995) contends that dialecticalism transcends the duality of structure and Agency by considering the two to be “mutually constitutive and necessarily linked . . . such that Agents cannot act without drawing upon structural properties whose own existence depends upon their instantiation by Agents” (p. 13). This view might look at schools holistically and hold that schools are actually the people and the parts who are engaged as a single entity that does not allow for components like people and socio-cultural structures to be examined separately from each other. They are part of a 25 whole. The major weakness of this approach, which Archer points out, is that of “central conflation” and the subsequent “endorsement of their mutual constitution precludes examination of their interplay, of the effects of one upon the other and of any statement about their relative contribution to stability and change at any given time” (p. 14). Autonomy between society and the individual is withheld. Bhaskar (1979) in The Possibility of Naturalism agrees with Archer in that “People and society are not . . . related ‘dialectically’. They do not constitute two moments of the same process. Rather they refer to radically different things” (Bhaskar, 1979, p. 47 in Archer p. 63) Archer’s Theory of Morphogenesis/Morphostasis This section will discuss some of Archer’s fundamental ontological views, namely that reality is stratified and has consequent emergent properties. Next, I will cover how Archer defines social structures, cultural structures, and Agency. Then, having these concepts in mind, I will explore more fully her Morphogenetic approach that entails the methodology of analytic dualism. Critical Realism, Stratified Reality and Emergence Critical Realism. Archer subscribes to the metatheory of critical realism and its core tenets of ontological realism (e.g. there is an external reality that exists apart from our knowledge of it), epistemic relativism (e.g. people cannot know everything about this reality, although they might use epistemic tools to know somethings), judgmental rationality (e.g. people can judge between better and worse claims about reality), and a cautious ethical naturalism (e.g. there may exist things such as moral facts) (Archer, Decoteau, Gorski, Little, Porpora, Rutzou, Smith, Steinmetz & Vandenberghe, 2016). Part of the basis for the assumption of ontological realism is 26 that change occurs apart from humans’ empirical observations. This leads Bhaskar (2008) to assert that ontological realism assumes three domains: the real, the actual, and the empirical. Each of these will be explained in turn. The basis for change are generative mechanisms that constitute the domain of the real. Yet at the level of the real, mechanisms may or may not be activated. On a critical realist account, at the domain of the real, they merely exist. At the domain of the actual, these mechanisms can be variously activated or suppressed (acted upon by other mechanisms), which produces change or sameness. Finally, in the domain of the empirical, humans observe the actual events produced by the ontologically real mechanisms. This empirical observation is generally referred to as science. Further, it is through the domain of the empirical that humans can reason about the domains of the real and the actual. This framework is important for social science research then because critical realism sets up a mode of analysis that can reason, conjecture, create transfactual accounts regarding social reality without necessitating the requirement to directly observe events of social reality. Stratified Reality. One of Archer’s fundamental critical realist presuppositions is that natural and social realities are ordered and stratified. Yet, social reality is different from natural reality. On the one hand, natural realities (e.g. the atomic mass of helium, the second law of thermodynamics, the force of gravity, etc.) are self-subsistent and exist independently from humanity. On the other hand, social realities (e.g. banking systems, systems of government, religions, etc.) are dependent upon people (p. 1), and because people are unpredictable (p. 166), directions that a given society will take are also open and unpredictable. And yet, unpredictability is not the same thing as inexplicability. Even though social reality is “open” in the sense that experimental closure as seen in the natural sciences is likely impossible; 27 nevertheless, social reality can still be studied and tentative explanations drawn. Archer’s approach rests on the metaphysical belief that not all of reality is contingent. This belief is the result of a transcendental argument that asks: What must be necessary given that science helps explain the world? The answer: There is an external reality that is ordered, stratified, and to which people have some access. She explains: . . . [Only if] some relations are necessary and at least relatively enduring can we reasonably set out to practise science or to study society. Transcendentally, the world has to be ordered for science to have any success as a practice and its cumulative successes (not construed as undeviating linear progress) furnish increasing warrants for this metaphysical assertion. (p. 166) 1 Emergence. A consequence of the stratified nature of reality is the notion of emergence. Emergence is central to the Morphogenetic approach. Archer’s theory, “Accentuates the importance of emergent properties at the levels of both Agency and structure [yet they are] distinct from each other and irreducible to one another . . . ” (p. 14). This irreducibility implies that from different strata emerge different properties and powers which alone belong to that particular strata and which justifies its differentiation as a strata (p. 14). This view of emergent properties of different strata of reality has important methodological implications because different strata will require different methodologies to understand them (Danermark, Ekstrom, Jakobsen & Karlsson, 2002). For example, from the subatomic level, the atomic level emerges, from which emerges the chemical level, from which emerges the biological, from which emerges consciousness, from which emerges society, from 1 See Bhaskar (2008). A Realist Theory of Science for a thorough defense of Critical Realism’s transcendental realism. 28 which emerges social systems, and so on. To understand atoms, people use physics; to understand chemicals, chemistry; to understand life, biology; to understand consciousness, psychology; to understand society, sociology. Each strata of reality requires its own methodology because something fundamentally new has emerged from strata which are anterior to it. And yet, because each emergent strata has distinct features of its own, e.g. “independent powers and properties” (Archer, p. 15), it becomes a new entity that is irreducible to earlier strata. Sayer (1992) asserts, “We would not try to explain the power of people to think by reference to the cells that constitute them” (p. 119 quoted in Archer, 1995, p. 51). 2 Furthermore, contra the tendency to reduce phenomena to their most basic constituents, Archer writes: [Emergence] implies a stratified social world including non-observable entities, where talk of its ultimate constituents makes no sense, given that the relational properties pertaining to each stratum are all real, that it is nonsense to discuss whether something (like water) is more real than something else (like hydrogen and oxygen), and that regress as a means of determining “ultimate constituents” is of no help in this respect and an unnecessary distraction in social or any other type of theorizing. (p. 50) There are three aspects of emergence which Archer (1995) notes: 1. Properties and powers of some strata are anterior to those of others precisely because the latter emerges from the former over time, for emergence takes time since it derives from interaction and its consequences which necessarily occur in time (p. 14). For example atoms, which as far as humans can tell, have no consciousness, are prior to chemistry 2 See also, Danermark, et. al. (2002) pp. 59-60. 29 which is prior to biology, which is prior to sentience. Therefore, the biological and the conscious emerge later in time from earlier and more fundamental strata like the atomic and the chemical. 2. Once emergence has taken place, the powers and properties defining and distinguishing strata have relative autonomy from one another (p. 14). Alluding to the example earlier, consciousness is a new and autonomous power that humans exhibit in contradistinction to the atoms which constitute those humans. Atoms do not appear to think. 3. Such autonomous properties exert independent causal influences in their own right and it is the identification of the causal powers at work that validates their existence, for they may indeed be non-observables (p. 14). For example, consciousness: the ability to perceive one’s external environment, to engage in self-reflection, to plan into the future, and, based on these plans, to act in the world, are all causal influences bringing about change in the world. Again, change of which atoms alone are not capable. To begin narrowing our focus, the strata of reality that will be examined in this work are Agents and socio-cultural structures. The critical realist notions of stratified reality and emergent properties have important consequences for social phenomenon as well. Primarily that, given the stratified nature of reality, social phenomena are also stratified which means that different strata possess different emergent properties and powers (p. 9). For example, persons can group together and form a family unit which may or may not give birth to new persons. Nevertheless, the combination of persons into a family unit might give it new powers and properties that a single person may not have. When families begin grouping together into communities, the community can take on new powers and properties that disaggregated families might not have. Communities 30 give rise to larger communities and societies with new properties (e.g. schools, economic systems, government systems, laws, culture, etc.) which have new powers (e.g. education and setting international standards for trade, war, human rights, etc.) Because Archer’s assumptions of stratified reality indicate that Agents and socio-cultural structures are distinct ontological entities which are also separated in time, the methodology of analytic dualism (to be covered shortly) is necessary in order to understand the relationship or “interplay” between them. I will now examine what Archer has in mind when she talks about social structures, cultural structures, and Agents. Social Structure Archer (1995) conceives of a social structures as: “systems of human relations among social positions” . . . [which refer] to actual forms of social organization, that is, to real entities with their own powers, tendencies and potentials, secondly, because the social relations upon which they depend are held to have independent causal properties rather than being mere abstractions from our repetitive and routinized behaviour, and, most importantly, because these relations which constitute structures pre-date occupants of positions within them, thus constraining or enabling Agency. In short, realists, who would also disassociate themselves from the definitions endorsed by Individualists and Holists, see social structure as quintessentially relational but nonetheless real because of its emergent properties which affect Agents who act within it and thus cannot be reduced to their activities. (p. 106) Archer (1995) offers several examples of social structures which include electoral colleges, banking systems, capitalism (p. 105), demographics (p. 144), and, I would offer, 31 language as well as school systems. Social structures are both concept dependent and relatively enduring (pp. 143-144). That is, as Archer states, structures are influenced by the “concepts (ideas, beliefs, intentions, the compromises and concessions plus unintended consequences) of the long dead. These continue to feature in present structures, despite the strenuous efforts of current actors to change them, as with racism and sexism” (p. 147). And they are relatively enduring which means they are difficult to change. Archer offers an analogy which approximates the difficulty of changing social structures to a car which continues to skid even after the brakes have been applied to change its trajectory (p. 96). In social terms, for example, even if everyone decided to adopt a universal language, in all likelihood, displaced languages would continue to operate for some time–if only, perhaps, in the minds of former speakers. Later in this chapter, I will revisit the concept of structure, its emergent properties, and how it influences Agents to obtain socio-cultural Morphogenesis. Culture Archer (1995) defines culture as a whole which is “ . . . taken to refer to all intelligibilia, that is to any item which has the dispositional capacity of being understood by someone” (p. 180). Elsewhere, Archer (1996) elaborates that culture points to: . . .existing intelligibilia – by all things capable of being grasped, deciphered, understood or known by someone . . . [and which form a system in which] all items must be expressed in a common language (or be translatable in principle) since this is a precondition of their being intelligible” (p. 104). Further, according to Archer, culture operates and is shaped in similar ways to and by structure (p. 169). Nuryatno and Dobson (2015), who employ Archer’s Morphogenetic approach to 32 enterprise architecture implementation, offer such examples of culture as ideas, beliefs, values and ideologies. (p. 3) Certainly, Archer is construing culture quite broadly here, the common denominator of which is intelligibility or, at least, the potential for intelligibility. As with structure, I will engage a much fuller discussion of culture later and how its emergent properties influence Agents to enact socio-cultural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis. Agency Whereas with the previous comments on structure and culture, I only scratched the surface of how Archer conceives of them, for Agents, I will delve fully into her account of their stratification. The main reason for this longer discussion is that in the examples provided below of socio-cultural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis, there will be discussions of Persons, Agents, and Social Actors. Therefore, it seems prudent to nuance these terms now so that the examples provided will make more sense. Furthermore, looking toward chapters 10 and 11, I will show our participants in various capacities as humans, and so her nuanced view can help illuminate some of the constraining and enabling factors they face given their Personal, Agential, and Actorial positions. Generically, Archer (1995) defines Agents as “people” rather than “parts” (p. 248). While Agents are the people, the “parts” she refers to are the structural and cultural aspects of a society. Culture and structure influence Agents but do not determine the actions of Agents because Agents have their own emergent properties of self-consciousness and self-monitoring (p. 184). More specifically, however, Archer’s conception of Agency is actually divided up into three concepts: People, Agents, and Actors. The preceding concept is fundamental to that which 33 succeeds it. For instance, People are fundamental to Agents (both Corporate Agents and Primary Agents–these will be discussed in greater detail later). And Agents, then, are fundamental to Actors. As mentioned earlier, each of these concepts will be discussed in turn as they will bear on the ways participants, who are always persons, alternate between being Corporate Agents, Primary Agents, and Actors. Persons, Agents, and Actors. This section will examine how Archer conceives of Persons, Agents, and Actors. Persons . Archer (1995) advocates a stratified model of people (SMP) which entails the recognition of emergence: “There are emergent properties of collectivities and individuals which differ from the emergent properties of corporate groups, which differ yet again from those pertaining to populations” (p. 190). As mentioned earlier, Actors and Agents are anchored in the Person. From birth we are a human person but we are also a social Agent, and we learn how to become an actor and adopt our social identity, but, nevertheless, “it is human beings who do the becoming” (p. 281). Archer presents the view of “ . . . the human Person as fathering the Agent who, in turn, fathers the Actor, both phylogenetically [in a way that relates to the evolutionary development and diversification of a species or group of organisms] and ontogenetically [the origination and development of an organism]” (p. 255). Regarding persons, she asserts, “the things they can do qua human beings, qua Agents and qua actors will be different things in different settings, involving different powers, different interests and different reasons” (p. 255). What a powerful CEO might be able to do in the boardroom (e.g be able to make an Ivy-League Ph.D. cower) could vary significantly with what she can do at the family dinner table (e.g. be unable to make a three-year-old eat green beans). 34 For Archer (1995), aspects of social life and social identity like self monitoring, goal formation and articulation, strategic reflection, etc. inhere within “primitive properties of persons” that are anchored in one’s “continuity of consciousness” or the idea that a person is her “persistence and progress through time” (pp. 281-282). This continuity of consciousness enables the formation of one’s personal identity and helps humans contribute to social life (p. 282). Furthermore, Archer holds that “our humanity is prior and primitive to our sociality and that social identity is emergent from personal identity” (p. 284) and thus are not the same thing. Some consequences which follow this view are that an individual can endorse certain social commitments because that is who they want to be, or they can reject certain social commitments because they “threaten one’s personal integrity” (p. 292). From her concept of person, Archer goes on to describe in more detail the Agent, both Corporate Agents and Primary Agents, as well as the Actor. Agents . Agents are: collectivities of human beings [that] are grouped and re-grouped as they contribute to the process of reproducing or changing the structure or culture of society . . . they also maintain or change their collective identities as part and parcel of maintaining or transforming the socio-cultural structures which they inherited at birth. (1995, p. 255) In contrast with Persons and Actors, (1995) holds that Agents, because they are collectivities, are thus plural and do not have strict individual identity (p. 256 & 258). Further, Archer holds that Agents are “ collectivities sharing the same life chances ” (p. 257). And there are also internal and necessary relations that maintain between these two elements of collectivities and life chances because “ . . . the major distributions of resources upon which ‘life chances’ pivot are themselves 35 dependent upon relations between the propertied and the propertyless, the powerful and the powerless, discriminators and the subjects of discrimination” (p. 257). Archer affirms that all persons are Agents, yet not all Agents are equal. Corporate and Primary Agents. She distinguishes between Corporate Agents (e.g. the propertied) and Primary Agents (e.g. the propertyless). Corporate Agents, on the one hand, have the “emergent powers” (1995, p. 185) of articulating desires and organizing to bring about certain outcomes. They are active rather than passive (p. 258). Archer’s Corporate Agents include “self-conscious vested interest groups, promotive interest groups, social movements and defensive associations” (p. 258) whose aim is socio-cultural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis. She contends, “Corporate Agents pack more punch in defining and re-defining structural forms, and are key links in determining whether systemic fault-lines (incompatibilities) will be split open (introducing Morphogenetic structural or cultural elaboration) or will be contained (reproducing structural or cultural Morphostasis)” (p. 191). On the other hand, Primary Agents differ from their Corporate counterparts in that they are “inarticulate in their demands and unorganized for their pursuit, in which case they only exert the aggregate effects of those similarly placed who co-act in similar ways given the similarity of their circumstances” (1995, p. 185). According to Archer, Primary Agents due to their disorganization and inarticulation of interests can only achieve piecemeal change but not “negotiated societal transformations” (p. 185). Actors . Again, according to Arche (1995)r, Persons “father” Agents who in turn “father” Actors. To recap from earlier, social Agency is viewed as interrelations or interactions between Corporate and Primary Agents who are both redefined through regrouping. Hence, Archer holds 36 that the Social Agent is always in the plural and is not synonymous with the Social Actor who is in the singular (pp. 274-275). I will now turn to Archer’s description of the Social Actor. But first I must begin with Archer’s account of how Actors come into being in the first place and the role that Agents play in producing Actors. The Social Agent and Social Actor are the same person but are temporally and analytically distinct (Archer, 1995, p. 280). When people are born, they immediately acquire the status of Agents insofar as they belong to particular collectivities; people are born into a system of social stratification with various privileges/penalties they acquire involuntaristically. The Agent, upon maturity becomes an Actor, “ . . . but it remains analytically invaluable to distinguish between what he does in the problematic or beneficial situations he confronts qua Agent from what he does qua Actor in his particular roles with their rule requirements” (p. 280). For the Social Actor, Social Agency makes new rules for new games which have more roles for the Social Actor so they can be themselves. An immediately accessible example would be the Corporate Agents who have advocated for the modern day school which evolved over time to include various social roles such as: student, teacher, principal, superintendent, and custodian. In other words, Archer (1995) writes, “Agency makes more room for the [A]ctor, who is not condemned to a static array of available positions” (p. 280). But Agency conditions Social Actors in that they cannot become just anything they want. Even still, Agency does not determine the Actors because Actors have the capacity to refashion social positions and roles which allows them to make or remake society as well as themselves (p. 280). Thus, Archer contends that Social Actors are “role encumbents and roles themselves have emergent properties which cannot be reduced to characteristics of their occupants . . . [and Social Actors become] 37 such by choosing to identify [themselves] with a particular role and actively to personify it in a particularistic way” (p. 276). At this juncture it will be helpful to understand Archer’s (1995) concept of “role”. Roles are internally and necessarily related to each other and to material (structural) and ideational (cultural) requirements. Social roles, in some sense, are autonomous and endure after a succession of incumbents. Archer maintains that they, “ . . . entail necessary and internal relations” (e.g. pupil/teacher, tenant/landlord). “ . . . each instance of which implies further necessary and internal relationships with resources and rules (e.g. teaching materials, attendance, curricula, etc.) Additionally, Archer contends that social roles operate in sets rather than in isolation (e.g. teacher, head, governor, inspector, etc.) (p. 275). Social roles are also closely tied to social identity. Archer, however, differentiates between one’s personal identity and one’s social identity. There is an important difference between a “role” and the person or Agent occupying the role. Being a person, one always has a personal identity grounded in a continuity of consciousness. A social identity, on the other hand, is tied to one’s social role, assuming, that is, that an Agent has acquired a social role. Obviously, there is more to a person than their social role. One might be a student, but one is also a cyclist, one is also a female, one is also a painter, etc. These are parts of one’s personal identity that need not necessarily be anchored in any socio-cultural structure. And even though a person occupying a particular role is constrained by that role, she is not determined by that role: . . . there is leeway for interpretation, especially given that [roles] are only partial in their coverage and clarity . . . Thus, far from roles being fully scripted and their occupants as 38 comprehensively programmed robots, it seems more useful to think of people personifying them in different ways . . . ” (Archer, 1995, p. 187) As mentioned earlier, some consequences which follow this view are that an individual can endorse certain social commitments because that is who they want to be or they can reject social commitments which “threaten one’s personal integrity” (Archer, 1995, p. 292). Further, absence of social identity occurs when the roles occupied do not express what I would choose to be or do (p. 256-257). One might have in mind the role of student which historically has been freighted with connotations of obedience, docility, and passivity, and many schools have structured their environments to instill these dispositions in their students (e.g. lecturing, heavily regulated schedules, uniform dress codes, etc.) However, one can easily imagine that, in spite of the historic role of the student, there have been myriad persons who have seen this system as oppressive and have chosen to buck that role and disobey and subvert the system through tardiness, sleeping in class, and violations of the dress code, to name but a mild few. Students’ Text-Composing Agency One important facet of agency that this study explores is two Muslim students’ text composing agency. Using Archer’s framework, Bassim and Fatima, as individual students, are Social Actors. But for the purposes of this study, I am categorizing them in a collective group of Primary Agents of Muslim students. To summarize, as Primary Agents consist of individual Social Actors, so also does the collective body of Muslim Students consist of individual Muslims. The danger with this approach, of course, is reducing complex human beings to analytic categories. Bassim and Fatima are Muslim students, and while there is much more to them than just their religious identity and their social role as students. However, beyond the 39 necessity of these analytic distinctions (necessary because I could not write exhaustively about all aspects of these students’ lives) these particular identity markers are foregrounded in their writing. They are creating these texts as students in their English classes and because they are engaging with Islamophobic socio-cultural structures through their texts. As a result, I want to acknowledge that there is so much more to them than their identities as students and as Muslims, and yet, a focus on these two particular identities is necessary because they are forwarded by the students’ text-composing agency. This classification will be explained more fully in the methodology chapter where I explore Fairclough’s work on Critical Discourse Analysis. Having covered her concepts of structure, culture, and Agency, Chapter 3 explores how these components interact with one another via her Morphogenetic approach and its methodology of analytic dualism to either reproduce the same conditions in society or change them. 40 Chapter 3: Analytic Dualism and Social Morphogenesis 41 Structure of This Chapter In this chapter, I explain Archer’s Morphogenetic/Morphostatic approach with its three phases of socio-cultural conditioning, socio-cultural interaction, and socio-cultural elaboration/reproduction as well as its attendant methodology of analytic dualism. I will then explore how Archer theorizes Morphogenesis/Morphostasis as it relates to structure and culture, providing examples that represent socio-cultural sameness or change and briefly touch on the Morphogenesis of Agency, that is, how Agents change as they are simultaneously acted upon and acting on socio-cultural structures. Finally, I describe the ways Archer’s theory might fruitfully inform critical literacy scholars’ approaches to understanding the interplay between socio-cultural structures and students’ text-composing agencies. Analytic Dualism and Social Morphogenesis/Morphostasis Analytic Dualism Archer’s (1995) approach to explaining the reality of society necessitates the methodology of analytic dualism which seeks to avoid conflationary approaches (like those mentioned earlier: Holism, Individualism, and Dialecticalism) by holding social structures, cultural structures, (or socio-cultural structures), and Agents to be ontologically distinct, and yet socio-cultural structures and the Agent, nonetheless, exhibit an “interplay” that can be examined. She contends that, “[b]ecause the social world is made up, inter alia , of ‘structures’ and of ‘Agents’ and because these belong to different strata, there is no question of reducing one to the other or of eliding the two and there is every reason for exploring the interplay between them” (p. 62). She goes on to add that, “ . . . given structures and Agents are also temporally distinguishable . . . it is justifiable and feasible to talk of preexistence and posteriority . . . and 42 this can be used methodologically in order to examine the interplay between them and thus explain changes in both – over time” (p. 66). In sum, to understand social reality, the different strata of the social and the individual must be examined for their interplay without reducing one to the other (as Holism and Individualism do) or smashing them both together as one analytic entity (as the dialectic does). Also, time must be taken into account as well because change occurred, occurs, and will occur to both society and the individual within the medium of time. Thus analytic dualism is a methodology which examines the changes in or reproduction of socio-cultural structures and Agents in time (p. 66). Analytic dualism’s commitments to the linked but discrete nature of society and the individual whose interplay can be analyzed over time is examined by Archer’s (1995) practical social theory, the Morphogenetic approach (pp. 4-5). The Morphogenetic approach seeks to understand “ . . . the interplay and interconnection of these properties and powers [of socio-cultural structures and Agency] from the central concern of non-conflationary theorizing, whose hallmark is the recognition that the two have to be related rather than conflated” (p. 6). Social Morphogenesis/Morphostasis Social Morphogenesis refers to change in social structures, cultural structures, and/or Agents. Morphostasis, however, refers to the reproduction or continuance without change of social structures and cultural structures (Archer, 1995, p. 160). The majority of Archer’s work is devoted to the phenomenon of social change or Morphogenesis. She does offer a few examples of Morphostasis which can be found in totalitarian regimes that exhibit high degrees of socio-cultural uniformity; however, these conditions seem to be rare. 3 3 She nods to Weber’s work on ancient India (pp. 219-220) and India and China (p. 312). 43 Social Morphogenesis is described in three phases that occur over time. The element of time is necessary for Morphogenesis to work as a process because at any contemporary moment, socio-cultural structures and Agents are the products of preexisting socio-cultural structures and Agents (Archer, 1995, p. 140). The three phases of the basic Morphogenetic cycle are: Phase One: Structural conditioning –this denotes the pre-existing societal conditions into which individuals are born (p. 77-78) at Time 1 (T1). Prior socio-cultural structures and Agents shape or “mediate” the situations of later generations (p. 195). Morphogenesis assumes that socio-cultural properties have emergent and causal powers, qualities that are not reducible to Agents (p. 90). Phase Two: Socio-cultural interaction –this points toward the interactions that Agents have with socio-cultural structures and with each other as Corporate and Primary Agents from Time 2 (T2) to Time 3 (T3). Socio-cultural and group interactions condition individuals but do not determine the actions of individuals because individuals possess their own irreducible emergent powers (p. 90). Because Agents are not determined, there is the capacity “for innovative responses in the face of contextual constraints” (p. 91), e.g. the socio-cultural structures and other groups of Agents. Phase Three: Structural elaboration (Morphogenesis)/Structural reproduction (Morphostasis) –if the actions of individuals on socio-cultural structures are effective, then socio-cultural structures may be eradicated and/or replaced and the structural elaboration (Morphogenesis) presents a “host of new social possibilities” (p. 79) and leads to the start of a new Morphogenetic cycle (p. 79) at Time 4 (T4). However, it is possible that socio-cultural structures remain in play and social reality is reproduced (Morphostasis) with no changes 44 occurring. And yet structural elaboration or reproduction are contingent because “the social system is open, open because peopled, and therefore of no fixed form due to human powers of unpredictable innovation” (p. 194). Structural Conditioning __________________ T1 Socio-cultural Interaction ____________________ T2 T3 Structural Elaboration (Morphogenesis) _________________________________ Structural Reproduction (Morphostasis) T4 Figure 1: The Basic Morphogenetic/Morphostatic Cycle with Its Three Phases Socio-cultural Emergent Properties and Their Role in Morphogenesis/Morphostasis Having discussed very generally the Morphogenetic approach, I will now pick up on our discussion mentioned earlier of the emergent properties that social and cultural structures have and how they condition the actions of Agents to achieve Morphogenesis/Morphostasis. Previously, I have outlined what Archer has in mind regarding the general terms of structure and culture. However, in concert with Archer’s metaphysical view of stratified reality, these two areas are also stratified and have emerging properties. Stratification of social structures entails structural emergent properties (Structurally Emergent Properties), and stratification of cultural structures entails cultural emergent properties (Culturally Emergent Properties). And even though Structurally Emergent Properties and Culturally Emergent Properties influence Agents, Archer maintains that Structurally Emergent Properties and Culturally Emergent Properties never determine the actions of Agents and are always ultimately mediated by Agents. That is, without 45 people, there would be neither social structures nor culture. Therefore, this section will begin by explaining what Structurally Emergent Properties and Culturally Emergent Properties are and how they set up the conditions by which Agents are influenced--but not determined during Phase One: Socio-cultural conditioning. Structural Emergent Properties Structurally Emergent Properties are social structures that emerge from more fundamental strata that are “ . . . irreducible to people and relatively enduring . . . [and] are specifically defined as those internal and necessary relationships which entail material resources, whether physical or human, and which generate causal powers” (Archer, 1995, p. 177). Class, status, and power are all examples of Structurally Emergent Properties (p. 178). Elsewhere, Nuryatno and Dobson (2015) give examples of Structurally Emergent Properties as: roles, institutional structures, social systems, and positions (p. 3). To take an educational example, a school can be a single entity tasked with educating the whole child, and yet, organizationally, schools are diverse. There are administrative Agents which are filled by the role/Actor of principals and vice-principals. There are subject area Agents which are filled by the role/Actor of teachers. There are counseling Agents filled by the role/Actor of counselors and social workers. There are maintenance Agents filled by the role/Actor electricians, custodians, etc. Each of these components of a school are built on prior components and Agents and Actors. None of these components, on their own, has the power to educate the entire child; however, when taken together, the school emerges and has the potential to educate the whole child. The school and its power to educate, therefore, are structurally emergent properties of the more basic components. 46 Cultural Emergent Properties Archer (1995) maintains that culture is approached in a similar analytic fashion to structure (p. 179). Like social structures, cultural systems are pre-existent, autonomous, and durable (p. 179); however, the major distinctive of culture is that internal and necessary logical relations apply between cultural beliefs within a system as opposed to the material relations which apply within social structures (p. 179). Again, Nuryatno and Dobson (2015) offer examples of Culturally Emergent Properties: ideas, beliefs, values and ideologies (p. 3). These concepts cannot stand in material relationships with one another as various social institutions might (e.g. student, teacher, principal, superintendent, board of education, voters); however, they do stand in logical relationships with one another. To take another example from education, a school’s fundamental mission might be to “educate the whole child”. Therefore, the cultural system of the school can only admit beliefs consistent with this codified mission in order to avoid contradiction and subsequent tensions. If a school’s mission assumes that the whole child should be educated, there are several beliefs which cohere with this view (e.g. children can learn, children are multifaceted, schools should draw from a wide range of areas of knowledge and ways of knowing in order to educate the child) and so on. Beliefs which logically contradict the fundamental ideology will cause tension in the school. For example, the beliefs that some students of a particular racial demographic cannot learn, that there are some facets of children which are not important and don’t deserve pedagogical attention, that the only worthwhile subject to study is history, etc., are counter-beliefs and present barriers to the established cultural system of the school and will inevitably produce tensions through the logical contradictions which result. The school cannot 47 hold on to and carry out its fundamental mission effectively if counter-beliefs and counter-ideologies also exist. Insofar as there is cultural and ideational contradiction, there will be tension; however, conversely, if there is cultural and ideational coherence, then tension will not arise, culturally speaking. Structural/Cultural Emergent Properties and the Initial Conditioning of Agents As discussed earlier, there is a two-way street between Structurally Emergent Properties/Culturally Emergent Properties and Agents. Agents are the mediators of the “causal power of social forms”; that is, they are the only efficient causes in social life (Archer, 1995, p. 195). Apart from Agents, socio-cultural structures would cease to exist, much less affect anything. And yet, Structurally Emergent Properties and Culturally Emergent Properties inevitably influence Agents by situating them within various socio-cultural stations. Archer describes the five components of the process by which Agents are influenced by socio-cultural structures during Phase One: The socio-cultural conditioning phase of the Morphogenetic cycle. These five components are: involuntaristic placement, vested interests, opportunity costs, degrees of interpretive freedom, and directional guidance. These conditions then lead to four socio-cultural configurations in which there are either various degrees of cohesion or conflict. Those socio-cultural configurations which lead to cohesion through protection or compromise achieve Morphostasis. Socio-cultural configurations which entail conflict through elimination or opportunism will yield Morphogenesis. These initial conditions, socio-cultural configurations, and situational logics which led to Morphogenesis/Morphostasis will be discussed and examples provided in this section. 48 Initial Conditions Involuntaristic Placement. Agents are born into structural and cultural conditions over which they have no say. Because Structurally Emergent Properties and Culturally Emergent Properties pre-exist Agents, they necessarily shape the social environment into which Agents are born. And even though Agents can alter the structural and cultural landscape by the end of Phase Three (the Structural Elaboration phase), they will nevertheless experience “ . . . involuntaristic involvement in structures and their situational conditioning” (Archer, 1995, p. 202). Further it is possible for Structurally Emergent Properties and Culturally Emergent Properties to act upon Agents without their knowledge (p. 202). For instance, students born into riches or poverty had no choice in the matter, and yet, their very placement into these scenarios has profound consequences for the lives they will lead and the education they will have access to regardless of whether or not they are aware of those consequences. Vested Interests. Involuntaristic placement leads to variegated distribution of vested interests. Vested interests “are objective features of [Agents’] situations which . . . predispose them to different courses of action and even towards different life courses. . . [and] . . . exert a conditional influence on subsequent action” (Archer, 1995, p. 203). Vested interests are associated with a particular social position so that if the social position changes, then so does the vested interest. For instance, those who are rich have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo to perpetuate their prosperity. On the other hand, those who are born into poverty have vested interests in changing the status quo and redistributing wealth so that they might escape penury. Further, given that vested interests are embedded in social positions, this suggests that not everyone will have access to just any social position they want. As a result, vested interests 49 entail “social scarcity” in that they are “concerned with relative advantages rather than absolute well-being” (pp. 203-204). Archer points out that it may not be in the well-being of the rich to engage in a life of idle ease; however, it is in their vested interest (p. 203). It should be obvious that the social scarcity which causes disparate vested interests across a population may encourage conflict between social groups (e.g. the rich versus the poor or the powerful versus the powerless). Opportunity Costs. Because Structurally Emergent Properties and Culturally Emergent Properties necessarily influence Agents, some Agents will inevitably want to retain Structurally Emergent Properties and Culturally Emergent Properties which promote their vested interests (e.g. as the rich wanting to maintain the status quo in our previous example). If the rich win out, then the status quo is reproduced via Morphostasis. However, some Agents will want to change them (as the poor do), and insofar as they are successful, this will lead to Morphogenesis. In each case though Structurally Emergent Properties and Culturally Emergent Properties impose certain “costs” to particular courses of action (Archer, 1995, p. 205). But opportunity costs are not uniform across all Agents. Because people are thrown into social positions from birth (some are born wealthy, others are poor), the costs for enacting social change or reproduction will be different, at least in some degree, between those who have greater advantages (structurally or culturally) than others. For instance, it might cost very little for students from well-heeled families who have a private lawyer to levy a change in a school’s grading policies that will then allow their student to gain access into an elite college. However, it might cost much more for students from poorer families to do the same without, perhaps, making themselves vulnerable to retaliation of various sorts. 50 Consequently, opportunity costs influence Agents in at least two ways: first, the attainment of a given project and, second, which projects can be entertained. Regarding the former, there are different costs for attaining the same project (e.g. financial well-being) based on Agents’ differentiated starting points. Archer notes, “A given position impedes or facilitates projected access to other forms of social scarcity” (Archer, 1995, p. 206). Regarding the latter, differential opportunity costs limit what kinds of projects can even be entertained based on one’s starting social position. Archer uses the example of the industrial entrepreneur who could amass enough financial stability which would substitute his dependence upon subsequent generations. However, for the workers in the working class, wealth could not be amassed in similar ways, and subsequent generations of workers would find themselves in the position of taking care of prior generations which necessarily limited their ability to entertain other life goals (p. 208). For example, poorer women who aspire to attend graduate school might be prevented from doing so due to familial obligations. Choosing either school over family or vice versa will lead to significant costs that women who come from families of more robust means might avoid. Degrees of Interpretive Freedom. Archer (1995) holds that Agents make decisions based on “good” reasons. These reasons can be structural/material reasons (roles, positions, resources) and/or cultural reasons (norms, presuppositions, morals) that they believe to be “good” and which will “protect advantages or remove disadvantages” (p. 209) or, perhaps, do both. Because the structural and cultural conditions pre-exist the Agents, they must interpret the situation and deduce reasons (in the form of costs and benefits) for why they seek to maintain socio-cultural conditions (Morphostasis) or why they seek to change them (Morphogenesis). They are not unduly coerced by the pre-existing conditions, but they do become relevant to their 51 interpretations of the social situation and the decisions they make in response to them. Thus, one might encounter two groups of rich and influential individuals on a school board who interpret their situations differently and act accordingly based on material or cultural reasons. One group of Agents may assiduously guard the status quo which implements policies that give them particular advantages and, thus, seek to maintain their elite status (Morphostasis). While, on the other hand, the other group of powerful Agents believe that they must forsake policies that are advantageous to them for the benefit of others and, thus, relinquish their edge (Morphogenesis). Conversely, a group of poor parents who have very little influence lack the interpretive freedom to give any influence away at all and may have no choice but to accept their low position of influence due in part to the social scarcity of wealth, power, and elite status. Directional Guidance. At the macro level, these Structurally Emergent Properties and Culturally Emergent Properties affect large swaths of the population and although they do not determine the actions of Agents, they “ . . . do indeed play a part in strategic directional guidance . . . ” that inevitably influences the actions of large numbers of the population (Archer, 1995, p. 213). This directional guidance works by “supplying good reasons for particular courses of action” which instantiate consequent rewards or penalties in their positive or negative impact on vested interests (p. 216). To summarize, people will find themselves, quite involuntarily, born into a socio-cultural station in the world. Their station will prescribe certain vested interests both structurally and culturally. Retention of one’s vested interests or seeking after vested interests that one wants but does not yet have will present asymmetrical opportunity costs for those who are in different socio-cultural stations. Furthermore, socio-cultural stations condition how Agents will interpret 52 their situation and subsequent action to change or sustain that station. As a result, socio-cultural structures can condition to a large degree the actions of Agents. Nevertheless, this conditioning is not deterministic due to the unpredictability that is entailed by Agents. Archer has explained how Structurally Emergent Properties and Culturally Emergent Properties influence Agents by orchestrating the pre-existing conditions of involuntaristic placement, vested interests, opportunity costs, and degrees of interpretive freedom, which result in the directional guidance of Agents in achieving Morphogenesis/Morphostasis. But what might this directional guidance look like and can it be explained? Archer answers affirmatively and offers that Structurally Emergent Properties and Culturally Emergent Properties can be configured in four ways which produce four “situational logics” that guide the actions of Agents to Morphogenesis/Morphostasis. These configurations and their subsequent situational logics will result in either socio-cultural Morphogenesis or Morphostasis. Archer’s Four Types of Socio-cultural Configurations and Their Situational Logics Archer (1995) describes these four configurations as “simply generic ways of analysing the institutional make up of different [socio-cultural] formations. . .” (p. 217). Archer’s four types of socio-cultural configurations are: 1. Necessary complementarities 2. Necessary incompatibilities 3. Contingent complementarities 4. Contingent compatibilities (p. 218) 53 Consequently, for Agents, these four socio-cultural configurations entail four different types of situational logics which predispose Agents to particular courses of action for the promotion of their interests which will generate either Morphostasis or Morphogenesis: 1. Protection (Morphostasis ) 2. Compromise (Morphostasis ) 3. Elimination (Morphogenesis ) 4. Opportunism (Morphogenesis ) (pp. 216-218) Four Socio-cultural Configurations Four Situational Logics for Agents Necessary complementarities Necessary incompatibilities Contingent incompatibilities Contingent compatibilities Figure 2: Structural Conditioning of Strategic Action and Processes of Directional Guidance Protection (Morphostasis) Compromise (Morphostasis) Elimination (Morphogenesis) Opportunism (Morphogenesis) Each socio-cultural configuration and attendant situational logic needs to be explained and examples offered. However, given that the four socio-cultural configurations include the terms necessary and contingent in their labels, it might be helpful to address what is meant by necessary versus contingent. Archer is assuming that necessary relations suggest that two things standing in relation to one another need each other in order to be the things they are. For instance, a science teacher needs science students and vice versa. If there are no science 4 students, then one cannot teach science, and, strictly speaking, one is not a science teacher. If there are no science teachers, then one cannot be a science student. Conversely, contingent relationships are those which could be obtained if the conditions are right but do not necessarily need to be. To return to the science teacher/science student 4 Science here is being construed as the social practice which generates empirical knowledge about the world. 54 example, it is contingent that students learn about biological mechanisms of consciousness. It could happen if enough prior material is covered, but it might not happen depending on a number of other factors (e.g. too many snow days, the teacher is not competent, etc.) This distinction will be helpful to keep in mind as one encounters the configurations below. Because Structurally Emergent Properties and Culturally Emergent Properties are autonomous, structures have different impacts on Agents than cultures do and vice versa. Therefore, their configurations and consequent situational logics will be examined separately. First, I will explore Structurally Emergent Properties and then Culturally Emergent Properties. Each example will briefly reference the connection between the socio-cultural configuration and its situational logic which leads to Morphogenesis/Morphostasis. A real world example will also be provided illustrating this process. Four Socio-structural Configurations and Their Situational Logics Necessary Complementarities and the Situational Logic of Protection. When there are necessary and internal linkages between complementary systemic structures, the institutions are mutually reinforcing, invoke one another, and work in terms of each other. Necessary complementarities which bring about considerable degrees of institutional alignment instantiate a situational logic of protection in which everyone has something to lose if this situation changes, and so they act to preserve it. Archer holds that it encourages “. . . an intensification of role prescriptions and minutely and ritualistically regulated social contact between those in different positions” (Archer, 1995, pp. 219-22). This state of affairs tends to reinforce traditionalism (p. 221), and Archer offers the example of ancient Indian institutions where the “entire matrix of . . . caste/religion/kinship/economy/polity/law and education . . . “ were internally related (p. 219). 55 One might imagine that some of the untouchable caste were reluctant to question or resist their lower social standing for fear of punishment and a negative impact on their perceived vested interests. Thus, they may have elected to sustain the status quo. Necessary complementarities and their situational logic of protection yield socio-structural Morphostasis; hence, Archer adds, the two millennia of “sustained Morphostasis” in Ancient India (p. 219). Necessary Incompatibilities and the Logic of Compromise. Necessary incompatibilities, however, refer to a social system that is marked by incompatibilities between institutions which are internally and necessarily related and yet nonetheless might be seeking different vested interests. These incompatibilities contain the “potential for change” that the necessary complimentary scenario described previously lacks (Archer, 1995, p. 222). To resolve these incompatibilities, a situational logic of compromise must be deployed by Agents to balance between the institutions and the vested interests they seek. However this configuration is unstable and institutions “will co-exist on uneasy compromises which serve to contain the incompatibility itself” (Archer, 1995, p. 224). Nevertheless, necessary incompatibilities and their situational logic of compromise yield socio-cultural Morphostasis. For example, the United States’ system of checks and balances involving the legislative, judicial, and executive branches are three aspects of government which can still exist in spite of tensions and “uneasy compromises” that, nevertheless, sustain a democratic way of life. Contingent Incompatibilities and the Logic of Elimination. Contingent incompatibilities refer to a social system which manifests internal incompatibility (e.g. revolution) or external incompatibility (e.g. invasion). Facing these threats necessitates a 56 diversion of resources from maintaining internal Morphostasis to the existential threat with which it must contend. Thus, a situational logic of elimination rallies resources and seeks to inflict maximum damage on the threat. And in so doing, resources that would maintain Morphostasis are expended and this results in an internal shuffling that produces Morphogenesis (Archer, 1995, pp. 225-226). On this, Archer comments, “Then the strategic mobilization of material and human resources generates new forms of social cleavage which are antithetic to . . . ” the stable reproduction of relations as seen in the prior necessary complementarity configuration or the containment of diverse interests as seen in the prior necessary incompatibility configuration (p. 226). For example, contingent incompatibilities can be evinced during times of war which can dampen certain civil liberties and thus curtail the influence of democratic principles and result in a state of martial law. In a state of war and martial law, society has fundamentally changed (Morphogenesis) from its previous democratic form, even though the hope is that the democratic structure will be restored at some point in the future. Contingent Compatibilities and the Logic of Opportunism. Given the openness of society, “there are no effective barriers which can be erected against the incursion of contingent relationships which prove highly compatible with the interests of particular groups” (Archer, 1995, p. 226). In both necessary complementarities and necessary incompatibilities, stability depends upon finite resources whose distribution promoted either protection or an uneasy compromise. And yet, if there is a major influx of external resources to particular groups, particularly groups that are weaker than others, this upends the Morphostatic stability as these formerly weaker groups are now in greater positions of influence and power and may no longer need to compromise. Archer offers the example of the ways feudal relations in Europe were 57 replaced because of an increase in gold and silver from the “New World” which generated greater commerce, empowered the merchant class, and undermined landowners and closed guilds (p. 227). Thus, Morphogenesis was achieved. Four Cultural-structural Configurations and Their Situational Logics Archer theorizes Culturally Emergent Properties in a similar way by delineating four different cultural configurations and their respective situational logics. Whereas Structurally Emergent Properties stand in institutional relationships with one another, (e.g. the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and the Legislature), Culturally Emergent Properties stand in “logical relationships to other theories or beliefs–that is, relations of contradiction or complementarity” (Archer, 1995, p. 229). For example, in a democracy all citizens are, in theory, of equal standing. Thus, there is coherence or complementarity between democratic theory and beliefs about human equality. However, if one rejects democracy and assumes the best form of government would be the White ethnostate, then this idea would be in contradiction with beliefs about human equality. That is, from the White supremacists position, humans are not equal in value. White people are more valuable than People of Color and, consequently, deserve greater privileges. Further, the logical properties of these theories and beliefs place adherents in “different ideational positions” (p. 229) with potentially different vested interests, and “create entirely different situational logics for them” (p. 229). To return to our example above, White supremacists hold views and have vested interests that are incompatible with democracy. Whether or not a democratic society will remain democratic (Morphostasis) or shift toward something non-democratic (Morphogenesis) will be a matter of the outcome of various ideological struggles. 58 Necessary Incompatibilities with a Logic of Compromise. Necessary incompatibilities obtain when, in the cultural system, there is a contradiction or logical inconsistency between belief A and belief B. Either A is true and B is false, or A is false and B is true, or A and B are both false, but A and B cannot both be true. For example, if some in a cultural system were to hold that A is the one true God and others hold that B is the one true God, they cannot both be true. Either A is, or B is, or perhaps they are both wrong. Maybe C is the one true god, or there is no one true god at all. This constraining contradiction then produces a “cultural tension” between camps A and B (Archer, 1995, p. 230). And yet because camps A and B are apart of the same society, there is in some sense a “dependence” and a necessary connection of one upon the other; this dependence causes a strain but it also prevents “divorce or separation” (p. 230) which may result in greater harms to camps A and/or B. As the beliefs initially stand, there is no way to resolve the contradiction between A and B, and there is no way for A to cleave from B or vice versa. Some Agents will try to use Socio-Cultural containment strategies “that is, causal manipulation of other people to prevent either the realization or the voicing of the logical difficulty” which may be efficacious at the time but “do not ultimately dispose of the constraining influences exerted by the Cultural System on the Socio-Cultural level” (Archer, 1995, pp. 230-231). This might look like an attempt for Camp A to paper over the contradiction or conflict with B through an appeasement strategy of sorts or through oppression. Yet, in time, adherents of B may eventually bring to the fore the tension produced by the conflict and engage with their opponents. Nevertheless, adherents of A and B will find themselves confronted by a situational logic of compromise. 59 A, for instance, must deal with the contradiction or find out how to cope with it. One solution might be for adherents to A being the one true God to decide to turn away from their cultural beliefs and turn toward the alternate view of B. However, if the Agents remain steadfast to A, their situational logic tells them how to deal with the contradiction. “Corrective action involves addressing the contradiction and seeking to repair it by reinterpretation of the components involved” (Archer, 1995, p. 231). Archer notes that the correction of inconsistencies generally results in syncretism which looks like the following: 1. A <- B, i.e. correcting B so it becomes consistent with A. This is the preferred situation to adherents of A 2. A <-> B, i.e. correcting both A and B so they become mutually consistent. A and B jointly undergo reinterpretation 3. A -> B, i.e. correcting A so it becomes consistent with B (pp. 233-234). For adherents to A, their beliefs are changed so that they can survive In sum, “All three paths lead to syncretism, but they differ considerably in terms of which element changes and how much it alters in the course of the repair work” (Archer, 1995, p. 233). Thus, differences between A and B are somehow sunk and its components unified; the existence of constraining contradictions condition “ideational unification” (p. 234) via an ideological syncretism (p. 245) and the consequent Morphostasis of the cultural system. One example of this process within the contemporary Christian tradition might be denominations who have decided to maintain their historic stance regarding marriage being exclusively between a man and a woman. Perhaps Denomination A had leaders who alternately opposed and supported same-sex unions and after a deliberation phase, enough leaders were 60 persuaded to vote and sustain their original beliefs that marriage is exclusively for a man and a woman. Dissenters were faced with the difficult choice to stay or leave, but Denomination A’s cultural system remained unchanged. Necessary Complementarities with a Logic of Protection. Necessary complementarities entail a Morphostasis of the cultural system. Archer maintains that invoking belief A necessarily invokes belief B, and since A depends on B, B “buttresses adherence to A” (Archer, 1995, p. 234). For example, let’s say belief A stands for “humans have immaterial souls” and belief B stands for “immaterial things exist”. In this way, belief that a human has an immaterial soul necessitates the prior belief that immaterial things exist. If no immaterial things exist, then there can be no immaterial human souls. A depends on B and not the other way around. Given that A and B logically cohere, Archer says this logical coherence will also condition action because exploring more about B is rewarding for protagonists of A in that it yields “psychological reassurance, technical back-up, corroboration of theories and confirmation of beliefs” (Archer, 1995, p. 235). For instance, if B is true and immaterial things exist, a search for other immaterial things might also be conducted and lead to an understanding of reality that is not limited to souls alone but also other immaterial realities like moral truth, God, angels, demons, and the like. And yet, Archer cautions that this relationship of protection can also provoke a “negative feed-back loop which discourages alteration” (p. 236) and encourages a “cultural embroidery” (p. 236) which may lead to a reduction in cultural development (p. 238) and ideological systematization (p. 245) ending in cultural Morphostasis. Continuing with our metaphysical immaterial realities, this could develop into an overreliance on the supernatural and 61 thus results in superstition which looks for immaterial explanations everywhere when there may only be natural explanations at work. This predilection could have serious consequences especially when it comes to medical issues. One might imagine a cancer patient foregoing medical treatment because he believes he is afflicted by a devil and instead seeks out an exorcist. Contingent Incompatibilities with a Logic of Elimination. Whereas, on the one hand, necessary incompatibilities point to the necessary conjoing of believers of A and believers of B in which believers in A cannot get away from believers in B, on the other hand, for contingent incompatibilities the contradiction is only contingently related. Believers in A do not necessarily need believers in B, but if group A asserts itself over group B in the pursuit of A’s interests, then the competitive contradiction has been activated. It is not necessary that the contradiction happen at all, as is the case in the previous example of necessary incompatibility, yet when it does occur, group A seeks to eliminate group B and this presents Agents with the choice of joining side A or side B in the “battle-ground of ideas” (Archer, 1995, pp. 239-241) where ideologies square off against one another. Archer offers the example that “secular rationalism does not entail constant reference to religious beliefs” (p. 239) and certainly secular rationalists and religious believers can live and work together in society. However, the moment that either side attempts to neutralize the other belief system, a conflict will ensue. Additionally, assertive groups must have a “dual function of ideology” which requires positive reasons for its beliefs and negative reasons which undermine its competitors’ beliefs (Archer, 1995, p. 242). And provided that one side is successful in the ideological struggle, cultural Morphogenesis results. 62 Contingent Compatibilities with a Logic of Opportunism. Archer holds that of the four situational logics, contingent compatibility’s opportunism is the “loosest” but nevertheless still conditions Agents by objectively increasing the opportunity for cultural free play and “ideational synthesis” (Archer, 1995, p. 244). This configuration holds choices for adherents of A but “leaves them free to make what they will (if anything) of B” (p. 244). There are more courses of action and there is greater freedom to determine what to do with them (p. 244). Thus, Archer writes, “ . . . this requires Socio-Cultural opportunists to take advantage of . . . B and then freely define what can advantageously be made of it” (p. 245), which will result in cultural Morphogenesis. This might look like an adherent to Religion A who is considering between laissez faire capitalism, communism, or socialism. None of the forms of government directly contradict the tenets of religion A, and so neither tension nor conflict emerge. Adherents to Religion A can make what they will of the forms of government, choosing one or rejecting all in lieu of another. In this section, I have discussed how initial conditions influence, but don’t determine, Agents. This idea is particularly important when examining the interplay between socio-cultural structures and these Muslim students’ text-composing agency because, even though socio-cultural forces affect these Muslim students, they do not ultimately control every aspect of their agency. I also discussed how socio-cultural emergent properties (Structurally Emergent Properties and Culturally Emergent Properties) create the four socio-cultural configurations and their attendant situational logics that will inevitably lead to Morphogenesis/Morphostasis. As a reminder, it is important to note that Archer sees the Morphogenetic process as explanatory but not predictive. That is, while one is in the midst of any particular phase of the Morphogenetic 63 cycle, it will likely not be possible to predict with precision what the inevitable outcome will be due to the openness of society and the unpredictability inherent with humans. Only once events have already occurred can a Morphogenetic cycle be explained. Archer (1995) comments, “The explanatory format consists in providing analytical histories of emergence” (p. 327). Thus, it is the responsibility of a research to examine the evidence and determine what was happening at Phase One: Socio-cultural elaboration; Phase Two: Agent/Group interaction; and Phase Three: Socio-cultural elaboration/reproduction. This requires an account of the concrete contingencies which produced particular outcomes (p. 327). Having tackled socio-cultural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis, I will now turn our attention to the ways Agents change even as they essay socio-cultural reproduction or change. Morphogenesis of Agents Thus far, I have discussed Archer's concepts of structure, culture, and Agency (Persons, Agents, Actors) as well as her three-phase theory of Morphogenesis and its attendant analytic dualism. To review, generically, the three phases of the Morphogenetic cycle are: socio-cultural conditioning, socio-cultural interaction, and socio-cultural elaboration (Morphogenesis)/reproduction (Morphostasis). During the socio-cultural conditioning phase, Agents are involuntaristically placed into their particular socio-cultural stations with their own vested interests, opportunity costs, degrees of interpretive freedom, and socio-culturally supplied directional guidance. These pre-conditions result in four socio-cultural configurations and their concomitant (situational logics) of: necessary complementarities (protection) that end in Morphostasis, necessary incompatibilities (compromise) that end in Morphostasis, contingent complementarities (elimination) that end in Morphogenesis, or contingent compatibilities 64 (opportunism) that end in Morphogenesis. I then examined what these four socio-cultural configurations and situational logics look like in the structural sphere and then the cultural sphere. However, I have not yet addressed how Agents change through Morphogenesis/Morphostasis. As discussed, Archer holds that structural and cultural stability or change are dependent upon the mechanisms of social Agents and their interactions. The structural and cultural results of social Agent interaction then became the structural and cultural conditions which pre-exists subsequent Morphogenetic cycles. However, even though social Agents are responsible for change or stability with regards to structure and culture, that very sequence affects change on the Agent/Actor. People have the power to resist, repudiate, and/or suspend, structural and cultural tendencies in unpredictable ways (Archer, 1995, p. 195), and yet, people’s actions (individual or collective) can be modified by the social forms in which the people are produced (p. 196). Simply, as people go about changing socio-cultural structures, they themselves are changed. Having explicated Archer’s theory, I would like to reaffirm why I am using the morphogenetic approach to examine the interplay between socio-cultural structures and two Muslim students’ text-composing agencies. Because of her critical realist roots, Archer affirms that socio-cultural structures take on their own reality, that is, they are more than just an aggregation of individuals in an organization. Further, some of these socio-cultural structures have real effects on individuals and on these two Muslim students specifically. One of the ways to better understand these socio-cultural structures is to examine the texts that Bassim and Fatima create in response to them. By using Archer’s framework and applying it to marginalizing socio-cultural structures and the texts that students create in response to them, one can better 65 understand these structures, how they are organized and how they operate. Additionally, since Archer insists that negotiated societal transformations occur through Corporate Agents, students, teachers, researchers, activists, etc. can then pursue avenues to partner students’ text-composing agencies with Corporate Agents and develop political strategies designed to resist harmful structures and to support beneficent ones. As mentioned in Chapter 1, this approach has a strong affinity with the agenda of critical literacy scholars. Bishop (2014) asserts that: [Critical Literacy] is also grounded in the ethical imperative to examine the contradictions in society between the meaning of freedom, the demands of social justice, the obligations of citizenship and the structured silence that permeates incidences of suffering in everyday life. It is a kind of literacy about structures, structural violence, and power systems. Critical literacy uses texts and print skills in ways that enable students to examine the politics of daily life within contemporary society with a view to understanding what it means to locate and actively seek out contradictions within modes of life, theories, and substantive intellectual positions. (p. 52) Morrell (2002) concurs with Bishop’s observations when he says, “ The critically literate can understand the socially constructed meaning embedded in texts as well as the political and economic contexts in which texts are embedded. Ultimately, critical literacy can lead to an emancipated worldview and even transformational social action” (p. 73). Thus, Archer’s theory of structure and agency is a powerful theoretical tool that can frame critical literacy projects. However, Archer conceives of agency only broadly. To conceive of students as text-composing agents that create texts in response to socio-cultural forces, I will draw on the work of another 66 critical realist, Norman Fairclough, and his methodology of Critical Discourse Analysis. Chapter 4 demonstrates how Critical Discourse Analysis uses the texts that students compose to understand more about the ways socio-cultural structures affect them, as well as how students’ texts can affect those socio-cultural structures. 67 Part 2: Critical Realist Methodology: Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis 68 Chapter 4: Fairclough’s Method of Critical Discourse Analysis 69 Structure of this Chapter This chapter explains Fariclough’s (2003) methodology of Critical Discourse Analysis and its critical realist underpinnings that allow for consistency with Archer’s (1995) framework. I explain the limits and affordances of Critical Discourse Analysis and how I will operationalize it via the examination of Bassim and Fatima’s texts. Finally, I conclude with a section that shows how this novel theoretical-methodological apparatus is capable of examining the interplay between Bassim and Fatima’s text-composing agencies and socio-cultural structures. Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis Why This Approach? In light of my research questions that seek to understand the interplay between socio-cultural structures and two Muslim students’ text-composing agency, an analysis of that interplay will be theoretically framed by Archer’s work on structure and agency and Beydoun’s (2018) work on Islamophobia. Archer will provide some of the analytic categories by which I will analyze the data and examine the relationship between socio-cultural structures and the texts these Muslim students’ compose and Beydoun will help to classify those socio-cultural structures as Islamophobic. However, what is needed is a bridge between Archer’s and Beydoun’s theories and a methodology that can yield insight into the dynamic relationship between socio-cultural structures and text-composing agency. Norman Fairclough’s (2003) work in Critical Discourse Analysis (Critical Discourse Analysis), aka, critical semiotic analysis (CSA), provides a coherent methodology because, like Archer’s work with structure and agency, Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis assumes a critical realist meta-theoretical starting point. Further, Fairclough’s approach is “ . . . based on the 70 assumption that language is an irreducible part of social life, dialectically interconnected with other elements of social life, so that social analysis and research always has to take account of language” (p. 2).This view is of particular import for this research because it assumes that socio-cultural structures affect agents’ use of language and texts, but it also assumes that agents’ use of language and texts can affect socio-cultural structures. Consequently, the analysis of any particular socio-cultural situation might benefit from Critical Discourse Analysis, which is why it will be of particular utility in my analysis of the interplay between Islamophobic socio-cultural structures and two Muslim students’ text-composing agencies. What is Critical Discourse Analysis? For Fairclough (2003), discourse and various discourses are ways of representing parts 5 of the world, “. . . the processes, relations and structures of the material world, the ‘mental world’ of thoughts, feelings, beliefs and so forth, and the social world” (p. 124). He notes that this belief is consistent with a Systemic Functional Linguistics approach to language (Halliday, 1978 & 1994; Halliday & Hassan, 1976; Halliday & Hassan, 2009; Van Leeuwen, 1993) in which ‘texts’ have ideational meanings that represent various aspects of reality (e.g. physical, social, mental, etc.). Further, there is a dialectical relationship between social structures and texts in that texts are socially-structured but are also socially-structuring (Fairclough, 2003). This position is important for this work because I contend that we can learn more about various 5 Fairclough appears to use ‘discourse’ and ‘semiosis’ interchangeably (Fairclough, 2003, p. 209). At points, Fairclough describes discourse as a general reference to language, visual images, etc. and also as a way to represent aspects of the world (1992, pp. 3-4; 2003, pp. 214-215). Regarding semiosis, Fairclough, Sayer, and Jessop (2002) hold this as the process of “meaning-making”, or, more specifically, it is the “ . . .intersubjective (existing between or shared with more than one mind) production of meaning” (p. 2). Further, they claim semiosis has its own distinctive elements, necessary properties, and emergent effects, and all these have associated causal powers and liabilities that interpenetrate and interact with other types of social relations and institutions (p. 9). However, for the purposes of this paper, I will tend to use discourse rather than semiosis, as discourse is the more widely known term. 71 socio-cultural structures and their affects on two Muslim students because the students’ texts represent, in some limited sense, the reality of the interplay between these structures and their lives. Critical Discourse Analysis, specifically, combines two concerns: analysis of discourse and critical analysis. On one hand, regarding the analysis of discourse, Critical Discourse Analysis is the analysis of the ways agents within discoursal systems have reasons and subsequent actions that generate meaning (e.g. composing texts) and cause alterations within and are altered by the real world, including, and especially, the social world. Fairclough, agreeing with Williams (2009), asserts that Critical Discourse Analysis is predicated upon the idea that discourse is an irreducible element in all material social processes. On the other hand, critical analysis focuses on both the real discoursal and contextual mechanisms that produce texts and what texts also produce, as well as the concept of criticality that is concerned with “. . . the truth, truthfulness and appropriateness of texts, their production, and their interpretation” (Fairclough, Sayer & Jessop, 2002, p. 6). Fairclough (2003) goes on to say that critical work also seeks to understand how societies work and produce effects that are beneficial and/or harmful, as well as developing strategies to mitigate or eliminate harmful effects (pp. 202-203). In other words, Critical Discourse Analysis is concerned with the relationship between the truthfulness of discourse and the material and social worlds, so that problems can be identified and solved. Critical Discourse Analysis is of particular utility in my research because it theorizes ways students’ texts can shed light on socio-cultural realities. I will explore in more depth the way Critical Discourse Analysis envisions social reality being represented by discourse in subsequent sections of this chapter. 72 Linking Critical Realism, Reasons, and Critical Discourse Analysis Because critical realism functions as the metatheory for this project, it governs the theoretical approach (Archer’s work on social Morphogenesis/Morphostasis), as well as the methodological approach (Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis). As I have already demonstrated the ways Archer’s Morphogenetic approach is coherent with critical realism, this section will advance the ways in which Fariclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis is similarly coherent with critical realism and, consequently, Archer’s Morphogenetic approach. Ontologically Real Even When Not Observed or Activated. Fairclough sees discourse as meaningful and causally efficacious (e.g. discourse and texts have the capacity to have meaning and to shape and change material and socio-cultural realities) (Fairclough, Sayer & Jessop, 2002), and he demonstrates why this is so by using critical realist starting points. First, and as mentioned with Archer’s theory, critical realism distinguishes between the ‘real’, the ‘actual’, and the ‘empirical’. The ‘real’ refers to objects, their structures, and their causal powers and liabilities. The ‘actual’ refers to the change that occurs when these powers and liabilities are actualized or produce change. Finally, the ‘empirical’ is a “subset of the real and the actual that is experienced [or observed] by actors” (p. 3). Importantly, critical realists hold that much of the physical and social worlds exist without being directly observed by agents. Relatedly, Fairclough points to the ontological reality of systems of discourse, even when those systems are not being used. An example of this might be Islamophobic ideology. Archer and Fairclough’s frameworks allow for the ontological existence of cultural Islamophobia that exists regardless of whether or not it is activated in a given situation. It has been suggested that often in times of crisis these systems evince themselves. For example, after 9/11 there was increased discrimination against 73 innocent Muslims and some might argue that this was merely symptomatic of an underlying, latent Islamophobia that emerged during the crisis of the attack on the World Trade Center. That is, times of crisis reveal the ontological reality of some of these socio-cultural structures. One might also look to the rise in anti-Asian discrimination in the time of COVID-19. Further, these systems depend on agents for their reproduction, yet they always pre-exist agents and “ . . . have a relative autonomy from them as real objects, even when not actualised” (p. 3). Causal Powers and the Production of Change. Second, critical realism views objects (and agents) as structured and having specific causal powers (ways of acting) and liabilities (ways of changing). Causation, from a critical realist standpoint entails that which produces change, rather than “ . . . a regular conjunction of cause events and effect events”, which borrows from the Humean constant conjunction view of causation (Fairclough, Sayer & Jessop, 2002, p. 6 3). One example of this belief is that a person who has learned a language can use causal powers to communicate and potentially change the world in various ways, and yet she still has these powers even if they are not being used at certain moments or in certain situations. Text-composing Agency: Reasons, Causation, and Change. Third, this study is conceptualizing “Text-composing Agency” as a product of an agent’s reasons and intentions, and the texts that are created also have the capacity to cause change in the world. Critical realists hold that reasons can take on a particularly discoursal (semiotic) character and can operate as 6 The Humean constant conjunction view of causality reduces causality to regularity. For instance, we can only say that X regularly follows Y, but we cannot say that X caused Y. On this score, a Humean perspective on the causal efficacy of texts might say that: Bill, after reading X, regularly Ys, but this is different than saying: Bill’s reading of X causes him to Y. However, from a critical realist standpoint and, indeed, Fairclough’s view, the real basis of causal laws are not merely regular constant conjunctions (X follows Y) but instead are provided by generative mechanisms (ways of acting of things) in nature. Causal laws must be analyzed as their tendencies (powers or liabilities of a thing, which may be exercised without being manifest in any particular outcome) (See Bhaskar’s (2008) A Realist Theory of Science ). Similarly, Fairclough (2003) contends that “Texts can have causal effects without them necessarily being regular effects, because many other factors in the context determine whether particular texts actually have such effects . . .”(p. 8). 74 causes and can produce changes in the world. As a critical realist then, Fairclough thinks of reasons as “ . . . emergent elements in more extensive networks of concepts, beliefs, symbols, and texts . . . they presuppose languages, intentionality, particular concepts and prior understandings and interests, intertextuality, conventions of inference and evidence, and so on.” (Fairclough, Sayer &Jessop, 2002, p. 3). Importantly though, Fairclough is not suggesting that reasons are the only factors that bring about change, “expressive qualities of communication” (e.g. tone, imagery, etc.) can also invoke change (p. 3). And yet, Fairclough’s conception of reasons seems like a nexus that unites agency, structure, and discourse into a coherent whole. For instance, socio-cultural structures impinge upon agents and agents can contemplate their structurally influenced situation (e.g. a lack of voting rights). This contemplation may lead to greater knowledge of various socio-cultural structures, as well as the development of potential responses to these socio-cultural structures based on reasons (e.g. protests to secure voting rights). These reasons, which emerge from more fundamental biological, psychological, and cognitive processes, inform courses of action that may include discourse and the composition of texts to achieve the goals of those courses of action (e.g. promulgation of protest poetry, songs, articulation of grievances, etc.). In this interplay between socio-cultural structures and text-composing agency, one can see how that interplay can be catalyzed by the reasons that agents develop for particular courses of action. Social Reality: Socio-cultural Structures, Social Practices, and Social Events Having established some important philosophical links between critical realism and Critical Discourse Analysis, I will now move into an examination of the interplay between 75 socio-cultural structures, social practices, and social events. In Fairclough’s (2003) estimation, one can think of social reality on three planes. 1. Social structures/socio-cultural structures (e.g. abstract structures like languages, economic systems, kinship structures) 2. Social practices (e.g. Orders of discourse: genres, styles, and discourses, teaching and practices of management in educational institutions) 3. Social events (e.g. texts created by agents) (pp. 23-24 & 223) Each of these will now be discussed more fully, and I will then locate these elements within Archer’s (1995) three-phase, Basic Morphogenetic Cycle. Social Structures. The first plane might be called ‘social structures’ or, for the purposes of this study, socio-cultural structures. These include language, economic, legal, and educational systems, as well as democracy, Islamophobia, etc. Similarly to Archer, Fairclough holds that socio-cultural structures can, in some ways, define and/or limit what is possible for agents to enact. And, the relationship between what is possible and what agents do “ . . . is a very complex one” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 23). Social Practices. According to Fairclough, the important link between the socio-cultural structures and the agential social event that produces a text is the mediating space of the ‘social practice’. Fairclough (2003) holds that the social practices are “ . . . ways of controlling the selection of certain structural possibilities and the exclusion of others, and the retention of these selections over time, in particular areas of social life” (pp. 23-24). Additionally, social practices allow for an analysis from the perspective of the socio-cultural structures and the perspectives of the agents, both of which are necessary in social research (p. 205). 76 According to Fairclough (2003), social practices entail a wide range of social elements. Some examples he offers are: 4. Activities/action and interaction 5. Subjects, and their social relations 6. Persons (with beliefs, attitudes, histories, etc.) 7. Instruments 8. The material world/objects 9. Time and place 10. Forms of consciousness 11. Values 12. Discourse (pp. 25 & 205) Discourse and Social Practices. These elements are related dialectically, that is, even though they are different elements, an interplay can exist between them. Because my study focuses primarily on the role of discourse in the interplay between socio-cultural structures and these Muslim students’ text composing agency, I will draw from Fairclough’s work on the ways “(12) Discourse” relates to social practices. Fairclough (2003) outlines three general ways discourse figures into social practices. First, discourse figures as part of the social activity in a practice. Second, discourse figures in representations. Third, discourse figures in ways of being and the constitutions of identities (p. 206). And when taking into account the particular interplay of socio-cultural structures and text-composing agency, as my research does, Fairclough suggests that the mediating social practice must be “ . . . of a specifically linguistic sort, the linguistic elements of networks of 77 social practices . . .”, which he calls Orders of Discourse (OOD) (p. 24) or, elsewhere, the Semiotic Order (Fairclough, Sayer & Jessop, 2002, p. 6). Each of these figurations (e.g. social activity, representation, identity) has a corresponding order of discourse, which is a “ . . . particular combination or configuration of genres , discourses and styles which constitute the 7 discoursal aspect of a network of social practices” (p. 220). An OOD is a “ . . . network of social practices in its language aspect” (p. 24). The elements of OOD (genre, styles, and discourses) allow for certain linguistic possibilities while excluding others and inevitably socially organize and control “linguistic variability for particular areas of social life” (p. 24). That is, OOD are the social structures that constrain possibilities of the uses of language, if language is to be meaningful or intelligible within a community (e.g. vocabulary, grammatical structure, etc.) These interrelationships look like this: Figurations of Discourse into Social Practices : Corresponding Order of Discourse : Discourse as social activity Discourse as representation Discourse as being Genre Discourses Style Each of these will now be explained more fully. Discourse as Social Activity (Genre). Discourse as social activity within a practice involves using language to constitute a genre, which uses “the semiotic mode” to act and produce a social life. Some examples Fairclough points to are everyday conversations, interviews, book reviews, etc. (Fairclough, 2003, p. 206). 7 ‘Discourses’ in this appellation is a count noun and refers to “diverse representations of social life which are inherently positioned” (p. 206). According to Fairclough, ‘discourses’ is different from the abstract noun ‘discourse’ that refers to languages or a broad category under which various ‘discourses’ are categorized (pp. 206 & 214-215). 78 Discourse as Representation (‘Discourses’). Discourse as representation of social practices constitutes ‘discourse(s)’. Fairclough (2003) distinguishes between ‘discourse’ and ‘discourses’. ‘Discourse’ is an abstract noun and, as mentioned earlier, can refer to language or as a superordinate category under which various ‘discourses’ are subsumed (pp. 214-215). ‘Discourses’, on the other hand, “ . . . are diverse representations of social life which are inherently positioned – differently positioned social actors ‘see’ and represent social life in different ways, different discourses” (p. 206). Social actors within any practice produce representations of other practices, as well as reflexive representations of their own practice. They recontextualize practices by incorporating them into their own practice and different social actors will represent them differently depending upon how they are positioned within a practice (p. 206). An example offered by Fairclough is that of the various ways the lives of poor people are represented through different discourses stemming from the social practices of government, politics, medicine, etc. “ . . . and through different discourses within each of these practices corresponding to different positions of social actors” (p. 206). Discourse as Being (Style). Finally, discourses constitute different ‘styles’ or ‘ways of being’ via identity construction. An example of this might be the neo-liberal style of a politician who courts generous corporate funding by hosting bougie wine tastings and couches government deregulation of markets in “freedom” discourse. Fairclough (2003) notes that all three of these elements of OOD (genres, discourses, and styles) are dialectically related. He writes, “ . . . particular representations (discourses) may be enacted in particular ways of Acting and Relating (genres), and inculcated in particular ways of Identifying (styles)” (p. 29). One example Fairclough offers is the evaluation process of 79 employees. There is an evaluation discourse that is used to measure an aspect of the activities of employees. This is the representation (discourse) component. Yet this discourse is also meant to be enacted by an evaluation procedure composed of, for instance, an evaluation interview. This is the acting (genre) component. Finally, the process requires both the evaluee and evaluator to identify themselves within this discourse and process. This is the identification (style) component. All three of these components are analytically distinct, and yet they can overlap with one another (p. 29). For the purposes of this study, I will be primarily focusing on the figuration of discourse as representation given my emphasis on the ways these Muslim students represent socio-cultural structures within the texts they create. Social Events. Finally, social events are the products of one’s text-composing agency; they are, among other things, texts that are produced by agents because of reasons that agents have. These texts can include written texts like poetry or essays, spoken conversations like interviews, “multi-semiotic” texts like TV ads, and so forth (Fairclough, Sayers, & Jessop, 2002, pp. 9-10). Fairclough adds that socio-cultural structures and subsequent social practices/OOD significantly influence texts as social events, to the point where it becomes increasingly difficult to separate determining factors that influence texts (Fairclough, 2003, pp. 24-25). Critical Discourse Analysis, then, examines dialectical relationship between socio-cultural structures and social events like texts via an analysis of discourse (e.g., language, body language, visual images, etc.) and other elements of social practice and how discourse is related to processes of social change (Fairclough, 2003, p. 205). Fairclough holds that to understand social change (Archer’s Morphogenesis), one must undertake a detailed analysis of 80 language (p. 204), and, I would argue, the same goes for social stasis (Archer’s Morphostasis). Thus, one needs to analyze texts that agents compose to better understand texts' social effects and recognize that the social effects of texts are mediated by meaning-making (process) and the meanings (content) that texts have. Additionally, textual analysis also delivers insight into how socio-cultural structures affect agents. Fairclough (2003) concludes, “. . . texts have social, political, cognitive, moral and material consequences and effects, and that it is vital to understand these consequences and effects if we are to raise moral and political questions about contemporary societies . . .” (p. 14). Fairclough advocates an approach that closely engages with texts and social theory, like, for instance, Archer’s concepts of Morphogenesis or Morphostasis. Critical Discourse Analysis and Islamophobic and Anti-Islamophobic Ideologies Fairclough (2003) points out that texts can be vehicles of ideological delivery that bring about social change. He defines ideology as “ . . . representations of aspects of the world which can be shown to contribute to establishing, maintaining and changing social relations of power, domination and exploitation” (p. 9). And even though ideologies are representations, importantly, they can also be ‘enacted’ socially and ‘inculcated’ in agents’ identities (p. 9). There are at least two ways in which he views ideologies: critically and descriptively. From a critical standpoint, he is interested in examining ideologies as modalities of power. From a descriptive standpoint, he examines ideologies as “ . . . positions, attitudes, beliefs, perspectives, etc. of social groups without reference to notions of power and domination between such groups” [emphasis added] (p. 9). Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis approach attends primarily to the former, thus he analyzes the effects that texts have on power relations. One way, he says, to know if a claim is ideological is by looking at the causal effects a text has on social life and 81 whether its enactments or inculcations result in social change or stasis (e.g., Archer’s Morphogenesis or Morphostasis) (p. 9). Two ideologies that are important for this research are Islamophobic ideology (Beydoun, 2018) (e.g. Islamophobic rhetoric from government Trump or private Islamophobes) and anti-Islamophobic ideology (e.g. texts composed by Fatima and Bassim that resist Islamophobic discourses and assert their humanity). Critical Discourse Analysis and representation: Limits and Affordances But how does Critical Discourse Analysis conceive of the link between the text and reality? How do texts represent reality? This leads us to two germane discussions. The first is the limits of Critical Discourse Analysis and the second is Critical Discourse Analysis’s descriptive reach of reality through the use of linguistic structures like clauses, and agentive representation variables of agents. Limits of Critical Discourse Analysis Regarding the limits of Critical Discourse Analysis, Fairclough (2003) claims that an objective interpretation without the influence of the analyst’s bias or subjectivity is impossible; our knowledge will always be limited and partial. His approach, however, belongs to the critical social science tradition that aims to provide “. . . a scientific basis for a critical questioning of social life in moral and political terms, e.g. in terms of social justice and power” (p. 15). Further, he holds that to assess causal effects of texts, one must take an interdisciplinary approach – even an ethnographic approach. Textual analysis alone is not enough to understand causation; however, textual analysis can supplement social research and analysis (pp. 15-16). As a result, I am tempering the claims I make in this research regarding the interplay between socio-cultural structures and students’ text-composing agency by holding them to be tentative. I am not saying 82 there is necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between reality and the students’ texts. Where possible I try to buttress claims with empirical evidence among other things. This tentativeness is consistent with the critical realist view of a weak epistemic relativism that holds humans can know some things about reality; however, humans can not know everything about reality. Researchers must come to terms with their limitations and seek interdisciplinary ways forward to understand more about the way things are. In fact, Fairclough (2003) holds that textual analysis and description need to be seen as an open process that can be enhanced via interdisciplinarity (p. 16). This view is consistent with other critical realists’ admonitions to engage in interdisciplinary work that offers more streams of areas of knowledge that can build into a larger confluence of knowledge about the world (Danermark, Ekstrom, Jakobsen, & Karlsson, 2002). And yet, researchers must continually recognize that knowledge is likely to be only partial and not absolute or comprehensive. 8 Affordances of Critical Discourse Analysis. Regarding Critical Discourse Analysis’s descriptive reach of reality, consistent with the critical realist belief that there is an ontological reality that exists independently from our knowledge of it, Fairclough, Sayer, and Jessop (2002) hold that this ontological reality provides part of the referential basis for discourse (p. 4). That is, there is some connection between reality and the language that people use to describe that reality. Therefore, any account of semiosis must contend with issues of “truth, truthfulness, and appropriateness; in Habermas’s terms, the production and interpretation of any text rests upon 8 This approach seeks to avoid the Scylla and Charybdis of what critical realists call the ontic fallacy, on the one hand, and the epistemic fallacy, on the other. The ontic fallacy assumes a perfect correspondence between our knowledge (epistemology) and reality (ontology). The epistemic fallacy assumes that reality (ontology) is dependent upon our knowledge (epistemology). Both of these reductionist tendencies are inadequate, and critical realism seeks to avoid both mistakes with its commitment to ontological reality, epistemic relativism, and judgmental rationality (see Collier, A. (1994). Critical realism: an introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s philosophy . London; New York: Verso.). 83 generally implicit (and often counterfactual) validity claims with respect to what is the case, the intentions, beliefs, etc. of agents, and the nature of social relations” (p. 4). 9 For Fairclough (2003) discourse and various discourses are ways of representing parts of the world, “. . . the processes, relations and structures of the material world, the ‘mental world’ of thoughts, feelings, beliefs and so forth, and the social world” (p. 124). As alluded to earlier, this belief is consistent with a Systemic Functional Linguistics approach to language (Halliday, 1978 & 1994; Halliday & Hassan, 1976 & 1989; Van Leeuwen, 1993) in which ‘texts’ have ideational meanings that represent various aspects of reality (e.g. physical, social, mental, etc.). This view also affirms that texts are interpersonal in the sense that they enact social relations between agents in social events and the attitudes, desires, and values they have. And, finally, agents “texture texts”, that is, agents create texts (Fairclough, 2003, pp. 26-27), or, as I refer to the process in this study, agents compose texts through their text-composing agency. Singular aspects of the world may be represented differently by different discourses, so one thing that must be considered is the relationships between different discourses. Different discourses are different perspectives on our shared reality and are associated with the different relationships that people have with that shared reality. These ‘relationships’ are influenced by one’s position in the world, social and personal identities, and social relationships with other people. However, I would hasten to add that not all representations of reality are equally valid. Some representations are better descriptions of reality and some are worse. Critical Realism’s 9 Fairclough, Sayer, and Jessop take a contra-Sausseran position that holds: “there are not only signifiers (e.g. words) and signifieds (concepts) but also referents” (p. 5). Further, they write that “the ‘play of difference’ among [signifiers and signified] could not be sustained without extensive embedding of semiosis in material practice, in the constraints and affordances of the material world. Just because the relation of reference between individual lexemes or phrases and objects to which they refer is not one-to-one or self-sufficient, it does not follow that language and ways of thinking are unconstrained by the world. Not just anything can be constructed” (p. 5). 84 principle of judgmental rationality offers that humans have several areas of knowledge that can explore several streams of evidence to see which representation best takes into account, or makes sense of, the evidence one has regarding competing representations of reality, while always leaving conclusions open to revision based on new evidence and/or reasons. Further, discourses 10 not only represent the world “ . . . as it is (or rather is seen to be), [but discourses] are also projective, imaginaries. . .” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 124) that can represent possible worlds that are different from the actual world. These projections can inform work that seeks to change the world in accord with visionary imaginations. Relationships between different discourses can also be complementary, competitive, dominating, etc. Operationalizing Critical Discourse Analysis Practically, there are several ways by which discourses can manifest text-composing agency. Those that will be discussed in this section are intertextuality, clauses, and agentive representation variables. Each of these will be explained in turn. Intertextuality As alluded to in the discussion about reasons presupposing, among other things, intertextuality, I would like to develop the discussion of this concept because intertextual comparison will be an important methodological element in understanding the ways socio-cultural structures interplay with these Muslim students’ text-composing agency. 10 In response, some may say that it is, in fact, “interpretation all the way down”. If this is taken to mean that no interpretation of reality is better than another, then I would reject this view for two reasons. The first reason is that it is irrational, and the second reason is that it is unlivable. To the first reason, the claim that there are no interpretations that get reality right is assuming that its interpretation of reality actually gets it right. Therefore, it holds the contradictory beliefs of “There are no objective interpretations of reality” and “There is at least one ojbective interpretation of reality”. It is a self-defeating statement that holds a formal contradiction and is, thus, irrational. To the second reason that this view is unlivable, I would respond that if one really believes that there is no objective interpretation or that there is no way to adjudicate between interpretations of reality, then what follows is that there is no way to judge whether a murder, rape, theft, etc. occurred because the “perpetrator” can always fall back on their incontestable interpretation of events that is on equal standing with those who have suffered. 85 Fairclough, Sayer, and Jessop (2002) contend that discourse is an example of “emergence ‘par excellence’”. As mentioned earlier, the idea of emergence is in the warp and woof of a critical realist view of reality. Briefly, this is the idea that new entities emerge from more fundamental entities. An example of this might be atoms combining to make chemicals, which combine to give rise to biological life, which gives rise to sentience, which gives rise to psychology, and so forth. Analogously, Fairclough, Sayer, and Jessop believe that meanings emerge from texts from prior and more fundamental texts; this is their notion of intertextuality. Fairclough (2003) believes that “ . . . for any particular text or type of text, there is a set of other texts and a set of voices which are potentially relevant, and potentially incorporated into the text . . . ” (p. 47). Fairclough goes on to list four ways that texts might be incorporated or “reported” intertextually within another text: direct reporting, indirect reporting, free indirect reporting, and narrative report (p. 49). Each of these will be described in turn: 1. Direct reporting entails quotations, actual words, quotation marks and reporting clauses (e.g. Bill exclaimed, “Julie hit the ball over the fence!”). 2. Indirect reporting entails summarizing the content of what was said with no quotation marks, but it still uses a reporting clause “ (e.g., She said he’d be there by then), shifts in tense (‘he’ll’ becomes ‘he’d’) and deixis (‘now’ becomes ‘then’) of direct reports” (p. 49) 3. Free indirect reporting operates as an intermediate option between direct and indirect reporting but lacks a reporting clause. Free indirect reporting might also include some deixis and tense shifts “(e.g. Mary gazed out of the window. He would be there by now. She smiled to herself.)” (p. 49.) This form of reporting is mainly used in literary language. 86 4. Narrative report, by contrast, “ . . . reports speech act without reporting content (e.g. She made a prediction)” (p. 49). Intertextuality inevitably means that texts, through reported speech, will be recontextualized; they will be moved from one context to another. Fairclough points out two important interconnected issues that the analyst needs to attend to regarding this process. Firstly, one must examine the relationship between the new report and the original event that is being reported. Secondly, one must also examine the relationship between the report and the rest of the text in which it appears; what work is the report doing in the text? (p. 51). This gestures toward notions of framing. When another voice is incorporated into the text, how is it framed? How is it contextualized in terms of other parts of the text? What is its relationship/function in the text? (p. 53). Intertextuality is an important part of this study for at least three reasons. First, the analytic essay is an intertextual document because the students exert text-composing agency by using direct quotes of lines of poetry that they explicate in the essay. Second, the students, like Bassim, will also use quotes from other texts. For instance, Bassim begins his essay with a relevant quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” Thus, Bassim uses intertextuality to set the theme for his analytic essay, which is the need for the oppressed to fight their oppressors for their rights. Third, I will create an intertextual chart that puts the poem, essay, and interview into conversation with one another. The purpose of this chart is to illuminate the connections between texts and the ways they shed light on the interplay between socio-cultural structures and what Bassim and Fatima create in response to those structures. 87 Clauses Fairclough (2003) also looks to the ways clauses, embedded in texts, enact representational meanings of social worlds, and particular representations of social events (p. 134). Three types of meaning that are at work through clauses in texts are: actional, identificatory, and representational (p. 135). Actional relates to meanings a text has as a part of the action of social events. Identificatory, relates to the textual construction of people’s identities. And, finally, representational relates to the representation of the world in texts. (p. 225). Fairclough goes on to elaborate further regarding the ways representational meanings are operationalized in texts via clauses. He writes, “ . . . clauses can be seen as having three main types of element: Processes, Participants, and Circumstances” (p. 135). Processes are generally realized as verbs. Participants are generally realized as subjects, objects, indirect objects of verbs; these can also take on deixis forms (e.g. he, she, it, they, that, etc.). Circumstances are generally realized as adverbial elements like time or place (p. 135). Representation of Agents/Social Actors Through Agentive Representation Variables Text-composing agents will usually represent themselves and others as agents by using clauses that include agentive representation variables. Fairclough (2003) addresses several ways agents may be figured into a text (or figured out of a text as the case may be). Critical Discourse Analysis examines the representation of agency by by examining the following “variables”: 1. Inclusion/exclusion: The agent/social actor is either included or excluded in a text. Forms of exclusion could be suppression where they are not in the text at all or backgrounding where mention is made of the agent but then the agent must be inferred in one or more places. 88 2. Pronoun/noun: Is the agent is realized as a pronoun (e.g. I, he, we, us, etc.) or a noun? 3. Grammatical role: Is the agent realized as a participant in a clause (e.g., Actor, Affected), within a circumstance (e.g. in a prepositional phrase: “He walked toward Jill”) or as a possessive noun or pronoun (Julie’s friend)? (p. 145) 4. Activated/passivated: Is the agent the Actor in a process (e.g. the one who acts and/or makes things happen), or is the agent the “Affected or Beneficiary” (e.g. the one who is affected by processes)? (p. 146). The active voice tends to foreground agency and the passive voice tends to obscure, dehumanize, and impersonalize agents (p. 150). 5. Named/classified: Are agents represented by name or by category, by individual or by group (e.g. ‘Dr. Jack Smith’ as opposed to ‘doctor’)? (p. 146) 6. Specific/generic: Are agents represented specifically or generically (e.g. ‘electrical engineers’ at a particular company versus ‘electrical engineers’ in general) (p. 146). Thus, attention to intertextuality, clauses, and, broadly, agentive representation variables of agents can yield insight into the ways socio-cultural structures and agency interplay to yield social change or stasis. Merging the Theories of Archer, Beydoun, and Fairclough In order to examine the interplay between socio-cultural structures and these Muslim students’ text-composing agency, I will synthesize the insights of Archer’s Basic Morphogenetic Cycle and Beydoun’s work on Islamophobia with Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis. Archer’s work offers a general theory, and thus general analytic categories (social structure, cultural structure, agency), as well as her Three-Phase Basic Morphogenetic Cycle that generalizes the interplay between these forces. Beydoun’s theory of Islamophobia adds an 89 important nuance to Archer’s social and cultural structures. Finally, Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis gives the tools necessary to examine students’ text-composing agency and the interplay between that agency and socio-cultural structures. At this point, it may be helpful to construct an outline to represent my understanding of how Archer, Beydoun, and Fairclough fit together in examining the interplay between socio-cultural forces and these Muslim students’ text composing agency. Archer’s general theory will provide the outer structure and Beydoun’s theory of Islamophobia will add an important analytic nuance to Archer’s approach. To review, Archer’s Basic Morphogenetic Cycle includes three phases: 1. Structural Conditioning 2. Socio-cultural Interaction 3. Socio-cultural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis Beydoun’s theory nuances what I am attending to during these three phases, namely the various types of socio-cultural Islamophobia that Bassim and Fatima encounter and how they respond to these forces. Regarding Fairclough and his work on Critical Discourse Analysis, I am placing this in Archer’s Phase Two: The socio-cultural Interaction Phase. My justification for this move is because Fairclough asserts that Discourse, as a Social Practice, is an element that mediates the interplay between socio-cultural structures and the Social Events of texts. This “interplay” is what Archer conceives of during her phase of Socio-cultural Interaction. This phase is preceded by the ontological existence of socio-cultural structures and Agents, and this phase is followed by socio-cultural change or stasis. 90 But what can be understood about what happened between socio-cultural structures and agents? How do socio-cultural structures affect these Muslim students’ text-composing agency? Can these Muslim students’ texts change socio-cultural structures (Morphogenesis) or are socio-cultural structures unaffected (Morphostasis) by students’ texts? Archer has conceived of the interplay between socio-cultural structures and agents through four socio-cultural configurations and their four attendant situational logics for agents. Whether or not socio-cultural structures change or stay the same depends upon the various configurations of Social Structures and Cultural Structures and these attendant situational logics. To review, Archer’s four socio-cultural configurations and situational logics for agents are: Four Socio-cultural Configurations Four Situational Logics for Agents Protection (Morphostasis) Compromise (Morphostasis) Elimination (Morphogenesis) Opportunism (Morphogenesis) The following is a schematic that shows how I am organizing these three systems Necessary complementarities Necessary incompatibilities Contingent incompatibilities Contingent compatibilities analytically and relationally: Theory and Methodology Combined 1. Phase One: Structural Conditioning (Archer, 1995; Beydoun, 2018) Involuntaristic placement within Islamophobic a context a. b. Vested interests in resisting Islamophobia c. Opportunity costs for resisting Islamophobia d. Degrees of interpretive freedom in resisting Islamophobia e. Directional guidance to resist Islamophobia 2. Phase Two: Socio-cultural Interaction (Archer, 1995; Beydoun, 2018) a. Social Practice (Fairclough, 2003) i. Discourse 1. Orders of Discourse a. Discourses (representation) i. Social events of Agents (Fairclough, 2003; Archer, 1995; Beydoun, 2018) 91 1. Islamophobic ideologies/discourse from socio-cultural structures 2. Poetry 3. Analytic Essay 4. Interview ii. Students’ Text-Composing Agency: Elements of representational meaning in the social events of the texts: poetry, essay, interview and what they tell us about the interplay between socio-cultural structures and texts students create 1. Process Types (verbs) 2. Participants (subject, objects, indirect objects, etc.) 3. Agentive representative variables (activated, passivated, included, excluded, etc.) 4. Circumstances (adverbs, time, place) 3. Phase Three: Socio-cultural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis a. Socio-cultural configurations->situational logics->Morphogenesis (MG)/Morphostasis (MS) (Archer, 1995; Beydoun, 2018) i. ii. iii. iv. Necessary complementarities->Protection->MS Necessary incompatibilities->Compromise->MS Contingent incompatibilities->Elimination->MG Contingent compatibilities->Opportunism->MG As Archer asserts, analysis of the interplay can only come after events being analyzed have past (Archer, 1995, p. 327). Her theory aids in description rather than prediction. After the events have occurred and the dust has settled, one can begin to look at the socio-cultural configurations and the situational logics for agents to determine whether or not socio-cultural structures changed (Morphogenesis) or stayed the same (Morphostasis). As mentioned earlier, the best way to understand this process would be to take an interdisciplinary approach; however, I am choosing to limit my concerns to an analysis of students’ texts. Having laid the groundwork in Parts 1 and 2 for theoretical-methodological apparatus informed by the work of Archer, Beydoun, and Fairclough that I will be employing to understand 92 the interplay between structures and these Muslim students’ text-composing agencies, in Part 3 I apply this apparatus to answer the following research questions: RQ2: What types of socio-cultural forces do two Muslim students identify and how do they respond to these forces via their text-composing agency? RQ3: How do Islamophobic socio-cultural structural forces affect the text-composing agency of two Muslim students? RQ4: How might a Muslim student’s text-composing agency influence socio-cultural forces? 93 Part 3: Applying the Theoretical-Methodological Apparatus: A Critical Realist Analysis of Socio-cultural Structures and Two Muslim Students’ Text-composing Agencies 94 Part 3 of this dissertation, in response to Fairclough’s call to join Critical Discourse Analysis with social theory, applies this theoretical methodological apparatus to learn more about the ways socio-cultural structures (e.g. Islamophobia, White Supremacy, etc.) influence the text-composing agencies of two Muslim students and also offers some pedagogical implications of this understanding, as well as a thought experiment regarding how a Muslim student’s texts might influence socio-cultural structures. 95 Chapter 5: A Critical Realist Analysis of the Interplay Between Socio-cultural Structures and Two Muslim Students’ Text-composing Agencies 96 Structure of This Chapter This chapter begins with a brief introduction to Bassim Abbas and Fatima Tayah and the context in which they created texts that responded to various socio-cultural forces that affected them. A significant factor in their contexts is Islamophobia, and thus I devote space to explaining the ways Islamophobia operates in the executive branch of the U.S. government, in the media, and in schools. I then explain the statement of purpose for this study and include the research questions that I am answering. This is followed by a discussion on my positionality as a researcher and this chapter ends with the definitions of several key terms. Contextualizing the Study Bassim and Fatima’s high school English class provided them the opportunity to channel their observations and experiences with discrimination into their writing. Although Bassim is two years older than Fatima, they both had the same English teacher, Ms. Smith, and the same writing assignment of creating a poetry chapbook. The assignment required students to analyze poetry from various poetic movements: confessional, modernism, realism, etc. These works served as templates that students would then use to shape their own poetry. Students had to write five poems and then pick one poem to explicate via an analytic essay that was a close reading of their work. Bassim described the process, “we just, basically, we had to analyze our poem that we wrote and like, around that, so, I analyzed the lines I wrote and, like, wrote about what I thought about what these lines meant to me . . .” For both Bassim and Fatima, this assignment in their English classroom gave them the opportunity to exert their creative and analytic powers to engage with various socio-cultural structures that they found to be oppressive, particularly Islamophobic socio-cultural structures. 97 During a conversation with Fatima, she shared her observations of the increasingly dangerous Islamophobic context in the United States. In part, Fatima’s awareness of Islamophobia was in some ways amplified by her wearing the hijab, or headscarf. She knows that by wearing the hijab she could be singled out for Islamophobic rhetoric or worse. For her and many other Muslims, Islamophobia has become a “burden”. Fatima was also senstive to acts of violence that have been perpetrated against Muslim girls. She recounted the tragic story of Nabra Hassenen, a young Muslim teenage girl, who was kidnapped, raped, and murdered. And although the official investigation stated that her attack was inspired by road rage, her family and members of the Muslim community, like Fatima, believe that she was a victim of Islamophobia (Andone, Shortell & Simon, 2017). Further, Fatima and her family are Palestinians. She volunteered, “So my mom and my dad are from Palestine, which as you might know, is under occupation by Israel since the conflict, and well, I've only been there three or four times, and my mom and my dad grew up there.” Around the time that Ms. Smith presented Fatima and her class with the poetry chapbook assignment, Fatima’s mom was back in her homeland visiting family but was having a difficult time navigating the Byzantine travel restrictions and was subsequently delayed in returning to the United States. Fatima missed her mother and viewed her absence as yet another example of discrimination. Various international, national, and local socio-cultural forces were swirling around her like a vortex, threatening to submerge her. And yet, through her text-composing agency, she was able to lay hold of an anchor of reality that allowed her to make sense of the chaos that was going on around her. Through her writing she created a picture of the reality of 98 her situation that in some sense kept her from being overwhelmed by these turbulent forces. She shared: When we got the assignment, that's the first thing that came to my mind because she said to write about something that is really important to you, and people would write about their parents getting a divorce or things like that. And I was just like, This makes me angry and upset, so I'm just going to fuel it into my writing . And at the time, I was upset, I remember, because my mom wasn't here, and I was just upset. I was just remembering everything and how she was telling me how it was hard for her and stuff like that and like, Yeah, it's hard for everyone. And I was just writing it down and it just made me, and that was around the time that the girl was raped and murdered, so I was thinking about that and I was just upset in general. And it's always in the back of my mind, but I don't want it to be in the back of my mind. I want it to be in the front of my mind, and I want to be aware. I want to make other people aware. I want people to understand that their actions are not helping anyone, and so that's why I just fueled all that into the poems . . . For Fatima, Ms. Smith’s encouragement “to write about something that is really important to you” allowed her to process the potentially bewildering ways marginalizing socio-cultural forces were acting upon her and other Muslim women. The fruit of her poetic labor produced “That One Girl”, Fatima’s account of the ways her hijab, an external and visual representation of her Muslim religious identity, can be a lightning rod for Islamophobic treatment. And yet, Fatima is not writing merely for herself, but she sees her poetry as a vehicle “to make other people aware . . that their [discriminatory] actions are not helping anyone . . .” 99 Similarly, Bassim also used the same poetry chapbook assignment, two years before Fatima, to make sense of and speak back to dehumanizing forces that threatened him because of his Muslim religious identity. He shares that in his English class, he was “ . . . writing some poetry and I just wrote one on being a Muslim . . . And I wrote an essay on that too, so I kind of like, in the poetry it was really subtle, like hinting of it being like a Muslim relationship, but then in my essay I wrote a lot about [it] being a conflict with Muslims and all this hatred that’s happened.” Bassim shared that his poem, “The Desert”, is a poem he wrote to express the pressures of Islamophobia and discrimination he encounters as a teenage Muslim living in the U.S. His text-composing agency is responding to and resisting “ . . . all this hatred that’s happened . . . “ toward Muslims in the U.S. and beyond. Like Fatima, his poetic and analytic energies allowed him a way to ground himself in the reality that he was more than what the Islamophobic discourses, swirling around him, said he was. For both Fatima and Bassim the products of their text-composing agency became ways to identify and resist dehumanizing narratives about Muslims. Their text-composing agency was a resource that defended their psychical integrity from fracturing under the relentless pressure of socio-cultural forces that sought to break them. To examine this relationship or “interplay” between students’ text-composing agency and socio-cultural forces, I will be using Archer’s (1995) critical realist theory of social change, which is also known as the “Morphogenetic approach”. Archer theorizes that there is a dynamic relationship between structure and agent, between society and the individual. And although they are ontologically distinct, they, nevertheless can act upon one another in significant ways. Because much of Bassim and Fatima’s text-composing agency responds to Islamophobia, I will 100 nuance Archer’s Morphogenetic approach with Beydoun’s (2018) theory of Islamophobia in which he accounts for structural Islamophobia (e.g. rooted in government organizations, policies, legislation, etc.) and private individual cultural Islamophobia (e.g. Islamophobic rhetoric or acts from individuals or private groups). Because Archer’s critical realist Morphogenetic approach is operating as my theoretical framework by which I make sense of the interplay between these Muslim students’ text-composing agency and socio-cultural structures, my methodology will also be inspired by critical realist underpinnings and will draw on Fairclough’s (2003) work on Critical Discourse Analysis (Critical Discourse Analysis). One of the goals of this dissertation, beyond examining the interplay of two Muslim students’ text-composing agency and socio-cultural structures, is also to answer Fairclough’s call to integrate Critical Discourse Analysis with social theory. Thus, I have conjoined Archer and Fairclough to create a general “Theoretical-Methodological Apparatus” that might serve as an example to researchers who seek to understand the relationship of structure and agency through the lens that students’ texts present. That is, if one listens to the texts students create in response to socio-cultural forces, one can not only learn more about those students, but also about the socio-cultural forces themselves and the ways they may operate to contribute to human flourishing or to cause humans harm. Consequently, this dissertation also theorizes how, when armed with this insight from students’ texts, these texts can play a role in social change when combined with the efforts of activist groups that are well-organized and have a clearly articulated political agenda. 101 Islamophobia Islamophobia looms large in this study. It was the burgeoning use of Islamophobic rhetoric by politicians in the 2016 election cycle (Johnson & Hauslohner, 2017) that concerned me and that prompted me to consider how Islamophobic discrimination was affecting Muslim students in public schools (Wheatley, 2019a; Wheatley, 2019b). Beydoun’s Theory of Islamophobia But what is Islamophobia? Beydoun (2018) goes beyond the definition of Islamophobia as a “. . .merely irrational fear or hatred held by a caricatured bloc or demographic, or as deviant violence committed by individual actors. . . [and asserts that Islamophobia] is complex, multidimensional, and anchored in law and government policy” (p. 20). Beydoun’s theory of Islamophobia has significant consequences for this research. Beydoun expands Islamophobic culpability to government structures, legislation, and policies. He contends that in seeking to understand Islamophobia, if the ultimate unit of analysis is the individual private Islamophobe, the wider scope of anti-Muslim discrimination is too hastily delimited. Instead, Beydoun also implicates governmental social structures as being causal mechanisms in the phenomenon of Islamophobia, and these social structures must be interrogated as well. In my analysis of the texts Bassim and Fatima created, as well as our conversations together, there were several strata of society that we discussed and that they associated with Islamophobia: Islamophobia from the White House, Islamophobia in the media, and Islamophobia in public schools. Each of these will be discussed as they will bear on our later discussion in the findings chapters. 102 Islamophobia and the White House Politicians campaigning at the expense of Muslims is certainly nothing new to the United States; the 2016 presidential election showed that Islamophobia in politics was alive and well. Perhaps one way to understand the scope of Islamophobia in the U.S. today is to examine the rhetoric that President Trump deployed before and during his campaign to the White House. Trump’s ascendancy to the presidency is important to this research because of the power the president has in the executive branch to influence social structures which can bode well or ill for Muslims. Unfortunately, Trump has taken a relatively negative stance towards Muslims, at least in his own country. 11 Trump’s public comments about Islam and Muslims which seemed to appeal to the anti-Muslim sentiment of at least some of his voters were put into a timeline by The Washington Post . The timeline begins on March 30, 2011 with Trump expressing incredulity about President Obama’s being born in the United States. Yet in the same comments he also expresses some credulity about the possibility of former president Barack Obama being a Muslim, and offered, “And if you're a Muslim, you don't change your religion, by the way” (Johnson & Hauslohner, 2017). Trump commented that this revelation of President Obama’s “Muslim” identity “perhaps” would be “bad” for Obama; however, he declined to elaborate on how exactly being a Muslim might in fact be bad for Obama. These comments are telling. They suggest that Trump has a 11 However, he seems to be reluctant to speak out against Saudi Arabia’s alleged murder and dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist who was particularly critical of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. ( Hubbard, Gladstone, & Landler, 2018, October 26. Trump Jumps to the Defense of Saudi Arabia in Khashoggi Case. The New York Times . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/world/middleeast/pompeo-saudi-arabia-turkey.html ). It is worth noting that the U.S. has a multibillion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia which may play a factor in Trump’s reticence to be critical ( Diamond& Starr (2018, October 13). Trump’s $110 billion Saudi arms deal has only earned $14.5 billion so far. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/politics/trump-khashoggi-saudi-arabia-arms-deal-sanctions/index.html ). 103 penchant for conspiracy theories and injudiciously speculates publicly on issues before waiting for the facts to come out or, perhaps, in spite of the facts. The facts in this case are that President Obama was born in Hawai’i, and he has said, repeatedly, that he is a Christian (Jaffe, 2015). Yet Trump’s remark about it being bad for Obama if it comes out that he is a Muslim portend Trump’s willingness to tap an American Islamophobic undercurrent and use its momentum to help propel him to the White House. Certainly, Trump’s victory is a result of a constellation of factors, many of which likely have nothing to do with Muslims, Islam, or Islamophobia. However, Trump’s “tell it like it is” demeanor seemed to register with a sizeable voting bloc, particularly when he weighed in negatively on Islam and Muslims. As the next few years progressed, Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric increased as he claimed on November 21st, 2015 that “thousands and thousands” of New Jersey Muslims were cheering as the World Trade Center towers collapsed on September, 11th–a claim which is unfounded (Johnson & Hauslohner, 2017). In the following month, on December 7th, 2015, Trump’s campaign website announced, “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” (Johnson & Hauslohner, 2017). President Trump was able to follow through on at least a modified version of that ban which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld less than two years later on December 4th, 2017 (Al Jazeera, 2017). And perhaps most famously and bluntly Trump uttered, during an interview with CNN, the blanket declaration that, “I think Islam hates us. There’s something there that–there’s a tremendous hatred there. There’s a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There’s an unbelievable hatred of us” (Johnson and Hauslohner, 2017). There are several things that are 104 puzzling about Trump’s comments. He leads with a binary of “Islam” versus “us” and asserts that Islam hates “us”. It is unclear to know who he is referring to when he says “us”, presumably he means Americans, but then his binary of Islam versus Americans breaks down because there are Muslim Americans. If one follows Trump’s logic to its consequent end it would entail several million Muslim Americans hating themselves. Yet many Muslim Americans take pride in their religion and religious identity and, at the same time, see themselves and their faith as contributing to the well-being of the United States (Mogahed & Chouhoud, 2018b). There need be no inconsistency here on the part of Muslim Americans; they can love Islam and being Muslim, and they can love the U.S. and being American. But this kind of reasoning is not politically expedient when one is trying to harness the dynamism of Islamophobic prejudice and direct that energy to attaining the most powerful position on the planet–the presidency of the United States. If Trump had never won the election, then his comments might be a footnote in the history of a surreal 2016 presidential contest. However, the surreal became the real, and he did win the election. It was an election in which he invoked Islamophobic discourse that either resonated with or was ignored by a number of citizens. Either scenario presents a new era of fear for some Muslims. Sadly, the anti-Muslim animus evinced by Trump is consistent with greater instances of religious discrimination toward Muslims in the general population. Some hold the media to be responsible for popularizing negative stereotypes of Muslims which, Beydoun (2018) asserts, can lead to structural and private Islamophobic encounters. 105 Islamophobia in the Media This is not to say that terror enacted in the name of Islam is not a problem–it is clearly problematic. However, it is also problematic to promulgate stereotypes which assume that Muslims are inherently terroristic and violent, and some argue that this perception is stoked by a vibrant anti-Muslim media bias (Ali, 2018; Bakali, 2016; Beydoun, 2018; Love, 2017). Rao and Shenkman (2018) assert that suspects who are accused of plotting an act of violence and who are also perceived to be Muslims receive an average of 770% more media attention than people who are perceived to be non-Muslims, e.g. White, right-wing extremists, accused of plots of similar magnitudes (p. 9). The media also uses “terror” in reference to perceived Muslim perpetrators significantly more often than other perpetrators of ideologically motivated violence (IMV) (p. 10). Furthermore, the Department of Justice issues press releases six times more often on average when a perpetrator was a Muslim (p. 11). Certainly the Islamophobic stereotype of Muslims 12 being inherently violent and terroristic has circulated for at least several decades (Bakali, 2016). Yet, ironically, some research suggests U.S. Muslims are less violent than non-Muslims; nonetheless, they are stereotypically associated with terrorism. Mogahed and Chouhoud (2018a) found that Muslims more likely to reject violence by the military against civilians (71% of Muslims vs. 42% of the general public) as well as acts of violence carried out by individuals or small groups (80% of Muslims compared with 74% of the public) (p. 4). Further, Kurzman and Schanzer (2015) assert that fear of terrorism from Muslims is misplaced and that, in fact, right-wing terrorist groups are responsible for more violence than 12 It should be noted that Rao and Shenkman are basing their research on incidents of Ideologically Motivated Violence from 2002-2015 (p. 3). It is conspicuous that the data set begins in 2002 and fails to take into account the 2,996 people who died as a result of IMV on September 11th, 2001. Nonetheless, their work does offer an important look at trends post-September 11th. 106 terrorism perpetrated in the name of Islam. They point out that since September 11th, “. . . an average of nine American Muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism-related plots against targets in the United States . . . the 20 plots that were carried out accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years. In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities . . .” This research points out that in the imagination of many non-Muslim Americans, and in spite of the evidence, Muslims are more prone to acts of violence. Sadly, however, the evidence suggests that a significant proportion of Muslims students are on the receiving end of acts of violence and discrimination in their schools, and it is to this phenomenon that I now turn. Islamophobia in U.S. Schools A 2016 report by the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] California suggests that American schools can be hostile spaces for young Muslims. CAIR conducted a survey of 621 Muslim students between the ages of 11 and 18 who were enrolled in either public or non-Muslim private schools in California. Intriguingly, there were noticeable differences between gender and experiences of discrimination. Sixty percent of boys reported being bullied because of their religion as opposed to 52% of girls (2016, p. 19). Fifty-seven percent of males reported being more likely to be verbally insulted because of their religion than females who were at 47% (p. 20). When it came to physical harm or harassment because of religion, 11% of males experienced this compared to 9% of females (p. 20). Males were also more likely to be harassed over social media with 20% of male respondents claiming harassment compared to 17% of females (p. 20). Interestingly, 21% of females experienced more discrimination by a teacher or administrator than boys, of whom 19% experienced this type of discrimination (p. 21). 107 A more recent report by Ansary (2018) of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) finds that Muslim Americans are nearly twice as likely to report bullying among their school-age children as Jewish Americans (42% vs. 23%), and four times as likely as the general public (10%). Of these incidents where Muslim students are bullied, one quarter involved a teacher or other school official (p. 4). Ansary goes on to point out the complexity of religious-based discrimination and some of the reasons why non-White Muslim students experience more of it: Literature documents the entanglement of ethnicity, race, and ancestry with religion promoting the stereotype that people of darker skin color are followers of non-Christian faiths. The conflation of skin color and religion enables a perception of individuals of 13 color to be considered as “other,” as “enemy,” and as “terrorist.” Consequently, hate crimes and bias-based bullying become more acceptable when the individual is considered an outsider who possesses anti-American views; the escalation of hate crimes after terrorist activities supports this position. (2018, p. 13) As Ansary suggests, school spaces can be hostile to non-White Muslim students–particularly when they are “othered” because of the confluence of their marginalized identities like race, ethnicity, and ancestry. This research will examine the effects that Islamophobia has in both its structural (e.g. the Transportation Security Administration’s over profiling of Muslims) and its cultural private individual forms (e.g. Islamophobic rhetoric from participants’ peers) has on two Muslim students’ text-composing agency. 13 As cited in: Monisha Bajaj, Ameena Ghaffar-Kucher, and Karishma Desai, “Brown Bodies and Xenophobic Bullying in U.S. Schools: Critical Analysis and Strategies for Action,” Harvard Educational Review 86, no. 4 (2016): 481–505; K. Joshi, “The Racialization of Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism in the United States,” Equity & Excellence in Education 39 (2006): 211–26. 108 Statement of Purpose and Research Questions This study seeks to better understand the interplay between two Muslim students’ text-composing agencies and various socio-cultural forces (e.g. Islamophobia) by combining Archer’s (1995) Morphogenetic social theory and Beydoun’s (2018) theory of Islamophobia with Fairclough's (2003) Critical Discourse Analysis. This dissertation will not only discuss the ways Islamophobia conditions students’ textual responses, but also brings into view the ways other socio-cultural forces (e.g. Patriarchal White Supremacy, Private Discrimination of non-Muslims in the Media, etc.) affect them and how they use their text-composing agency to respond to these forces (e.g. Asserting their Equality, Ignoring/Minimizing Discrimination, Writing in Response to Discrimination, Inviting Dialogue, etc.). Therefore, this study answers the following questions: RQ1: How might Archer, Beydoun, and Fairclough’s work be joined together to create a theoretical-methodological apparatus capable of examining the interplay between socio-cultural forces and two Muslim students’ text-composing agency? RQ2: What types of socio-cultural forces do two Muslim students identify and how do they respond to these forces via their text-composing agency? RQ3: How do Islamophobic socio-cultural structural forces affect the text-composing agency of two Muslim students? RQ4: How might a Muslim student’s text-composing agency influence socio-cultural forces? 109 Researcher’s Positionality Personally, an important aspect of this dissertation is about trying to find a way to do research that is coherent and consistent with my Christian worldview. First, this dissertation 14 assumes a critical realist orientation. Briefly, critical realism holds that: ● There is an external reality that exists regardless of our knowledge of it. ● Humans can know this reality to some limited extent given the various epistemic tools they have at their disposal. ● There are better and worse accounts, theories, and statements about reality. Humans can judge between these accounts by using various epistemic tools they have in order to see which accounts have the greatest explanatory or predictive power. ● Lastly, the possibility exists that there are grounds for moral facts that can lead to a “cautious ethical naturalism”, which is necessary for any work that has a stake in matters of justice (Archer, Decoteau, Gorski, Little, Porpora, Rutzou, Smith, Steinmetz & Vandenberghe, 2016). For me, critical realism’s allure is that it offers a middle way between research positions inspired by the Scylla of positivism and the Charybdis of a thoroughgoing postmodern skepticism (Gorski, 2013). This critical realist substructure is what informs my choice of theory and methodology. Archer’s Morphogenetic approach and Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis rely on critical realist underpinnings that provide consistency between the theory and the methodology. 14 Critical realism is not explicitly Christian, and it is conceivable that there are critical realists who are atheists, agnostics, Hindus, etc. 110 Further, critical realism also provides an important and necessary link between my choice of theory and methodology and my Christian faith. As a Christian in the academy, I experience tension. From my perspective, I sense this tension because the academy, generally speaking, seems to view Christianity as something harmful rather than helpful. Thus, for myself and many other Christians I have spoken to, there is a chilling effect that can occur between one’s faith and one’s intellectual, academic, or research life. This chilling effect, however, produces yet another tension. For the Christian who has committed one’s life to the lordship of Christ, how can any part of one’s life be cut off from the authority of Christ? In some sense, it can appear that one is presented with a false dichotomy of faith or research. However, I feel fortunate, by God’s grace, to have seemed to have found a middle way that avoids the potential schizophrenia of this problematic binary. This dissertation, then, is also an opportunity for me to engage in research that I believe is also coherent with my Christian faith. Christ calls me to, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind . . . [and to] love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39). Intellectually, this work strives for coherence, thus enabling me to love God with my mind. It is a work that also springs from my heart and my soul and my commitment to religious freedom. But importantly, it is work that I hope will do good for my Muslim neighbors. Tragically, Christians, and especially Evangelical Christians, tend to harbor Islamophobic stereotypes that are grounded in fear rather than in fact or faith (Mogahed and Chouhoud, 2018). This work has relied on interfaith cooperation and is a good-faith attempt to develop understanding and respect across differences. My efforts to combine Archer, Beydoun, and Fairclough to learn more about the interplay between socio-cultural structures and 111 these Muslim students’ text-composing agency are aiming to help improve life for Muslims in contexts where they experience marginalization because of their religious beliefs. Additionally, because I am a White, Christian man writing about two Muslim students, I recognize that I must be careful in this work. Tuck (2009) and Tuck and Wang (2014) have pointed out the problems with White researchers writing damage-centered accounts of Peoples of Color which reinscribe and reify negative stereotypes upon vulnerable peoples. Some Muslims of Color often face multiple intersections of oppression: being Muslim, being a Person of Color, and in the case of Muslim women, merely being a woman can position oneself within another layer of oppression (Crenshaw, 1991). Certainly, White researchers who take up lines of inquiry that involve Peoples of Color should be circumspect. However, as Gillborn (2008) points out, it does not follow that White researchers can have no part in doing critical research with the goals of helping Peoples of Color. I think this sentiment could be, and must be, extended to the idea of a Christian helping a Muslim neighbor. Loving my neighbor and considering the needs of others is consistent with my Christian identity. Furthermore, I recognize that it is important that I avoid a “White-Savior” stance toward the participants (Emdin, 2016). To avoid some of these pitfalls, I hope to take an asset-based approach that examines the ways students write and compose texts about their place in the world. This asset-based approach can focus on the text-composing agency and resilience of these young people in the face of challenges, but it can also look at what they love about their place in the world as well. Additionally, this research is interested in these students’ communities: familial, spiritual, educational, etc. and seeks to understand the role they play in sustaining and prospering the participants. 112 Definition of Key Terms Agent: Archer (1995) conceives of Agents as members of collectivities. There are Primary Agents and Corporate Agents. Primary Agents effect little if any sustained socio-cultural change because they lack organization and a clearly articulated agenda. Corporate agents, on the other hand, are capable of sustained and negotiated societal change because they have both organization and a clearly articulated agenda. Archer’s Basic Model of Social Morphogenesis/Morphostasis: A critical realist model of structure and agency which accounts for the ontological separateness of a society’s social relations and the individual person but also demonstrates how these two separate realities interact with and affect one another (Archer, 1995). Culture: Archer (1995) defines culture as a whole which is “ . . . taken to refer to all intelligibilia, that is to any item which has the dispositional capacity of being understood by someone” (p. 180). Nuryatno and Dobson (2015), who employ Archer’s Morphogenetic approach to enterprise architecture implementation, offer such examples of culture as ideas, beliefs, values and ideologies. (p. 3) Interplay: Archer (1995) refers to “interplay” as the “effects” of socio-cultural forces upon agents and agents upon socio-cultural forces (p. 14). Islamophobia: “Islamophobia is a modern extension and articulation of an old system that branded Muslims as inherently suspicious and unassimilable and cast Islam as a rival ideology at odds with American values, society, and national identity.” (Beydoun, 2018, p. 16) Further, Islamophobia is beyond a “. . .merely irrational fear or hatred held by a caricatured bloc 113 or demographic, or as deviant violence committed by individual actors. . . [but also] is complex, multidimensional, and anchored in law and government policy” (p. 20). Person: From a critical realist perspective “. . .persons are selves and as such. . .ontological entities, consciously experiencing, feeling, intending particulars” (Porpora, 2015, p. 144) 15 Private, Cultural Islamophobia: “these actors could be individuals or institutions acting in a capacity not directly tied to the state” but which nevertheless engage in anti-Muslim activity (Beydoun, 2018, p. 32). Examples of private Islamophobia could be individuals who vandalized mosques or groups who promulgate hate speech and seek to incite violence against Muslims and are inspired by Islamophobic ideology/culture. Social Actor: A social actor is an individual member of a larger collective of Primary and/or Corporate Agents that fill Social Roles or acquire Social Identities (e.g. an individual Muslim student) (Archer, 1995). Structural Islamophobia: The fear and suspicion of Muslims on the part of government institutions and actors (Beydoun, 2018, p. 36). These might include the increased surveillance of Muslims, mosques, schools, etc. where Muslims attend through government programs like Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). 15 Christian Smith (2011) elborates more fully on what is meant by a person: By person I mean a conscious, reflexive, embodied, self-transcending center of subjective experiences, durable identity, moral commitment, and social communication who - as the efficient cause of his or her own responsible action and interactions - exercises complex capacities for agency and intersubjectivity in order to develop and sustain his or her own incommunicable self in loving relationships with other personal selves and with the impersonal world (Smith, Christian. 2011. What Is a Person?: Rethinking Humanity, Social Life, and the Moral Good from the Person Up . Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press. p. 61 cited in Porpora, 2015, p. 143) 114 Structure: From a critical realist perspective, “structure is the totality of social relations that characterize that society. . .” (Porpora, 2015, p. 98). Social structures are ontologically real (p. 98) Text: “any product whether written or spoken” (Fairclough, 1992, p. 4) that also has the capacity to cause change in the world (Fairclough, Jessop & Sayer, 2002) Text-Composing Agency: A process whereby an agent’s experiences, reasons, intentions, etc. inform the choices and writing moves they make when creating texts, (Fairclough, Jessop & Sayer, 2002) Before diving into an explicit analysis of the interplay between structure and agency, the next chapter will introduce Bassim Abbas and Fatima Tayah and speak to their backgrounds and the ways they work to resist dehumanizing forces. 115 Chapter 6: Meeting Bassim Abbas and Fatima Tayah 116 Structure of This Chapter This chapter offers some background on the participants in this study: Bassim Abbas and Fatima Tayah. It begins with Bassim and his family’s background and recounts a time where I observed Bassim experiencing racism as he was facilitating a diversity workshop. This event offers insight into the sometimes hostile context that Bassim faces as a young Muslim of Color and underscores the importance of the anti-discrimination aims of his text-composing agency. Following this account with Bassim, I introduce Fatima Tayah, some background about her family and the benefits and challenges that have come with a move from their Palestinian homeland. This chapter concludes with Fatima’s moving account of when and why she decided to wear the hijab and the implications for her life that this fateful and faithful display of her religious identity has. Bassim Abbas Shortly after we first met at his high school in June of 2017, Bassim graciously shared some of his writing with me, and I was moved by his words and wanted to find out more about his background. We kept in touch throughout his junior and senior years, and in November of 2018, I met him for another interview to talk to him about his family background and experiences. It was a cold, snowy night when we met at a Starbucks near his home. We talked about how school was going and where he wanted to attend college. I then asked him about his family. He shared that his father and mother were born in India, and, before they married, his father moved to Saudi Arabia for work. Later, his father was able to bring his mother to Saudi Arabia where his sister was subsequently born. However, his parents longed for greater 117 opportunities and freedom and made a bid to immigrate to the U.S. They were able to move, and his father completed an engineering degree in the U.S., where Bassim was born. During his high school years, Bassim was a stellar student who took advanced courses in biology, calculus, and physics. This demanding course load was preparation for his future ambition of becoming a doctor. He is well on his way to achieving his goal as he is completing his freshman year at a major Midwestern university where he studies biopsychology, cognition, and neuroscience. Bassim’s desire to become a physician is rooted in wanting to help others. He shared, “I just have a huge passion for helping people, and I love science, so I slowly fell in love with being a doctor.” The seeds of his altruism, although recently manifesting in his pursuit of a medical degree, began germinating and developing during his high school years. One example of his desire to help others and build understanding between people from different backgrounds is evident in his work with his high school’s Diversity Committee and the annual Diversity Conference. A Snapshot: Racism at an Anti-Racist Conference It was a brisk, windy day in late March of 2019, when I opened the doors to the “Open Hearts and Open Minds” Diversity Conference. The conference, hosted by Bassim’s school district, invited approximately 200 students from high schools across the district to listen to a guest speaker and participate in small-group dialogue sessions that addressed issues of diversity, inclusion, and anti-racist activism. The day capped off with all the students having lunch together in the cafeteria. This event, organized and facilitated by Bassim and other fellow student members of the “Diversity Committee”, was a one day conference at a local high school. The 118 goal of the conference was to help students grow in their ability to understand and communicate across differences. In some sense, Bassim had a significant personal stake in these dialogues. He is intimately aware of the hardships that discrimination can cause. Undoubtedly, his own experiences with Islamophobia motivate him to spread the message of openness, tolerance, and inclusivity. Tragically, however, this conference was in some sense overshadowed by events that happened a week before and across the world in Christchurch, New Zealand. On March 15, 2019, in a live-streamed terrorist attack, an avowed White supremacist killed 51 innocent people and wounded scores of others at Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch (Blumberg, 2019). I emailed several of my Muslim friends and participants to see how they were doing and to share my condolences. I never heard back from Bassim. A week later, the Diversity Conference was scheduled, and I knew that I would get a chance to see Bassim there. As the conference was beginning and students from various schools shuffled in and helped themselves to juice and bagels, Bassim and I had a few minutes to chat at a table and catch up with what was going on in his life. He talked about his options for college and about his work in his school’s Business Professionals of America team. I then asked him about the mosque shooting in New Zealand. He shared that he went to his mosque that day, but only about half of the people showed up. He said that he thinks most attendees were afraid. This grim backdrop of the Islamophobic terrorist attack at the antipodes in New Zealand underscores the need for the important work that Bassim did at the Diversity Conference. And yet, even in this conference that is supposed to bring understanding and tolerance, virtues that are antithetical to racism and marginalization, Bassim still faces discrimination. 119 To kick off the conference, the students gathered in the high school’s gym and listened to a guest speaker talk about racism, White privilege, bias, and the importance of getting to know people who are different from them. Following the speaker, the students then broke out into their assigned dialogue rooms. Bassim, along with another student, was a facilitator of a group of approximately 15 students. After an ice breaker, Bassim explained how the dialogue sessions would proceed. Bassim began the dialogues by asking what the group members took away from the keynote speaker. Some students shared that they better understood that life isn’t always a level playing field, that some people get more opportunities than others. Some noted that Black kids tended to get harsher discipline for infractions at schools, whereas White or Asian students received lesser punishments. Bassim asked the group, “Have any of you experienced racism in school?” Several students spoke up. A young Black man shared, “One time I was relaxing in the back of the class, putting my head down, having a bad day; one of my friends did the same exact thing, the teacher sent me to the office, and my White friend was doing the same thing, and nothing was said.” A young girl shared, “Well, I’m Persian. When ISIS was a really big thing, in 5th grade, all these guys started laughing and one came over and said, he said, ‘your dad is the leader of ISIS’. Even still until now, people are like, ‘You are the bomb.’ . . . ISIS isn’t in my country, they are in the Arab countries.” Bassim then followed up and asked, “Do you feel like you can report these incidents and someone will take action?” Some students shared that reporting it would be snitching. Some were more optimistic and felt that students could report hateful speech and that eventually things would change. 120 At the halfway point, the dialogue groups took a break. When the students returned, everyone reintroduced themselves to the group. Somewhere early on in this second half of the discussion, a White girl named April, told Bassim that he looked like every Indian sophomore at her school. Immediately, something shifted in the group dynamic; the atmosphere became palpably awkward and uncomfortable. Several students gasped audibly with “Ooohh!” Another student said censoriously, “That’s what we are talking about.” But, curiously, that was the extent of the commentary on the racist incident that just occurred. Bassim, attempting to redirect, said, “Okay, let’s get back to the dialogue; are there stereotypes that people put on you?” A Chaldean girl shared about stereotypes associated with Chaldeans like smoking hookah and vaping. A Black girl shared about how she won a competition in her business class, and one of her classmates told one of her competitors, “You got beat by a Black girl.” April, seemingly oblivious to her remark that reinforced racist tropes of People of Color all looking alike, vacuously shared that a stereotype that she and her friend Jill have is that they go after older guys. Certainly, Bassim’s encounter with racism is nothing new; he shared with me his encounters that occurred at least as far back as his sophomore year (Wheatley, 2019a). And yet it is in the Diversity Conference’s context of dialogue, tolerance, and “Open Hearts and Open Minds” that this event of racism is so incongruent, so jarring, so disturbing. Ironically, at this conference, Bassim is trying to help others grow in their understanding in an effort to combat racism, and he is sadly subjected to the very treatment the conference is endeavoring to stop. April’s comment that Bassim looks like every other Indian sophomore in 121 her school is itself a racist stereotype that deindividuates, essentializes, and dehumanizes People of Color as being all the same. Curiously, Bassim does not seem to acknowledge April’s comment. In spite of the racist remarks by a White girl who is clearly oblivious to her own privilege and racist biases, he maintains his role as facilitator and brings the discussion back to its purpose, which is giving students an opportunity to name the oppressive stereotypes that they have experienced. By naming stereotypes and recognizing their falsity and harm, students are, in some sense, empowered to resist them. And even though he does not take this opportunity to address the racist stereotype that April uttered moments earlier, Bassim, in the warp and woof of his text-composing agency, identifies and resists various discriminatory stereotypes. Fatima Tayah At the time of our conversation in late April of 2019, Fatima was nearing the end of her junior year of high school. And although she wrote “That One Girl” and its attendant analytic essay in her sophomore English class, the experiences, influences, and inspirations were still vivid in her mind. I started the interview by asking her about her family background. She shares, “So my mom and my dad are from Palestine, which as you might know, is under occupation by Israel since the conflict, and well, I've only been there three or four times and my mom and my dad grew up there. So they are immigrants, of course, but they're citizens now” (p. 2). She adds that her father was able to secure an “educational visa” with the help of a professor at a large university in the West. Eventually, her father earned a Ph.D. in education and is now a principal of a school. She says, “ . . . honestly, my dad is one of my biggest role models because it's like he came from nothing, and now he's so successful and just so influential, and it just makes me proud to be his daughter because he's amazing. He's so amazing” (p. 3). Indeed, Fatima’s strong 122 connection with her father permeated her educational experience, even at the Kindergarten level. She recounts, “I went to the kindergarten school that was next to it because I didn't want to be separated from my dad. We were really tight, and it was just sweet knowing that he's in the next building” (p. 3). Education is significant for Fatima’s three siblings as well. Her older sister, Hadia, works at a nearby college in admissions. One of her older brothers is studying kinesiology and physical therapy and her other older brother has designs on law school. I asked Fatima what prompted her family’s move from Palestine to the U.S. Her response echoes the sentiments of many who immigrate here. She shares: The search for education and a better life because–I don't know–it's just really hard to make it out there . . . It's just a struggle to even get food, and it still is, which is upsetting, of course, but some are more–and my family was more fortunate to have an opportunity to leave. It started off slowly, my dad first and then the rest of us followed because it's a long process, of course (p. 3). Of the four children in her family, Fatima is the only one who was born in the U.S. And yet even though the U.S. has afforded Fatima’s family greater opportunities, it has not been without its share of struggles. The volatile Palestinian-Israeli conflict makes it difficult for Fatima and her family to visit their relatives. She comments: You don't get to see [family] that much. And that's one thing that sucks because I don't have any family here except one uncle in Mississippi and that's it. And all of our family is in Palestine and it sucks. My grandma, we don't get to see them and it's just annoying. So we go through those things sometimes just because we haven't seen them in so long. But 123 we haven't gone in–or the rest of my family, not including my mom, hasn't gone in six or seven years, which is upsetting. Because everyone gets married, they have kids, and you miss out on their big milestones. And it's just annoying because some people want to occupy land when there's enough to share [laughter]. Decision to Wear the Hijab I asked Fatima about the types of experiences that she had that led her to create her texts. She begins her answer by describing the decision she made to wear the hijab during the middle of her freshman year of high school. The first thing Fatima explains is that she made the choice to wear her hijab. No one else forced it on her. She shared: So two years ago in December, so when we had our winter break. So I was thinking that–because most young girls will wear it when they enter high school, but at that point, I wasn't really ready. And the hijab is about your choice. It's when you're ready. Contrary to popular belief, it is not something that is forced upon you. It is not a form of oppression [laughter]. It's a piece of fabric. You could take it off if you wanted to, and you can keep it on if you wanted to. It's a choice, and I choose to keep mine on, and it's asked of you. We are asked to do it, but it's never forced. People always are like, "Oh, you can't take that off. You can't do that." I'm like, "I can do whatever I'd like with it. Mind your own business [laughter]." It's not that serious. I mean, it's serious to your identity, but it is not forced upon you. That's what I'm trying to say. Yeah. So it's a choice. (p. 5) Fatima’s insistence that wearing the hijab was her choice, a product of her agency, begins the story of her encounters with religious discrimination. In some ways, this insistence could be 124 read as speaking back to deficit discourses that suggest Muslim women, by wearing the hijab, are oppressed, lack agency and the ability to assert their will (Uprichard, 2019). Fatima makes it clear that she doesn’t appreciate these negative stereotypes that position hijab-wearing Muslim women as subordinate, as she playfully, yet assertively, responds to an imaginary interlocutor with the words, “I can do whatever I’d like with it. Mind your own business [laughter].” Fatima shares about the time when she was out with her older sister, Hadia, and rather unexpectedly she made the decision to wear the hijab. She shares: . . . out of nowhere, I found myself saying that, "I wanted to wear my scarf." And she started crying because my sister wore it when she was in the fourth grade. So I always had that expectation, but my mom was like, "Just take your time. Whenever you want–Hadia is my sister, my biggest role model, honestly. She's very strong. I love her. That's what I want to be when I grow up. I just want to be like her. She's a perfect depiction of who I want to be . . . And so I was talking–and we were eating sushi, and then I was like, "Actually, I want to put my hijab on." And then she starts crying, and I was like, "Whoa, don't do that. I'm going to start crying." So we start crying in this sushi restaurant about this major decision that I'm about to make . . . And I promise you, it was the last thing on my mind. I was not thinking about it. And I was just looking at her, and I just found myself saying those words, and I meant them. I was excited for myself. I was like, "This is crazy. I never think about this." And I just found it like God telling me that, "Hey, it's time. You're ready." For Fatima, the decision to wear the hijab was not one of compulsion but one of desire. A desire that, in some sense perhaps, springs from her desire to listen and follow God’s will, as God tells 125 her “ . . . it’s time” and that she’s “ready” to wear the hijab. The event, imbued with emotion between Fatima and her sister, is punctuated by both of their tears. It’s a poignant moment that is replete with significance: the significance of Fatima taking on an external display of her religious commitment and piety, the significance of the bonding between Fatima and her elder sister and role model, Hadia, and the significance for what the wearing of the hijab might portend for Fatima–the hardship associated with the political sign that the hijab has become and the ways that it is alternately construed as a symbol of freedom, oppression, and hatred. It is into these swirling and tumultuous politically-charged waters that a young Fatima Tayah, covered with her hijab, wades. Having introduced Bassim and Fatima, in the next chapter I provide a literature review of research on students’ religious literacies and critical literacy scholarship. I discuss some of the major themes I gleaned from this review, as well as a gap in the critical literacy literature. Namely, I claim, respectfully, that critical literacy scholarship, although it aims to use students’ texts to change socio-cultural structures, often undertheorizes the interplay between socio-cultural structures and students’ text-composing agency. I contend that a result of this is an underestimation of the need for students to work with Corporate Agents (e.g. activist groups that have a clear organization and agenda) so that students’ texts can contribute to positive social change. In the next chapter, I will explain data collection and analysis procedures and how the theoretical-methodological apparatus operates to explain more regarding the interplay between socio-cultural structures and two Muslim students’ text-composing agencies. 126 Chapter 7: Data Collection and Analysis 127 Structure of this Chapter This chapter explains how I met Bassim and Fatima and the methods I employed to collect empirical materials from them. I also discuss how I used a three-phase data analysis approach that used a combination of deductive and inductive coding, intertextuality, and Critical Discourse Analysis. Meeting Bassim and Fatima Bassim Abbas and Fatima Tayah attended the same high school and had the same sophomore English teacher, Ms. Smith. I first met Bassim in June of 2017, after having reached out to the director of equity and inclusion of his high school district, Ms. Assad. I met Ms. Assad through administrators at another school district that I had reached out to regarding the possibility of conducting research in their district. After Ms. Assad gave me permission to conduct research, she put me in touch with one of Bassim’s teachers who was aware that he experienced and wrote about religious discrimination. My initial interview was with Bassim and another student named Zafar. At this point, Bassim was 16 and just finishing his sophomore year. He was bright, observant, but also shy. I recall he didn’t say much during the interview, not, at least, when compared with the chatty Zafar. Bassim mentioned his writing during our interview, and I asked if I could see it. He obliged and sent me the poem, essay, and assignment description. It was a poetry chapbook assignment that his teacher, Ms. Smith, assigned the class. Bassim’s poem was called “The Desert” and detailed with raw candor the effects that Islamophobia and discrimination had on him, as well as other marginalized people. Bassim and I met together again for a follow up interview in November of 2018, in which he shared his plans for the future, as well as some 128 additional poetry not included in this research. In March of 2019, I observed Bassim in his English class and also at his district’s Diversity Conference where he was a dialogue facilitator and, sadly, experienced the racist incident detailed in Chapter 2. I met Fatima in March of 2019, nearly two years after meeting Bassim. I was visiting Bassim’s school to observe his classroom, and during a chat with Ms. Smith, she asked me if I had met Fatima yet. She had taught Fatima the previous year and recalled that Fatima also wrote poetry that dealt with experiences of Islamophobia. Ms. Smith encouraged me to reach out to Fatima’s current English teacher, Ms. Donalds, to see if Fatima might be interested in participating in the study. Ms. Donalds said that I could visit her class to meet with Fatima. In mid-March, Fatima and I met, and I explained the nature of the study to her, and she said she would be interested in participating. We exchanged emails, and she later sent me her poem “That One Girl” and the analytic essay she wrote about it. “That One Girl” details the fear she feels as a Muslim woman, particularly because of the way her hijab can signal her Muslim identity to Islamophobes. Her work conveys a sense of tension between wanting to freely express her faith but also knowing that doing so might open her up to discrimination and potential violence. At the end of April 2019, Fatima and I met for an interview in which she discussed her poetry and her thoughts on and experiences with Islamophobia. Data Collection Because the goal of this qualitative research is to use Archer’s Morphogenetic theory and Beydoun’s theory of Islamophobia to examine the ways socio-cultural structures interplay with two Muslim students’ text-composing agency, a valuable way to gain insight into this interplay 129 will be examining primarily the texts that these Muslim students create. For both of my participants, Bassim and Fatima, the written texts (e.g. poetry and analytic essay) I analyzed were created in their sophomore English class. Their teacher, Ms. Smith, gave the classes a Poetry Chapbook Assignment in which they had to write five or six poems in various poetic styles (e.g. Modernist, Transcendental, Romantic, etc.). Students picked one poem and created an analytic essay that was a close reading of their poem; however, they referred to themselves in the third-person. The final texts that I analyzed were verbatim interview transcripts (Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2014) that resulted from some of the semi-structured interviews (Glesne, 2016) (See Appendix A). During my semi-structured interview with Bassim, for example, I asked, What experiences have you had in your high school that you might identify as discriminatory based on or in relation to your religious identity? and In what ways do you respond to the discrimination, i.e., ignore it, resist it, internalize discriminatory narratives, etc.? However, I also wanted to keep the interview somewhat loose so that other questions of interest could emerge and be asked. After my initial interview with Bassim, he provided me with his writing and we met twice more. During these interviews I had questions that I wanted to ask him about his family background, interests, and some specific questions about his writing. I took field notes to record his answers (See Appendix B). Prior to meeting with Fatima for our semi-structured interview, she shared her writing with me. This gave me the opportunity to read over her work and compile a list of questions related to her work like What experiences have you had which led you to feel as though you have a target on your back? I was also keen to hear more about her own background as well. For my 130 interview with Fatima, we met at her high school. During the interview I was able to ask some of the predetermined questions, but due to the loose nature of the semi-structured interview, I was also able to pursue lines of inquiry that were not limited to the questions I had developed earlier. For instance, one unanticipated question that emerged during the course of our interview was about the ways she perceived the media to exacerbate Islamophobia. I recorded our interview and had the recordings transcribed verbatim by a transcription service. We also exchanged several emails as I needed clarification about portions of her writing or to ask for her choice of a pseudonym for this study. Data Analysis Fairclough (2003) believes that our understanding of texts can be enriched by connecting Critical Discourse Analysis with social theory. I would argue that using social theories to augment analytic categories deepens our understanding not only of texts but also the interplay between texts and socio-cultural structures. Therefore, I use analytic categories from Archer’s Morphogenetic theory, which I nuance with Beydoun’s theory of Islamophobia, and conjoin those with Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis methodology. To analyze the empirical materials at hand (e.g. students’ poetry and essays and interview transcripts), I structured the analysis in three phases in a way that would enable the data to address the following research questions: RQ2: What types of socio-cultural forces do two Muslim students identify and how do they respond to these forces via their text-composing agency? RQ3: How do Islamophobic socio-cultural forces affect the text-composing agency of two Muslim students? 131 Each phase will be described in turn. Phase One: Initial Coding for Discrimination and Responses to Discrimination All of the texts (poetry, analytic essays, verbatim interview transcriptions) that Bassim and Fatima created are a result of their text-composing agency. The texts they created identify and respond not only to Islamophobia but also to a wide range of socio-cultural forces. And although one of the major focal points of this research are Islamophobic socio-cultural structures and the interplay between two Muslim students’ text-composing agency, Bassim and Fatima also exert agency in identifying Patriarchal White Supremacy, General White Supremacy, minimization of Muslim life, etc. Therefore, to emphasize their text-composing agency, I not only used deductive coding (and eventually Critical Discourse Analysis) to focus on the interplay between Islamophobic socio-cultural structures and their text-composing agency, I also used inductive coding to draw out the ways their text composing agency identified other pernicious socio-cultural forces and ways they responded to, and in some cases resisted, those forces. Deductive Coding: Islamophobic Socio-cultural Structures. Having discussed Archer’s general framework for socio-cultural structures and agency, I will now bring in Beydoun’s (2018) work on Islamophobia, which will provide an important nuance to the particular features of socio-cultural structures that I will be examining. Fortunately, not all Muslims claim to experience Islamophobia; however, research suggests that many do (CAIR, 2016; Ansary, 2018; Mogahed and Chouhoud, 2018a). But what is Islamophobia? Beydoun goes beyond the definition of Islamophobia as a “. . .merely irrational fear or hatred held by a caricatured bloc or demographic, or as deviant violence committed by individual actors. . .[and asserts that Islamophobia] is complex, multidimensional, and anchored 132 in law and government policy” (p. 20). Beydoun’s theory of Islamophobia has significant consequences for this research. He expands Islamophobic culpability to government structures, legislation, and policies. He contends that in seeking to understand Islamophobia, if the ultimate unit of analysis is the individual Islamophobe, the wider scope of anti-Muslim discrimination is too hastily delimited. Instead, Beydoun also implicates governmental social structures as being causal mechanisms in the phenomenon of Islamophobia, and these social structures must be interrogated as well. Beydoun’s theory is the scion of Said’s (1979) critique of Orientalism, that is the Eurocentric practice of “othering”, subjugating, and speaking for non-White, non-European peoples. Beydoun’s definition of Islamophobia examines the structural anti-Muslim sentiment that influences government legislation and policy; he argues that this structural Islamophobia has a dialectic influence on private acts of and “othering” by individuals or groups. He contends: [Islamophobia] is a system that redeploys stereotypes of Muslims deeply rooted in the collective American imagination and endorsed by formative case law, foundational policy on immigration and citizenship, and the writings and rhetoric of this nation’s founding fathers. Islamophobia is a modern extension and articulation of an old system that branded Muslims as inherently suspicious and unassimilable and cast Islam as a rival ideology at odds with American values, society, and national identity. . .The term we are familiar with today rises from a hate America has always known, a hate that helped delineate who fits within the contours of American identity and who deserves to be excluded from those contours. (p. 18) 133 Beydoun claims that Islamophobia is not just a reality caused by individual actions but that the state is also complicit through the laws and policies it enacts which necessarily discriminate against Muslims. As such, Beydoun (2018) offers a more nuanced and complex explanation of what he sees to be as the three major constituent realities of Islamophobia: private Islamophobia, structural Islamophobia, and dialectic Islamophobia. Each of these will be described in turn. Regarding private Islamophobia , he notes, “these actors could be individuals or institutions acting in a capacity not directly tied to the state” but which nevertheless engage in anti-Muslim activity (p. 32). Examples of private Islamophobia could be individuals who vandalize mosques or groups who promulgate hate speech and seek to incite violence against Muslims. Regarding structural Islamophobia , he writes that it “. . .is the fear and suspicion of Muslims on the part of government institutions and actors” (p. 36). These might include the increased surveillance of Muslims, of mosques, and of schools where Muslims attend through government programs like Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) (p. 148). Finally, he concludes with dialectic Islamophobia which is “. . .the ongoing dialogue between state and citizen that binds the private Islamophobia unleashed by hate-mongers. . .” (p. 29). Beydoun further adds that dialectic Islamophobia: . . .is the process by which structural Islamophobia shapes, reshapes, and endorses views or attitudes about Islam and Muslim subjects inside and outside of America’s borders. State action legitimizes prevailing misconceptions, misrepresentations, and stereotypes of Islam and communicates damaging ideas through state-sponsored policy, programming, or rhetoric, which in turn emboldens private violence against Muslims (and perceived Muslims). p. 40 134 Although Beydoun’s theory pushes the conversation forward regarding the role structure influences the agency of Islamophobes, this study seeks to examine a few other factors: the impact potentially Islamophobic socio-cultural forces have on the text-composing agency of young Muslims, the ways young Muslims compose texts about potential encounters with structural Islamophobia, and the ways their texts can in turn influence, change, or sustain societal structures, e.g. legislation, public school policy, etc. 16 Beydoun’s (2018) theory of Islamophobia informed my use of qualitative coding (Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2014). Because my research questions focused on Islamophobic socio-cultural structures and because both Bassim and Fatima used their writing to respond to Islamophobia, among other things, I decided to look for portions related to Islamophobic discrimination and coded those accordingly. I initially coded for references to Structural Islamophobia and Private Individual Cultural Islamophobia. These codes were informed by Archer’s work on social structures, cultural structures, and agents as well as Beydoun’s work (2018) on Islamophobia. I began deductively coding Bassim’s texts first, starting with the essay, and I carried out a similar analysis of Fatima’s texts afterward. 16 A hypothetical example of what this analysis might look like could be a school where Muslims aren’t allowed to pray during the day, and, thus, their right to freely practice their religion is impinged. However, Muslim students might write and perform protest songs to advocate for their right to pray. And these texts may move the administration to concede some space for these students to pray during school hours. In this scenario, I would analyze the following: ● The causes behind the structure of school policy ● How students are impacted by the structure of school policy ● How they resist that policy through their text-composing agency ● Why and how they merged different types of texts together ● How they are themselves changed by this process ● How the school, in acquiescing to the students’ demands, experiences a change or structural elaboration in which it makes accommodations for the Muslims students which weren’t present before. 135 As mentioned in the theory chapter, Archer (1995) conceives of social structures as being “systems of human relations among social positions” . . . [which refer] to actual forms of social organization, that is, to real entities with their own powers, tendencies and potentials . . .” (p. 106). Examples of social structures are educational systems, language systems, banking systems, government organizations, etc. She also conceives of cultural structures as being “. . .existing intelligibilia–by all things capable of being grasped, deciphered, understood or known by someone . . . [and which form a system in which] all items must be expressed in a common language (or be translatable in principle) since this is a precondition of their being intelligible” (Archer, 1996, p. 104). As mentioned earlier, Nuryatno and Dobson (2015), offer such examples of culture as ideas, beliefs, values and ideologies (p. 3). It is important to note that cultural structures and social structures can interpenetrate one another. Ideology can affect material social structures, and material social structures can affect ideologies. An important cultural structure with which this study contends is Islamophobia, an ideology that discriminates against Muslisms in structural and/or cultural ways. Beydoun (2018) comments that “Structural Islamophobia” is anchored in government policies, legislation, and organizations, and “Private Islamophobia”, which results from private individual Islamophobes and the media acting in accord with Islamophobic cultural structures or ideologies. Thus, my initial round of coding in Phase One looked for references to both Structural Islamophobia and Private Individual Cultural Islamophobia. Inductive Coding: Listening to Two Muslim Students’ Text-Composing Agencies. However, I quickly realized that the discrimination the students mentioned was not limited to 136 Islamophobia. Through their text-composing agency, Bassim and Fatima were also responding to several other socio-cultural forces. I coded Bassim’s data first and then moved to Fatima’s data. While coding Bassim’s essay, there were several other categories that emerged under the broader umbrellas of “Identifying Discrimination” (e.g. “Identifying General White Supremacist Discrimination”, “Identifying Structural White Supremacist Discrimination”, etc.) and “Responding to Discrimination” (e.g. Resisting Discrimination), and I decided to begin an inductive list of these as well to better understand other socio-cultural forces that Bassim identified via his text-composing agency and the ways his texts revealed how he responded to these forces. Using this deductive and inductive list from coding the essay (See Appendix C), I turned to his poem. As I coded the poem (see Appendix D), I again found portions of the text that would not fit into the deductive or inductive codes I used for the essay. Therefore, I added the following new codes: “Identifying Effects of White Supremacist Discrimination”, “Identifying Resources that the Speaker Cannot Have”, “Asserting Equality”, and “Asking for Help”. With these new codes, I returned back to the essay and recoded to see if these newer codes applied to any of the data in the essay. There were areas that I was able to recode and categorize with greater specificity using these newer codes. With this revised coding list, I then examined Bassim’s interview transcripts and coded accordingly. Regarding the interview transcript, Bassim was rather quiet. During the interview with Bassim, Zafar, and myself, Zafar did the greatest amount of talking. Therefore, to make working with Bassim’s comments easier, I read through a raw copy of the interview transcript and selected only the portions relevant to Bassim speaking. I copied and pasted these into a distilled 137 version of the interview transcript to allow for easier coding. I also discovered three new codes: “Writing in Response to Discrimination”, “Ignoring/minimizing discrimination”, “Critiquing the Minimization of the Value of Muslim and Non-White Life”. I then went back to examine the poem and the essay to see if any of the data might be better categorized by the new codes. Neither of the two newer codes spoke directly to Bassim’s essay or the poem. After completing the coding of Bassim’s texts, I then used the inductive list I generated along with the deductive codes inspired by Archer and Beydoun to code Fatima’s texts. I went through a similar process; starting with her essay, I then coded her poem and then the interview transcripts, moving between the documents as new inductive codes appeared. There were a few new inductive codes that emerged from her text-composing agency: “Respecting for Differences of Others”, “Expressing Hope”, and “Inviting Dialogue”. In sum, via their text-composing agency, Bassim and Fatima not only identified Islamophobic Socio-cultural structures but also other types of social forces, as well as their agential responses to these forces. At this point I had a list of twenty agential codes (numbered here) and then began to organize them within the following broad categories of “Identifying Discrimination” and “Identifying Effects of Discrimination”: ● Identifying Discrimination ○ 1. Identifying General Discrimination ○ 2. Identifying Private Discrimination on non-Muslims from the Media ○ Islamophobia ■ 3. Identifying General Islamophobia ■ Private Islamophobia ● 4. Identifying Private Individual Cultural Islamophobia ● 5. Identifying Private Cultural Islamophobia from the Media ■ 6. Identifying Structural Islamophobia ○ White Supremacy ■ 7. Identifying General White Supremacist Discrimination ■ 8. Identifying Structural White Supremacist Discrimination ● Identifying Effects of Discrimination 138 ○ Results of Discrimination ■ 9. Identifying Effects of White Supremacist Discrimination ■ 10. Identifying Effects of Islamophobia on Speaker ■ 11. Identifying Resources the Speaker Cannot Have ■ 12. Critiquing the Minimization of the Value of Muslim and Non-White Life ○ Agential Responses to Discrimination ■ 13. Resisting Discrimination ■ 14. Asserting Equality ■ 15. Asking for help ■ 16. Ignoring/minimizing discrimination ■ 17. Writing in Response to Discrimination ■ 18. Respecting Differences of Others ■ 19. Expressing Hope ■ 20. Inviting Dialogue From these categories I created an Agential Coding Chart (See Appendix E) with twenty different codes, a description of each code, and a relevant excerpt from the data that could be categorized under that code (See Table 1). Table 1: Examples from Agential Coding Chart IDENTIFYING TYPES OF DISCRIMINATION : Islamophobia: Examples: Identifying General Islamophobia : This is a general reference to discrimination against Muslims, but the source of the discrimination is vague, that is, it cannot be categorzed as either structural or private. Code Abbreviation: IDGenIPH Color Why am I treated differently? Is it because I believe in a religion of peace? (Bassim, Poem, Lines 11-12). 139 Table 1: Examples from Agential Coding Chart (contd.) White Supremacy: Identifying General Patriarchal White Supremacist Discrimination : This is discrimination of non-White people and the privileging of being White (and in many cases being male). However, the cause of the White Supremacist discrimination is not clear. Code Abbreviation: IDGWSD Color Food and water in the desert are rare, much like how true freedom is scarcely available to people in America. This true freedom although very desirable is only accessible to certain people specifically the white males. Many people strive to achieve true freedom in this desirable America but soon they realize this is impossible as there is no real equality for all as some people will always be treated better than others (Bassim, Essay, p. 3). AGENTIAL RESPONSES TO DISCRIMINATION: Expressing Hope : The belief that conditions will improve such that discrimination and Islamophobia will recede, so that people can live their lives free from fear. Code Abbreviation: HP Color Inviting Dialogue : The student encourages non-Muslims to ask questions about her religion and religious identity in order to dispel myths. Code Abbreviation: INVD Color Phase Two: Creating an Intertextual Chart Tayah hopes for a day where she and others can put on the hijab without a fearful thought (Fatima, Essay, p. 6) And that's the thing, people are just afraid to ask questions about the unknown. They're unsure, but I love questions. It's better to ask a question and get the true answer than make your own assumptions because assumptions can lead to hateful actions and things like that that are all truly a misunderstanding (Fatima, Interview, p. 6). Having coded Bassim and Fatima’s poems, essays, and interviews, I then created an intertextual chart for each of them (Bazerman, 2004; Bazerman & Prior, 2004; Fairclough, 2003) (See Appendix F). I used intertextuality to build a three-column chart that includes three texts: the interview, the poem, and the analytic essay about the poem. As specified by the Poetry 140 Chapbook Assignment, the analytic essay of the poem is written in the third person. I created the chart by centering the poem as a nexus and each line of the poem constituted a row. I then read through analytic essays and the interview to make connections where those texts might elucidate the meaning of the poem. At times, Bassim and Fatima made explicit connections between their poems and their analytic essays by quoting themselves directly (direct reporting) and then they used the essay to explicate their intended meaning. For instance, in his poem, Bassim writes: I say the fruit is bitter He says it’s sweet And in his essay, he directly reports these lines and explicates them to illumine his intended meaning: This is seen when the author writes “I say the fruit is bitter/He says it is sweet.” He signifies that this other man who is also going for fruit on the same tree is experiencing something different. He is rewarded for reaching this point while the author is punished. He also separates bitter from his words to portray the insignificance of his beliefs about the freedom he earned. The inequality that he tries to preach is hidden behind the preaching that this other man is experiencing true freedom. This illustrates that Abbas could never experience true freedom growing up. At other times, I tried to use the analytic essay and interview to interpret various lines in the poem and took interpretive license to associate particular segments of the interview and the essay with Bassim’s poem. For instance, in one line of his poem Bassim writes, “Why am I treated differently?” (Poem, Line 11). In this line, I take him to be referring to a general sense of discrimination that he experiences because of his religious identity. That interpretation then 141 informed my search for related passages in the essay and the interview in which Bassim indicates experiences of being “treated differently”. For instance in the essay he writes: Abbas feels that he needs to be mindful of what he says as people may begin to think he is a threat to the safety of America. He always gets “randomly” checked at airports once they see that his dad lived in Saudi Arabia. He gets judgemental stares when walking around with his mom, who wears a hijab. He also gets bombarded with constant ridicule about being a suicide bomber and being part of Isis. Life has always been a struggle for him because of the label placed on Muslims. (Essay, p. 2) This passage points to the alienation he experiences as a Muslim living in America, whether it be in the form of self-censorship, overprofiling by the TSA, or being subjected to “judgmental stares” when out in public with his mother. All of these gesture toward the othering he experiences because of his Muslim religious identity and supports the assertion of his poem’s rhetorical question about his being treated differently. Related to his sense of exclusion, during the interview, Bassim also shared about the ways his religion, as opposed to ethnic, identity can be singled out and othered by his schoolmates at times. He writes: I’m Indian, I look Indian, so like, I’m not perceived as a Muslim as, at first. I’m thought of as a Hindu, and stuff like that, so when I, when they see me they don’t really make jokes or anything like that. But when I tell them I’m Muslim, it kind of just starts, like, progressing off from there and just getting like, just like, subtle comments to like … or like more extreme I guess. (Interview, p. 2). The following Table 2 shows one row from Bassim’s intertextual chart: 142 Table 2: A Row from Bassim’s Intertextual Chart Thus, intertextuality enables connections to be made across various texts that narrate Bassim’s experiences with Islamophobia, and, as a result, this process yields a clearer picture of the ways various socio-cultural forces affect Bassim and the texts he creates. Further, as the chart was formed, I retained the color coding that I developed from previous iterative rounds of coding. So the intertextual document not only clarified Bassim’s experiences by putting different texts in conversation with one another, the various categories that were coded also yielded insight into ways particular types of discrimination (e.g., Structural Islamophobia, General White Supremacist Discrimination, etc.) were operating, but also how Bassim was responding to discriminatory forces (e.g., Asking for Help, Writing in Response to Discrimination, Asserting Equality, etc.). This coded intertextual chart was helpful in the final stage of coding because I used it to isolate statements that referenced socio-cultural structures and responses to those structures, and after isolating those statements, I could then apply a Critical Discourse Analysis linguistic analysis. 143 Phase Three: Linguistic Analysis Using Critical Discourse Analysis The final phase of analysis is informed by Fairclough’s (2003) Critical Discourse Analysis approach. I used Critical Discourse Analysis to examine the text-composing agency of students at the linguistic level by attending to the use of intertextuality (direct reporting, indirect reporting, etc.), clauses, elements of representational meaning (e.g. processes via verbs, participants via subjects, objects, etc. and circumstances via adverbs), as well as agentive representation variables (e.g. inclusion of agents, exclusion of agents, etc.). This level of analysis yielded insight into the ways socio-cultural structures interplayed with Bassim and Fatima’s text-composing agency. Having completed my presentation of my data collection and analysis procedures, Chapter 8 will explore the inductive findings of Bassim and Fatima’s text-composing agencies, which emerged during Phase One and Phase Two of data analysis and answers the research question: How do two Muslim students use their text-composing agency to identify and respond to socio-cultural forces? This chapter gives a broad view of the various types of socio-cultural forces Bassim and Fatima encounter and the ways they use their text-composing agency to respond to and make sense of these forces. Chapters 9 and 10 will answer the research question: How do Islamophobic socio-cultural structural forces affect the text-composing agency of two Muslim students? Consequently, these chapters will narrow the study’s focus and apply a Critical Discourse Analysis to better the ways Islamophobic social structures (e.g. the Transportation Security Administration, President Trump’s Islamophobic rhetoric, etc.) and Islamophobic cultural structures (e.g. anti-Muslim rhetoric and actions) interact with Bassim and Fatima’s text-composing agency, respectively. Chapter 11 discusses the implications of this work that 144 includes the theoretical-methodological apparatus I developed to examine the interplay between socio-cultural structures and students’ text-composing agency, the findings for English education, and also a thought-experiment informed by Archers’s (1995) Morphogenetic approach to suggest how Bassim’s text-composing agency, when combined with Corporate Agents, could yield changes in Islamophobic social structures, thus answering the final research question: How might a Muslim student’s text-composing agency influence socio-cultural forces? 145 Chapter 8: Inductive Findings: Two Muslim Students’ Text-Composing Agency in Response to Socio-cultural Structures 146 Structure of This Chapter This chapter explores some of the inductive thematic findings that I identified from the ways Fatima and Bassim exerted their text-composing agency in response to various socio-cultural forces (e.g. Patriarchal White Supremacy, Discrimination of non-Muslims by the media, etc.). Nine of these inductive findings are explored and each presents different aspects of their awareness of and responses to various socio-cultural forces. As a result, an inductive analysis of their text-composing agency reveals Bassim and Fatima’s sophisticated understanding of their socio-cultural environment and how they can use their texts to navigate it. In coding Bassim’s and Fatima’s data during Phase One, I used an approach that combined deductive coding, as well as inductive coding. The deductive coding was informed by Archer and Beydoun’s theories, particularly as they addressed Islamophobic social and cultural structures. However, there were also important inductive themes of text-composing agency I noticed both in regards to other socio-cultural forces they identified and their agential response to them that I would like to mention because they give more insight into Bassim and Fatima as text-composing agents navigating the complexities of society and their social positioning. Some of the inductive thematic findings that will be explored in this section are: ● Identifying Patriarchal White Supremacist Discrimination ● Identifying the Results of Patriarchal White Supremacist Discrimination ● Critiquing Private Islamophobia and Discrimination of Non-Muslims by the Media ● Writing in Response to Discrimination ● Critiquing the Minimization of the Value of Muslim and Non-White Life 147 ● Respecting Differences of Others ● Expressing Hope ● Inviting Dialogue Identifying Patriarchal White Supremacist Discrimination There are certain instances of discrimination that Bassim refers to that occur because those who are discriminated against are not White. However, Bassim does not locate the cause of the White Supremacist discrimination within a particular socio-cultural structure; therefore, I am labeling it as “Patriarchal White Supremacist Discrimination” as opposed to say “Structural White Supremacist Discrimination”, which, as will be shown, he locates within a particular social structure. For the purposes of this study, I am defining Patriarchal White Supremacist Discrimination as the discrimination of non-White, non-male people and the privileging of being White and male. However, the cause of the Patriarchal White Supremacist discrimination is not clear. For instance, Bassim speaks of this type of discrimination in his essay when he writes: This true freedom although very desirable is only accessible to certain people specifically the White males. Many people strive to achieve true freedom in this desirable America but soon they realize this is impossible as there is no real equality for all as some people will always be treated better than others. (p. 3) In this quote he is claiming that “true freedom” is “only accessible” to White males and not to other citizens. In his essay, Bassim defines “true freedom” as “ . . . all the rights listed in the constitution and bill of rights” (p. 2). And even though he is pointing out that non-White males are excluded from having complete equality as promised in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, he is not locating specific obstacles to that freedom in a particular socio-cultural structure. 148 Rather, he is using his texts to point toward a general White Supremacist force that operates within the U.S. and marginalizes non-White males. Identifying the Results of Patriarchal White Supremacist Discrimination But how does Bassim write about the effects of White Supremacist discrimination? I labeled this theme “Identifying the Results of Patriarchal White Supremacist Discrimination” because Bassim shared about his perception of the ways the results of Patriarchal White Supremacist Discrimination negatively affects non-White males. In the sixth stanza of his poem he writes: In this Desert there are 7 men Each one owns a well of water Around them WomenAfricanAmericansMexicansAsians Dead The intertextual chart created during Phase Two of the data analysis, allows us to see what Bassim means in this stanza and the connections that he is making with Patriarchal White Supremacy and its pernicious effects on non-White males. As mentioned before, Bassim explains that “this Desert” refers to the U.S., yet who are the “7 men” he refers to and what is the “well of water” they each own? He explicates in his essay: [Bassim] writes about “7 men” which symbolize the founding fathers of America whose ideology is a free world. They wanted to break free from Britain because of their oppressive nature on the citizens of the U.S. This oppression is now still faced by citizens, except now they look a little different. Each man has “a well of water.” This water symbolizes the true freedom in America. Even though they have a huge amount of water, they still conserve it as if they cannot give any to anyone. (p. 5) 149 In his identification of White Supremacy, Bassim is pointing back to the inception of the U.S. in which the seven founding fathers: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington were all White and all male. Importantly, Bassim points out that the very reason for their rebellion was inspired by an “ideology” of freedom, which led them to break the chains of oppression from Great Britain so that “citizens” could be free. And, yet, the “freedom” these “founding fathers” achieved produced a government that favored White males and excluded all others. He writes, “This true freedom is given to only a select few in this country. Only if they fit the requirement of being White and male” (Essay, p. 5). Bassim analogizes the Founding Fathers’ “well[s] of water” in a desert to the freedom that White males enjoy in the U.S. He then critiques this scenario because it contradicts the basic principles of freedom upon which the U.S. is founded (e.g. the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) and results in the suffering of non-White males, specifically “WomenAfricanAmericansMexicansAsians”. These people, lumped together by exclusionary treatment, are insignificant in the “eyes of the founders” (Essay, p. 5). They find themselves in a desert “ . . . pleading for a sip of this water so they could earn their freedom but the founding fathers never give up their supply” (Essay, p. 5). He then ends the stanza chillingly and suggests that because freedom is being withheld from these groups, they are “Dead”. Bassim uses his text-composing agency to assert that Patriarchal White Supremacy creates societal conditions in which non-White males are deprived, and he implies that these conditions of privation could be avoided if only freedom and equality might be yielded by White males instead of hoarded. Thus, Bassim uses his poetry and essay to critique the U.S. 150 government and suggest that from its conception it was birthed in White supremacy and still conceives White supremacy. Bassim also uses his text-composing agency to suggest that the media can also engage in at least two types of discrimination: Private Discrimination of Non-Muslims from the Media and Private Cultural Islamophobia from the Media . Critiquing Private Islamophobia and Discrimination of Non-Muslims by the Media Drawing on Beydoun’s (2018) distinction between the structural and the private, Private Discrimination of Non-Muslims from the Media gestures towards the media’s independence from government (structural) oversight, and, therefore, it is a private entity. This category also refers to discrimination of non-Muslim groups (e.g. non-Muslim People of Color) by the media. Further, Private Cultural Islamophobia from the Media points to Islamophobic content that is generated by a media/news outlet and also what might be found on the Internet. In the following lines from his essay, Bassim identifies and critiques both of these problems. He laments: [Racial slurs] are used carelessly in media, and this shows people that maybe it is alright to say this. Media portrays a particular image as an ordinary thing for a race like terrorists for muslims and gang members for African Americans. This image can’t easily be erased. (p. 3) Bassim uses his text-composing agency to point out well-worn racist tropes that caricature, devalue, and dehumanize Muslims as “terrorists” and Black people as “gang members”. Bassim cautions that these images “can’t easily be erased” and suggests that these images may subtly influence the minds of consumers of the media and bias them against Muslims and Black people (Bakali, 2016). These tropes serve as reductionist categories by which 151 Muslims, Black people, Black Muslims, etc. are sorted. Therefore, the media may in some cases be complicit in aiding and abetting White Supremacist ideologies. Writing in Response to Discrimination Both Fatima and Bassim use their writing as a means to respond to the discrimination they encounter. During our interview, Bassim shared about his decision to use his experiences with Islamophobia as the driving force behind the creation of his poetry and his analytic essay. He offered: . . . we were writing some poetry and I just wrote one on being a Muslim, right? . . . And I wrote an essay on that too, so I kind of like, in the poetry it was really subtle, like hinting of it being like a Muslim relationship, but then in my essay I wrote a lot about being a conflict with Muslims and all this hatred that’s happened. (Bassim, Interview p. 4). Interestingly, Bassim says he wrote poetry about what is is to be a Muslim, yet because his poetry and essay focus largely on experiences of Islamophobia, this suggests that he equates his Muslim identity largely with being marginalized in society. There are many things that constitute Bassim’s Muslim identity (e.g., his piety, his community at the mosque, his ambitions to help the needy), and yet, those other facets are overshadowed by the environment of hatred and discrimination in which he lives. In response to this discrimination, he chooses to exert his text-composing agency to speak back to the oppression he encounters. Similarly, as was shared earlier, Fatima also uses writing as a vehicle to respond to discrimination. She commented about the poetry chapbook assignment in her English classroom: 152 And I was just writing it down and it just made me–and that was around the time that the girl was raped and murdered, so I was thinking about that and I was just upset in general. And it's always in the back of my mind, but I don't want it to be in the back of my mind. I want it to be in the front of my mind, and I want to be aware. I want to make other people aware. I want people to understand that their actions are not helping anyone, and so that's why I just fueled all that into the poems . . . For Fatima, composing texts is a way for her to process the challenges that are swirling around her. She perceives the ways Islamophobia can lead to discrimination and murder, and she cites two examples of women who have been marginalized: her mother and the late Nabra Hassanen. In some ways, she can identify with the dangers that gendered Islamophobia can create. And yet she uses this opportunity to bring this danger from “back” of her mind to the “front” of her mind so that she can grapple with it and become more aware of the ways she is positioned in society. Also, she seems to be writing for an audience that is largely unaware of her struggles or perhaps even exacerbates her struggles through discriminatory treatment. She wants this audience to know “that their actions are not helping anyone” and that the discrimination that causes Muslim girls like her to fear for her life needs to stop. Critiquing the Minimization of the Value of Muslim and Non-White Life During my interview in June of 2017 with Bassim and Zafar, we were nearing the end of our time together, and I asked Bassim if there was anything he wanted to add. He shared: Uhm, a week ago, I think, there was a bombing in, somewhere in the Middle East. Uh, there was a car bomb, and it killed about 80 people, and I never saw that in the news. I saw that, like, in a small, like news bit and that’s it. I never saw it on TV or anything and 153 that killed 80 plus people. And I just hate how it’s like everything that happens to like any first-world country is immediately known but if anything bad happens to any, like, third-world or anything else, it’s like, just . . . “Go right over it,” interrupted Zafar. “Yeah,” Bassim affirmed. I then asked a follow up question, “So do you see in terms of value, is a first-world person more valuable than a third-world person?” Bassim shared, “To me, I, I don't think so, I think every life is valuable, but, just, people here don’t think that, yeah . . .” Bassim’s critique of the media underreporting on issues relating to Muslims demonstrates a minimization of the value of Muslim and non-White life. For him, it seems as though lives in “third-world countries” and, specifically, Muslim lives are not valued by the media or “people here” in the U.S. This is a sentiment that is seconded by Zafar, and it is a phenomenon that may also be underwritten by White Supremacist ideologies that value what happens to White people as more worthy of reporting than what happens to non-Whites. Relatedly, when I asked Fatima if she felt that certain people’s lives are more valued than others, she shared that she feels the lives of “non-minorities” like White people are more valued than non-Whites. She further explained: I feel some people are valued more than others because, for example, with immigrants and stuff like that and the camps that they're put in and the centers that they're put in, those literally are like prisons. They look like prisons, they're treated like prisoners. Yet their lives are not valued, like you said, like other people. But who determines what is valuable–who is valuable and who is not? I feel everybody should be valuable because 154 we all are separate individuals that need to be valued. Who doesn't want to be valued? And I just feel that in itself is so unfair because [Whites] are being prioritized more than others. (Interview, p. 8) Bassim’s and Fatima’s concerns echo what Dahlia Mogahed, of the Institute of Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU), said, “Muslim Americans will never be seen as fully American until Muslims abroad are seen as human.” These haunting sentiments suggest that the media can be a powerful, complicit force in devaluing Muslim and non-White life. Respecting Differences of Others In spite of the discrimination that she faces because she wears her hijab, Fatima is determined to respect the freedom that other people have to wear whatever they choose. Fatima writes in her poem that Islamophobes are “labeling me as “dangerous” because my choice of attire makes them anxious” (Fatima, Poem, Line 7). In spite of the discrimination, Fatima still respects the value and fundamental rights of those who are mistreating her. The intertextual chart created during Phase Two reveals that she explicates this line by saying “However, their choice of attire is never questioned by her mindset due to her understanding and respecting their differences” (Fatima, Essay, p. 4). The repetition of “choice of attire” accentuates the double standard that Fatima experiences because of the way she wears the hijab. Her detractors will criticize her display of the hijab and its religious significance; however, it is unlikely they would welcome critiques of their clothing from Fatima. And yet, Fatima does not return insult for insult. Instead, she makes the effort to “understand” where her critics are coming from and chooses to “respect” their differences rather than belittle them. 155 Expressing Hope Inspiringly, Fatima responds to discriminatory forces with a sense of hope. This contrasts with Bassim whose work seems largely resigned to continued suffering. Fatima’s texts seem to suggest that she believes conditions will improve such that discrimination and Islamophobia will recede, and she can live her life free from fear. In Lines 20-21 of her poem, she writes, “when will i have the courtesy of being able to express my identity without having a corrupt society reprimand me”. Again, the intertextual chart shows that in her essay she explains her hope: Her hopes for her own future are reflected as she dreams about not being labeled as dangerous or a “threat to mankind.” No teenager should worry about being seen as a threat, yet, Tayah and many more underrepresented teenagers have to add this stressor to their daily lives. Her use of rhetorical questions highlights to the audience her own reflection as well as her hopes for answers. Their continuous hurtful interactions are questioned as she tries to be herself in a close minded, “corrupt society.” In addition, Tayah questions the aspect of time and wonders when the time will come for her to be safe. She wishes and begs for the time to be now, so she can enjoy the rest of her teenage years without worrying about being the next victim. For Fatima, she recognizes the challenges of the current context, the “continuous hurtful interactions” that are forced upon her by a “corrupt society”. She longingly “wonders when the time will come for being safe” and employs the use of “rhetorical questions” to ask her “audience” of oppressors when this mistreatment will stop. And yet, her texts suggest that she is still clinging to a hope that one day perhaps she will “ . . . have the courtesy of being able to express [her] identity without having a corrupt society reprimand [her].” She wants that time to 156 be “now”; however, when she wrote these words she was a sophomore during her 2017-2018 school year. Sadly, Islamophobia is still a reality, and it seems that Fatima’s hope must be deferred and, in some sense, the discrimination she faced robbed some of the enjoyment that her teenage years could have held. Inviting Dialogue Given Fatima’s social and outgoing demeanor, it is not surprising that she is keen to engage non-Muslims in dialogue about her faith in order to dispel myths. During our interview, Fatima shared a humorous story about her friend misunderstanding why she was wearing her hijab or headscarf. She shares: And then I had this one friend, actually, that he just told me this story, he was like, ‘When you first put it on, because it was winter,’ he was like, ‘I thought you were just cold.’ And I was like, ‘What?’ And then he was like, ‘I thought you were just cold. And then it got to spring and summer, and you still weren't taking it off, and I asked someone, and I was like, “Is she still cold? Is she okay?” And then they told me that it was for your religion.’ And I was like, ‘Oh, my God. That's crazy.’ He was like, ‘I went on a whole year thinking that.’ I was like, ‘Why wouldn't you just ask me?’ And that's the thing, people are just afraid to ask questions about the unknown. They're unsure, but I love questions. (Interview, pp. 5-6) In this humorous anecdote, Fatima underscores her openness to being asked questions and having a dialogue. She questions her friend, “Why wouldn’t you just ask me?” Her question points out the void in her friend’s understanding. She recognizes the danger that this void can present. Fatima wants people to engage in dialogue with her about the questions they have 157 around her religious belief. She wants them to know what is “true” rather than to make “assumptions” that might be false. She continues: It's better to ask a question and get the true answer than make your own assumptions because assumptions can lead to hateful actions and things like that that are all truly a misunderstanding. If you ask questions and know what it's for, then I'm pretty sure people will be more respectful and more kind about it. You should have to be more understanding than making your own assumptions right off the bat. (Interview, pp. 5-6) Astutely, Fatima explains the connection between ignorance and the ways ignorance can lead to harmful “hateful actions”. Through her words, Fatima demonstrates a confidence and boldness that seeks to build bridges of understanding between different peoples. Perhaps this is not surprising given her penchant for respecting the differences of others and her sense of hope that societal conditions will improve. Indeed, an analysis of Fatima’s text-composing agency reveals her to be an optimist. She is not unaware of the powerful forces that seek to marginalize her, but perhaps her optimism is buoyed by a faith in God and in the better natures of humanity. As this chapter concludes an analysis of the inductive thematic findings gleaned from Fatima’s and Bassim’s texts, it is clear that they both can identify, critique, and engage with a range of socio-cultural forces that have the potential to marginalize them. In turning toward chapters 10 and 11, I narrow the study’s focus to the deductive analysis of Islamophobic socio-cultural stuctures. In the next chapter, I will explore the way Bassim’s text composing agency interplays with Islamophobic social structures and Islamophobic Private Cultural Structures. 158 Chapter 9: Deductive Findings: Islamophobic Socio-cultural Structures and the Text-Composing Agency of Bassim Abbas, “a Muslim Poet” 159 The Desert by Bassim Abbas There lies a lone tree in this Desert Tall and mighty Fruitful with golden apples and silver oranges I say the fruit is bitter He says it’s sweet There lies an Oasis in this Desert Pristine and luscious Refreshing with water bluer than blue I say the water is hot He say’s it’s cool Why am I treated differently? Is it because I believe in a religion of peace? I say I believe in the same thing you do I say I don’t hate this Desert But all I get is a handful of rotten apples The Desert doesn’t love me It’s giving me a cup of bitter coffee I will make it sweeter the Desert hates me I am a “terrorist” Help me I’m drowning in the quicksand of hate I’m suffocating I can’t break free Please help me In this Desert there are 7 men Each one owns a well of water Around them WomenAfricanAmericansMexicansAsians Dead This Desert is lethal Few make it through I lie there Thirsty 160 Structure of This chapter This chapter will begin with a Critical Discourse Analysis of the ways that Private Individual Cultural Islamophobia (e.g. Islamophobic rhetoric from peers) influences the texts that Bassim creates. I will then move onto an analysis of the Structural Islamophobia (e.g. over profiling of Muslims by the TSA) that affects his texts. Finally, the chapter will conclude by taking the results from the Critical Discourse Analysis and reintroducing Archer’s theory to assess the nature of the interplay between socio-cultural structures and Bassim’s text-composing agency in order to see whether or not his texts contributed to social Morphogenesis or social Morphostasis. The Interplay Between Bassim’s Text-Composing Agency and Islamophobia Bassim created “The Desert”, his poem about his experiences with discrimination, in his sophomore English classroom, and I will select and explicate a few segments that speak to the research question: How do Islamophobic socio-cultural structural forces affect Bassim’s text-composing agency? In the third stanza of “The Desert” Bassim writes: Why am I treated differently? Is it because I believe in a religion of peace? I say I believe in the same thing you do I say I don’t hate this Desert But all I get is a handful of rotten apples He asks two rhetorical questions in this stanza: 1. Why am I treated differently? 2. Is it because I believe in a religion of peace? 161 Bassim creates texts that answer both of these questions in the affirmative. That is, he does find himself being treated differently, or perhaps being mistreated, and he ties this mistreatment compellingly to his religious identity of being a Muslim in the United States. His texts will show that his perception of mistreatment is a result of a cultural structure of Islamophobia in the form of Islamophobic rhetoric from peers, as well as from the social structure of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The discrimination he receives makes its way down into the linguistic structures of Bassim’s texts and reflects the sense of otherness he experiences as a young Muslim man in the U.S. First, using the intertextual chart I created, I will identify and examine a few instances of Private Individual Cultural Islamophobia (e.g. Islamophobic rhetoric from schoolmates) that Bassim encounters and how those experiences work their way into the discoursal level of Social Practices and finally into the creation of the Social Event of the text (Fairclough, 2003). In Bassim’s case, the texts will be his poetry, analytic essay, and interview transcripts. Then I will turn to an analysis of social structures (e.g. the TSA’s over profiling of Muslims). I will similarly examine how the experiences Bassim has with the TSA at airports works its way down through the discoursal level of Social Practice and into the Social Event of the texts he creates. A Critical Discourse Analysis of Cultural Private Individual Islamophobia In order to identify instances of cultural Islamophobia, I returned to the three-column intertextual chart composed of the social events of Bassim’s poem, essay, and interview transcripts. Instances of “Identifying Private Individual Cultural Islamophobia” were coded earlier and highlighted in turquoise. Therefore, I was able to quickly scan the intertextual chart and find coded instances of Islamophobic rhetoric. 162 As Fairclough (2003) suggests, this analysis will begin with an examination of the social event (e.g. the poem, analytic essay, and interview transcript) and then will move back up through the discoursal level of the social practice and finally will point to the Islamophobic socio-cultural structures that are interplaying with Bassim’s text composing agency. I will begin the analysis with a line from Bassim’s poem and then, using the intertextual chart, I will analyze his corresponding commentary from the analytic essay. Finally, I will use the pertinent interview transcripts in the same row of the intertextual chart (See Table 3) to complete the analysis of the interplay between Bassim’s text-composing agency and the types of cultural Islamophobia he faces from his peers. Table 3: An Example from the Intertextual Chart of Cultural Islamophobia In his poem, “The Desert”, Bassim writes, “I’m drowning in the quicksand of hate.” For Fairclough (2003) discourse as representation points the researcher to account for Processes through attention to verbs, for Participants through attention to subjects, objects, indirect objects, etc., and finally to Circumstances through adverbial elements and time and place (p. 135). In 163 analyzing this line, one can see the subject or participant of the sentence is Bassim and he uses the first-person pronoun “I” to form the contraction “I’m”. He is clearly foregrounding the speaker (himself) as the participant-subject of the sentence. But what is happening to him? He writes, “I’m drowning . . . “. His use of the present continuous tense through the choice of “drowning” suggests that his experiences of being submerged by harmful forces is happening continuously. He then adds the prepositional phrase “ . . . in the quicksand of hate” to show what is overwhelming him and threatening his well-being. However, it is not clear from the poem alone what constitutes this “quicksand of hate”. For that, I will turn to the analytic essay and then the interview. In his essay, Bassim uses intertextuality to directly report elements from this line in his poem and explains his intent behind the “analogy” of “Quicksand of hate”. In the third-person he offers: ` He writes “Quicksand of hate” to symbolize how everything around him is blocked by the hate speech and racial slurs of the people around him. He is “drowning” in this hate, and he can’t break himself out of it no matter what he does. He requires aid from someone else to come and help but all people are doing is bystanding. No one takes action to help prevent this man from drowning. The author uses an analogy, “Quicksand of hate,” to compare quicksand to the people around him who spew out hate. Quicksand is something that latches onto you and the more you fight back, the harder it grabs onto you. This is similar to what he experiences as he can’t fight the racists around him or he would just become more damaged and hurt. He is also “suffocating” in all this hatred 164 which adds on to how he is surrounded by this hate that is just shoved down his throat. He repeatedly calls for help, but no one is willing to aid someone who is different. Because the assignment requires him to write about himself in the third-person, he refers to himself as “He”, “Him”, or “the author”. This creates some distance between Bassim: the essay writer and Bassim: the subject of the poem, which gives the impression of Bassim: the essay writer as being detached and objective from the experiences with Islamophobia, as well as from writing the poetry he is analyzing. He says in his essay that the “Quicksand of hate” that he refers to is “the hate speech and racial slurs of the people around him”. This “hate” is something that he is “drowning in” continuously. This suggests that Islamophobic hate speech and slurs are something that he faces regularly. But what types of “hate speech and racial slurs” does he receive? In the interview transcript, Bassim directly reports the types of insults he endures. I will consider his account of this Islamophobic rhetoric, and then I will explore what he says about the effects that this rhetoric has on him. Using the intertextual chart, I was able to see his comments from the interview that corresponded to the “Quicksand of hate” he references in his poem, as well as the “hate speech” and “racial slurs” he mentions in his essay. During the interview, he shared that his “non-Muslim friends and stuff” have said things like, “‘Go, fuckers,’ and stuff like that.” The direct reporting of “Go, fuckers,” suggests that these were the actual words that were said by his peers. Bassim interprets this insult as being related to his Muslim identity. His peers begin their imperative with the verb “Go”, which seems to act as a command to leave. The subject in this sentence is “fuckers”, which Bassim takes to be Muslims. Thus, the command “Go, fuckers” is a command 165 for Bassim to go. Bassim then clarifies his interpretation of this command. He says, “Which is like, I don't know where this came from, but like, apparently it's related to ISIS, and stuff like, ‘You’re from ISIS, oh, are you going to bomb something now?’” Bassim clarifies that the subject of the imperative “Go, fuckers” refers to Muslims and that there is, somehow, a connection being made between Muslims and ISIS and terrorist bombings. The Islamophobic history of linking Muslims to terrorist organizations and acts of violence is a, sadly, well-trodden path (Bakali, 2016; Beydoun, 2018). These tropes are now being applied to Bassim by his non-Muslim peers at school. One peer, using a compound sentence composed of a declarative clause and an interrogative clause, says, “You’re from ISIS, oh, are you going to bomb something now?” The first declarative clause makes the ostensible assumption that because Bassim is Muslim, he must, somehow, be tied to ISIS, a terrorist group. Having established a supposed connection between Bassim and Islam and terrorism, Bassim’s peer asks, “ . . . are you going to bomb something now?” Bassim becomes the subject who is addressed through “you” and is being asked if he will “bomb something now?” The verb “bomb” points to an activity associated with terrorism and the adverbial element “now” points to the temporal circumstance of the situation. That is, wherever and whenever a Muslim might be, there is the imminent threat of terrorism. Bassim comments further, “Yeah, they say it joking, like they don’t really, like, mean offense, but it just kind of gets annoying and just . . .” Bassim makes the subject of the sentence the deictic “they”; this is a stand in for his non-Muslim peers and, given the context of his reporting these events, gestures toward an “us” versus “them” dichotomy. His use of the deictic “they” in this circumstance underscores the othering that Bassim experiences because of his religious identity. 166 And even though Bassim offers that his peers say it in a “joking” way and that they don’t “mean offense”, he shares “it just kind of gets annoying”. The deictic “it” is the subject of this independent clause and is a stand in for the “racial slurs” like “Go, fuckers” that are directed at Bassim. And yet he describes the verbal discrimination as “kind of . . . annoying”. He uses the hedging expression “kind of”, which has the effect of weakening or minimizing a quality of something. In this sentence, it weakens and minimizes the conditions of the adjective “annoying” that he uses to describe the Islamophobic rhetoric he hears. Annoying means to irritate or to make someone a little angry. However, when one recalls Bassim’s feelings of being drowned in a “Quicksand of hate”, even the use of the adjective “annoying” seems like a way to minimize the pain he experiences because of this discrimination. As a result, his use of a hedging expression and his adjective choice seem to diminish the culpability of his peers for their Islamophobic actions, which may also have the effect of Bassim weakening or diminishing his own authority to assess his situation. It is difficult to know with certainty what influenced Bassim’s peers and the Islamophobic rhetoric they said to him. Without having more information, one can only speculate. However, one possibility could be through the media, which has been shown to evince an anti-Muslim bias (Mogahed & Chouhoud, 2018a). It is could be that perhaps Bassim’s peers were influenced by Islamophobic media coverage that perpetuates Islamophobic ideologies and cultural structures. To return to the essay and the effects of Islamophobia that Bassim identifies, I see that he analogizes these experiences with “quicksand”. He writes the compound-complex sentence, “Quicksand is something that latches onto you[,] and the more you fight back, the harder it grabs 167 onto you”. In the first independent clause, “Quicksand”, which normally has no agency, when analogized, becomes personified by Bassim and is endowed with agency. He makes it the subject of this sentence. It becomes a living thing that “latches” on to him. His choice of the verb “latches” suggests connotations of being clutched at, as if by some malevolent force. Curiously, in the essay Bassim decides to make the direct object of the first sentence the generic “you” instead of the third-person singular “him” that he has used elsewhere. This is important for at least two reasons. First, the use of the generic “you” removes Bassim from the position of the direct object that receives the action of the latching quicksand and replaces him with the reader, so that the reader is now being clutched at by the quicksand. Further, the direct object receiving the action of being latched onto by the quicksand is being passivated. Thus, the agency of the reader is attenuated through this passivation (Fairclough, 2003). The reader’s agency is diminished by the active quicksand whose agency is foregrounded and whose goal it is to submerge the reader in suffocating verbal abuse. Thus, this shift in direct object from the third-person “him” to the second-person generic “you” invites the reader to experience the negative effects that the hate speech and racial slurs have, the experience of being overwhelmed, silenced, and drowned. Bassim places the reader in this precarious position in an attempt, perhaps, to build empathy between Bassim and the reader. The conjoining sentence, “ . . . and the more you fight back, the harder it grabs onto you”, combines a dependent clause with an independent clause, and sets up a cause-effect scenario. In the first clause of the second sentence “. . . and the more you fight back . . .” the generic “you” becomes the subject and the verb is “fight”. Therefore, in this dependent clause, the subject is activated, as opposed to being passivated in the previous sentence. However, from Bassim’s 168 perspective, the active subject fights back in futility because in the following independent clause, the more one fights, “ . . . the harder it grabs onto you”. The subject of the second, independent clause is the deictic “it”, which stands in for the active subject (e.g. quicksand) of the previous independent clause. He then uses the verb “grabs” and the adverb “harder” to show that no matter how much “you fight back”, the struggle is futile, as the quicksand only increases its force. In the second independent clause, the agency of the subject “quicksand” is activated and the direct object, the generic “you”, receives the action of being grabbed by the quicksand and is thus passivated and weakened. For Bassim, it seems that his trepidation of openly confronting the discrimination he faces is a product of his fear that speaking up and speaking out will only result in greater harm. His reluctance to assert himself and his undermining his own credibility are echoed not only by his use of hedging language when describing his peers’ Islamophobia, but also during the interaction with April at the diversity conference, when she said that Bassim looks like every other Indian sophomore in her school. In neither of these events did Bassim seem to openly protest. His analogy of the “quicksand of hate” explains why. The more he fights, the more he is harmed; therefore, he chooses to avoid open confrontation, and, instead, he uses his writing to express his hurts and fears. Thus, a focus on the linguistic structures of Bassim’s text-composing agency point us to the marginalization he experiences from socio-cultural structures like Islamophobic rhetoric from his peers, which is a result of a discourse of Islamophobic rhetoric that is a product of cultural Islamophobia. He resists the label of “terrorist” and being associated with ISIS, and he explores the overwhelming fear he experiences when subjected to Islamophobic rhetoric. He also makes 169 linguistic moves that attempt to place the reader in his tenuous position, perhaps in the hope of eliciting empathy. However, this is only part of Bassim’s struggle. Bassim also uses his text-composing agency to identify and resist discriminatory encounters he has with potentially Islamophobic social structures within the U.S. government like the TSA. It is to the subject of the interplay between social structures and Bassim’s text-composing agency that I now turn. A Critical Discourse Analysis of Structural Islamophobia As with the analysis of cultural Islamophobia, I approached the analysis of structural Islamophobia similarly. Using Archer’s (1995) framework that views social structures as “systems of human relations among social positions” . . . [which refer] to actual forms of social organization”, I also added Beydoun’s (2018) theory that sees Islamophobia as being anchored in government policies, legislation, and organizations. Therefore, the structural Islamophobia that I explore in this study will be those references that are made to discriminatory actions by the government that Bassim believes are a result of his religious identity. Again, I recognize the limitations of this study and am not saying that Bassim was discriminated against by the government because of his religious identity. I think that could certainly be the case; however, to prove that claim would take an interdisciplinary investigation (Danermark, et al., 2003). Nevertheless, I do see a Critical Discourse Analysis of Bassim’s text-composing agency as contributing to one stream of evidence and when combined with other streams of evidence may develop into a confluence of information that yields greater explanatory power regarding the interplay between socio-cultural structures and Bassim’s experiences. Bearing this in mind, I will continue with my analysis of structural Islamophobia. 170 Again, starting at the level of social events by using the intertextual chart, I looked for sections highlighted in yellow where Bassim referred to structural Islamophobia. Two sentences that stood out in the essay column read, “Abbas feels that he needs to be mindful of what he says as people may begin to think he is a threat to the safety of America. He always gets ‘randomly’ checked at airports once they see that his dad lived in Saudi Arabia.” To the left of the essay excerpt is one of the rhetorical questions that opens this analysis: Why am I treated differently? As will soon be shown, Bassim, in his text-composing agency, identifies the TSA as a social structure that covertly singles him out for different treatment because of his Muslim identity. In analyzing this coded excerpt of his essay, Abbas feels that he needs to be mindful of what he says as people may begin to think he is a threat to the safety of America. He always gets “randomly” checked at airports once they see that his dad lived in Saudi Arabia , the first part of the first sentence was coded for a combination of “Identifying the Effects of Islamophobia on the Speaker” (e.g. “Abbas needs to be mindful of what he says . . .”) and the second part of the first sentence was coded for “Identifying Private Islamophobia from a Person or Group” (e.g. “ . . . as people may begin to think he is a threat to the safety of America”). Even though in this first sentence there was no explicit mention of Structural Islamophobia, it does set up the context of Bassim as being a “threat to the safety of America”. The following sentence, which I coded in yellow because it mentions Structural Islamophobia, reads, “He always gets ‘randomly’ checked at airports once they see that his dad lived in Saudi Arabia.” In this line he is referring to a government agency, the TSA, and how it singles him out for extra security screening. Thus, he is connecting his Muslim identity with being a potential “threat” to the U.S. that warrants extra 171 screening by the TSA. Each of these sentences will now be analyzed to show how Bassim’s text-composing agency engages with the Structural Islamophobia he experiences. Bassim writes the complex sentence, “Abbas feels that he needs to be mindful of what he says[,] as people may begin to think he is a threat to the safety of America.” At the start of this sentence, Bassim refers to himself by his last name, “Abbas”, as well as with the deictic “he”. Again, this achieves a sense of detached objectivity, perhaps lending some credibility or truthfulness to his account. “Abbas” is the subject. He “feels that he needs to be mindful of what he says”. The verb “feels” is emotive, it suggests an impression one has, but an impression that might be open to revision or that is perhaps wrong. “Feels'' when contrasted with “knows”, for instance, as in “Abbas knows that he needs to be mindful of what he says. . .”, leaves open the possibility that he might be wrong, that perhaps there is no reason for him to “feel” that he must be mindful of what he says. His choice of the verb “feels” has the effect of potentially undermining his own assessment of his discrimination and questions his agentive ability to understand his situation. This echoes the similar effect of the hedging language and understatement he used regarding Cultural Individual Private Islamophobia when he said that the Islamophobic rhetoric gets “kind of annoying”, as well as his reluctance to confront April and her racist remark. He goes on to mention that “ . . . he needs to be mindful of what he says . . .” Bassim remains the subject of the sentence via the deictic “he” and the verb he uses is “needs”, which points to something that is necessary. What is necessary? He supplies this necessity using the infinitive “to be” along with the adjective “mindful”. His combination of the infinitive with the adjective becomes the direct object that receives the action of the verb “needs”. Bassim could 172 have worded the sentence as “He feels he needs mindfulness”, but the use of the infinitive “to be” brings up connotations of one’s being. Bassim needs to be “mindful”. In some sense mindfulness must become part of his essence if he is to avoid religious discrimination. The adjective “mindful” draws on connotations of “mindfulness” and the idea of being present and attentive in every moment. Typically, this has associations with meditative practice and finding peace; however, Bassim describes the need to be mindful as a process of potentially censoring his thoughts because of the consequences that a lack of mindfulness on his part might have, namely that “ . . . people may begin to think he is a threat to the safety of America”. It is not clear who the “people” are that he is referring to. However, he is “mindful” of their interpretation of what he says, particularly if what he says might be construed as leading to “ . . . a threat to the safety of America”. He seems to be connecting “people” and those who feel that American’s safety could be threatened by a Muslim. Thus, it could be that “people” refers to the general population of non-Muslims. This would be consistent with the tenor of his texts and the feeling of being othered because he is a Muslim. As is often the case with a perceived “threat”, those “people” who feel threatened may respond in ways to mitigate that threat, and one way to mitigate threats to air travel and other various transportation systems of the U.S. is the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), a social structure that is under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security. It is to an analysis of the interplay between Bassim’s text-composing agency and this social structure that I now turn. He writes, “He always gets ‘randomly’ checked at airports[,] once they see that his dad lived in Saudi Arabia.” This complex sentence consists of an independent clause: “He always 173 gets “randomly” checked at airports[,] . . .” and a dependent clause: “ . . . once they see that his dad lived in Saudi Arabia.” Bassim uses the independent clause to set up the effect, which is being singled out for extra screening at the airport. The dependent clause explains the cause of this: his dad lived and worked in Saudi Arabia. In the independent clause, Bassim makes himself the subject as signified by the deictic “He”. The predicate “ . . . always gets ‘randomly’ checked . . .” is telling for at least two reasons: it describes the temporal circumstances and the mistreatment he experiences as a result of so-called “random” security screenings. He places “random” within quotation marks, which gestures toward an implicit intertextual connection. Perhaps he heard a TSA official tell him that he had been selected for a “random” security check and he is quoting back in his essay what was told to him. Perhaps, he is just alluding to narratives that claim the TSA does not discriminate and only carries out “random” security screenings to ensure the safety of flights. However Bassim heard the word “random” being used in conjunction with TSA procedures, he is clearly using the quotation marks to show that from his perspective, the screenings are anything but “random”. Regarding the temporal circumstances (Fairclough, 2003), Bassim uses the adverb “always” to point to the frequency of his and his family’s being singled out for extra security screenings by the TSA. Extra security screenings are something that Bassim, as well as many other Muslims have come to expect (Ackerman, 2017). Additionally, his use of quotation marks around the adverb “‘randomly’” in conjunction with the verb “checked” calls into question the objective, scientific, detached, fair, and “random” security screenings that the TSA purports to conduct (Handeyside, 2018a; 2018b; 2018c). Bassim’s use of quotation marks suggests that the 174 screenings are the very opposite of random; he sees them as intentional and a result of flying while Muslim. He also writes the dependent clause: “ . . . once they see that his dad lived in Saudi Arabia.” Bassim attributes this clause as the cause of the effect of getting “randomly checked at airports.” The subject of this sentence is the deictic “they”, which refers to those who are checking him, namely the TSA. The verb “see” denotes the process of examination and analysis that the TSA performs to screen potential threats according to particular criteria. These criteria may have the appearance of neutrality that avoids openly discriminating against religious belief. However, Bassim’s text points to other mechanisms that the TSA can use, which have the implicit effect of discriminating against Muslim passengers. Interestingly, he doesn’t say the cause of the added security screening is his religious identity. Instead, he ties it to his dad’s time in Saudi Arabia. This assumes a couple of things. One, that Bassim, when he sometimes travels, he sometimes travels with his father, and so, presumably, any screening his father receives, he also seems to receive. Two, he underscores the fact that TSA officials cannot overtly use religion as a means to single out Muslims for extra screening. It is important for this process to appear “random”. However, one way around the explicit profiling of Muslims because of their religion is to flag particular countries one has visited as places from where potential “threats” might emerge. Countries may offer a more supposed neutral geopolitical ground, which distances the profiling process from appearing to overtly single out Muslims and enhances its “random” appearance. The concern is not against Islam, so the rationale might go, it is more of a concern about Country X, and any random person who has visited Country X is subject to search. In this way, countries might act as proxies for 175 religious belief, particularly if they are Muslim majority countries that are frequented by Muslim Americans. Thus, Bassim identifies the ways some government social structures operate to distance themselves from overt discrimination and maintain an appearance of being random, while potentially enacting implicit discrimination against Muslims based on Islamophobic discourses that suggest Muslims are “threats” to America’s safety. In sum, a focus on Bassim’s text-composing agency and the linguistic structures he employs in his poetry, essay, and interview commentary points to the discrimination he experiences. He expresses his sense of alientation, of being watched, of always needing to be mindful about the ways his Muslim identity is being taken up by people surrounding him. He reveals that a government structure like the TSA, instead of treating him equally and fairly, actually uses his father’s history of traveling from Saudi Arabia as a proxy for religious belief that leads to their being singled out for “random” security checks. All these encounters and experiences with Islamophobia have given him reasons to use his agency to compose texts that help him not only make sense of what has happened to him because he is a Muslim, but also give him the opportunity to resist Islamophobia by identifying and critiquing it. To review then, Critical Discourse Analysis, when applied to Bassim’s texts, reveals that Bassim used his text-composing agency to create texts that were produced in part by experiences of Islamophobic rhetoric from his peers, as well as overprofiling by the TSA. In his texts, he identifies these pernicious structures and seeks to resist them. Thus, one can link these social events (e.g. texts) to the social practice level in which Bassim’s peers, as well as the TSA, operate within an Islamophobic discourse of Muslims being a threat. Finally, I trace the roots of these events back to socio-cultural structures. In the case of social structures, the TSA under the 176 aegis of the Department of Homeland Security has been shown to overprofile Muslim passenger and essentially discriminate on the basis of religion (Ackerman, 2017). Regarding cultural structures, one can make a case that an Islamophobic ideology permeates various avenues that influence Bassim’s peers to the point where they reproduce Islamophobic rhetoric. Having started my analysis with attention to the Social Event of Bassim’s texts (Fairclough, 2003), I will now move back into Archer and Beydoun’s framework to discuss how Bassim is conceived as a Primary Agent, and how his text-composing agency interacted with socio-cultural forces and whether Social Morphogenesis or Social Morphostasis occurred. Bassim’s Text-Composing Agency and Social Morphogenesis or Social Morphostasis? Bassim as Person->Primary Agent->Social Actor Having zoomed in via Fairclough and Critical Discourse Analysis at the linguistic level to better understand the interplay between Bassim’s text-composing agency and Islamophobic socio-cultural structures, I will now zoom back out to situate our analysis of structure and agency within Archer’s framework to better understand if Bassim’s texts contributed to social Morphogenesis or social Morphostasis. To review, Archer’s (1995) concept of the human is grounded in the belief that all humans are Persons, and one’s Personhood is the basis for their status as an Agent (Corporate or Primary) and also as a Social Actor. Each of these concepts will be explored in turn. According to Archer, at birth, all humans are Persons and are born into conditions over which they have no control. In utero, one does not choose one’s sex, race, culture, class, geography, etc. Nor does one choose membership into these collectivities; one just is a member by being born into these groups. Archer calls these groups or collectivities Primary Agents and Corporate Agents. Archer 177 says that Primary Agents, as opposed to Corporate Agents, lack power due in part to a dearth of organization and a lack of a clearly articulated agenda. Their opposite, Corporate Agents, have organization, clearly articulated goals, and, consequently, more social power and influence. To return to Bassim, I am categorizing him as a Primary Agent and will explain why shortly. Further, I am categorizing the TSA as a Corporate Agent because they have a clear organization, clear goals, and power to carry out their agenda. For Archer, Primary and Corporate Agents are always plural because of their collective status – they are never singular. However, obviously, there are individual members of Primary and Corporate Agents and these, in their singular form, are Social Actors. Infants are automatically given Personhood and are also admitted into various Primary and Corporate Agencies; however, infants cannot act in a way that promotes the interests of their collectivities. It is only upon maturity, according to Archer (1995), that a person can become a Social Actor with an accompanying Social Role and Social Identity and is thus able to be a contributing member of their collective. Having established Archer’s schema of Person-Agent-Actor, I want to theorize about the ways Bassim is positioned. First, because Bassim is a human, he is a Person. And, for the purposes of this study, Bassim is a member of a collectivity of Muslim students, and I am characterizing this group as Primary Agents. The reasoning for this categorization is that Bassim and his fellow Muslim students, even though they might have the capacity for critical awareness and can even speak back to some of the Islamophobia they encounter, they are not part of a collective of Corporate Agents who are organized and can clearly articulate their anti-Islamophobia agenda. Of course, it is entirely possible for Muslim students to band together 178 as Corporate Agents who are organized and can clearly articulate their demands for equality and have a plan to leverage political power to achieve their ends. However, Bassim is not engaged in networking with anti-Islamophobic Corporate Agents and, thus, lacks access to organization, a clear political agenda, and political power to change socio-cultural structures. Nevertheless, in spite of Bassim’s status as a Primary Agent, he is a Social Actor who can exert his text-composing agency to reflect critically upon his social situation and then write poetry and analytic essays responding to the discrimination he encounters and assert his right to equality. But to what extent, if any, did Bassim’s texts change socio-cultural structures? To answer this question, I will apply Archer’s concept of Analytic Dualism to see if socio-cultural Morphogenesis or Morphostasis occurred. Analytic Dualism and Socio-cultural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis Archer (1995) holds Social Structures, Cultural Structures, and Agents to be ontologically distinct because they belong to different strata of reality, yet they have an interplay that can lead to either change or stasis over time in all three entities. For Archer, Socio-cultural Morphogenesis or Morphostasis occurs during three phases: Structural Conditioning, Socio-cultural Interaction, and Structural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis. To review, Phase One: Structural Conditioning entails pre-existing societal conditions (e.g. involuntaristic placement, vested interests, opportunity costs, degrees of interpretive freedom, and directional guidance) into which one is born, and these conditions set the context for the second phase. Phase Two: Socio-cultural Interaction is comprised of interactions Agents have with socio-cultural structures, as well as with other Agents, both Primary and Corporate. 179 Finally, Phase Three results in either Socio-cultural Elaboration (e.g. Morphogenesis or change) or it results in Socio-cultural Reproduction (e.g. Morphostasis or sameness). In this section, I want to discuss Bassim’s experiences and use Archer’s Basic Morphogenetic Cycle to make sense of the interplay between socio-cultural structures and his text-composing agency. However, I must qualify this discussion with the reminder that it is conjectural. Social reality is exceedingly complex and claims about social reality must be held tentatively and open to revision based upon new evidence. As my findings are based on Bassim’s experiences and the texts he creates, as well as empirical research regarding Islamophobia, I recognize that there are many more streams of knowledge that could contribute to a more robust conclusion. Nevertheless, by using Archer, Beydoun, and Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis, I am contributing to but one stream. One of the first decisions I have to make as a researcher and one of the prerequisites of Analytic Dualism is to establish a time where my analysis of Phase One will begin. Because Bassim is referencing Islamophobic events that happened during his time in high school, and since he created texts in response to these events in his sophomore English classroom and because our conversations and interviews followed the election of President Trump, a reasonable place to begin seems to be in mid-2015 when Bassim was beginning his sophomore year of high school, which was also when Trump began campaigning for the U.S. presidency. Phase one: The structural conditioning phase. Phase One, the Structural Conditioning Phase, is situated in the U.S. during a contentious presidential election in which the eventual victor, Donald Trump, repeatedly voiced Islamophobic rhetoric to curry political favor from his base. For Bassim, as a Primary Agent, this was a time of striking Islamophobic pressure from various 180 socio-political forces. This context was wearisome for Bassim and other Muslims because of the Islamophobia that circulated at the highest levels of political power, as well as at his school, and also when Bassim was subjected to increased security screening by the TSA, a Corporate Agent. Consequently, Bassim experienced the involuntary placement of being a Muslim in a society that evinced pronounced anti-Muslim behavior. He recognized that the Islamophobia he experienced because of his Muslim identity was unjust and infringed upon his freedom of religion. Thus, he had a vested interest in changing the Islamophobic socio-cultural structures he experiences. However, the opportunity costs that confronted him in changing those structures were formidable because he was a Primary Agent and lacked the political resources to effect change. Nevertheless, in spite of his Primary Agency, as a Muslim student, he was still a Social Actor. As a Social Actor he was able to be critically aware of injustice and to exert his text-composing agency in ways that resisted injustice. Therefore, he had some degree of interpretive freedom to write poetry and analytic essays condemning inequality, racism, and Islamophobia. Inspired by anti-Islamophobic discourses of freedom and equality, these provided him with reasons and directional guidance to use his text-composing agency to create texts that resisted oppressive forces. Phase two: The socio-cultural Interaction phase. Having described Bassim’s context, during Phase Two, the Socio-cultural Interaction Phase, Bassim, as a Social Actor (e.g. a Muslim student) experienced Islamophobia from various structural and cultural angles, reflected critically, and then actually created texts in his English class that resisted these forces. He was writing poetry and essays in his sophomore English class and, at least from 2015 and during the time he composed his texts, there was an “interplay” between socio-cultural forces and his 181 text-composing agency. Fairclough might characterize this scenario as Socio-cultural forces taking up an Islamophobic discourse that occurs at the level of the Social Practice and produces Social Events of Islamophobia (e.g. overprofiling of Muslims by the TSA or Islamophobic rhetoric from peers). Meanwhile, Bassim, as a Muslim student, responded to the Islamophobic discourse at the level of Social Practices and then created his own anti-Islamophobic discourse, rooted in discourses of “freedom and equality”, through the Social Events of his poetry and essay writing. But to what end? It is clear through Bassim’s text-composing agency that various socio-cultural forces affected his writing. However, did Bassim’s texts have an effect upon socio-cultural structures? Did they result in Morphostasis (sameness) or Morphogenesis (change)? Phase Three, the Socio-cultural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis phase, can shed light on these questions. Phase Three: Socio-cultural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis. According to Archer’s (1995) theory, the interplay between Islamophobic socio-cultural forces that Bassim encountered would seem to result in a “necessary incompatibility” and a consequent “situational logic of compromise” that resulted in Morphostasis or sameness. Bassim recognized that even though he is a U.S. citizen and deserved all the rights that are associated with citizenship, nevertheless, he was unable to be free from religious discrimination. He encountered Islamophobic treatment not only from his peers but also from the government. As a Primary Agent, Bassim lacked the political organization and strength to change Islamophobic structures like the TSA on his own, but even though these forces can have negative effects on him, they do not completely circumscribe his agency. As a Muslim student, he still had the freedom to compose texts that resisted Islamophobia and reclaimed his humanity. Unfortunately, 182 though, apart from joining a group of Anti-Islamophobic Corporate Agents, the texts he composed in response to the Islamophobia can only bring piecemeal change, if that, and not “negotiated societal transformations” that Corporate Agents can bring about (Archer, 1995, p. 185). Thus, Bassim was forced into a situational logic of compromise. His compromise was to use his writing to, perhaps, maintain psychical integrity, to assert his voice, but left on his own, his voice was limited in regards to broad social change. In sum, this chapter has attempted to shed light on the interplay between Islamophobic socio-cultural structures and Bassim’s text composing agency. Social structures like the over-profiling TSA and cultural structures like the Islamophobic rhetoric from Bassim’s peers have worked their way into the texts that he created. His experiences with these Islamophobic structures have been challenging for Bassim and have given him reasons to write about his experiences with injustice in his poetry, analytic essay, and interview. But although these structures do affect his agency, they do not control him. He is able to develop a critical awareness of his position within society, recognize contradictions that are at play, and assert his humanity through his text-composing agency. And even though his status as a Primary Agent precluded him from effectually changing oppressive socio-cultural structures, nevertheless, there was always the possibility that he could join his voice with anti-Islamophobic Corporate Agents to call for an end to Islamophobia and to leverage political power toward this end. In the next chapter, I will examine the interplay between similar Islamophobic socio-cultural structures and the text-composing agency of a Fatima Tayah. Her story, which is similar in some ways to Bassim’s, is also very different because whereas Bassim’s religious 183 identity might remain ambiguous until disclosed, Fatima’s religious identity is on display for all to see through her wearing of the hijab, or headscarf. 184 Chapter 10: Deductive Findings: Islamophobic Socio-cultural Structures and the Text-composing Agency of Fatima Tayah, “ . . . a Muslim woman who wears a hijab” 185 “That One Girl” by Fatima Tayah everyday i wrap my scarf around my head, placing a target on my back with everything i do i must beware afraid of those racist mindsets that greatly lack Yet, I remain the victim, this i can no longer bear instead of being respected for my personal display of my religion, i am persecuted for my choices they have made my scarf feel as if it is a burden to me, a paperweight holding me down labeling me as “dangerous” because my choice of attire makes them anxious they leave me on the outskirts to fend for myself like a hungry animal the anger and hate keeps me secluded the evil and malice scares my soul the paranoia and fear makes me wonder what i did yet it has been deemed normal that i must live my life in constant terror i fear for my life everyday whenever i leave, i think of her that one unlucky girl, the wrong place wrong time girl, but what if i was that girl? the one that the news disregards or discredits because of her identity? the one that people forget about because of the controversy? how am i supposed to live when every waking day i am terrified of what might happen to me or my family because of this heavy target they have sewn on our backs? when will i have the courtesy of being able to express my identity without having a corrupt society reprimand me? when will i not be seen as a threat to mankind? when will my life be void of fear? 186 Structure of the Chapter The structure of this chapter will begin with an introduction to Fatima, her family, and her decision to wear the hijab. Following that, I will begin an intertextual and Critical Discourse Analysis (Critical Discourse Analysis) of her poem “That One Girl” to examine the ways socio-cultural structures affected the texts she created. As with the Bassim’s work in the previous chapter, I will use Archer’s Basic Morphogenetic Cycle with Beydoun’s nuance to analyze the dynamic between socio-cultural structures and Fatima’s text-composing agency. During Phase Two, the Socio-cultural Interaction Phase of Archer’s Basic Morphogenetic Cycle, I am going to apply Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis to Fatima’s poetry, essay, and interview to better understand the ways socio-cultural structures have shaped her text-composing agency. Fairclough (2003) theorizes that social reality exists on three planes: socio-cultural structures, social practices, and social events, but in this chapter I will examine these three planes in reverse order. As Fairclough suggests, and as with Bassim’s analysis, I will begin our analysis with the social event of Fatima’s texts, and from there I can work our way back up to the socio-cultural structures that affect the texts she creates. The analysis of Fatima’s texts at the linguistic level will be important to answer my research question: How do Islamophobic socio-cultural structural forces affect the text-composing agency of two Muslim students? Additionally, linguistic analysis will also be necessary to draw together the coherence between Fairclough’s methodology with Archer and Beydoun’s theories. The chapter will conclude with a return to Archer’s theory and an assessment regarding the interplay between socio-cultural structures and Fatima's text-composing agency. 187 The Interplay Between Fatima’s Text-Composing Agency and Islamophobia We start our analysis of the interplay between socio-cultural forces and Fatima’s text-composing agency by beginning with the title of her poem: That One Girl. Fatima’s poem “That One Girl”, begins with the deictic “That” and then follows with “One Girl”. What is puzzling about the title is that the identity of the “One Girl” is unknown. The deictic “That” is referring to the “One Girl”; although, with deictics, meaning is achieved only when the context has been established and is understood by the writer and reader. However, as the first thing the reader will read is “That One Girl”, no context has been established to reveal who the “One Girl” is that is the referent of “that”. Consequently, there is a gap that must be filled if the reader is to understand about whom Fatima is speaking. This anonymity of the “Girl” referred to invites the reader to examine the poem in order to learn the identity of “That One Girl”. It is only later in the fourth stanza of the poem that Fatima shares more about whom this girl might be. In her fourth stanza, Fatima writes: i fear for my life everyday whenever i leave, i think of her that one unlucky girl, the wrong place wrong time girl, but what if i was that girl? the one that the news disregards or discredits because of her identity? the one that people forget about because of the controversy? Fatima writes in Line 13 “i fear for my life everyday”. She uses the lowercase “i” for the first-person singular pronoun “I”. The use of the lowercase “i” is a curious choice and points to diminished agency. In an email, Fatima shared, “I made that choice because when I reflect on that it makes me feel weak and vulnerable and I see weakness and vulnerability when using a lower case ‘[i]’” This diminished agency may be a result of the verb “fear” and the prepositional phrase “for my life”. This state of affairs involves Fatima engaging in the process of fearing for 188 her life, of feeling weak and vulnerable, and this is a circumstance that happens daily, as indicated by the adverb “everyday”. In Line 14 she writes a complex sentence, “whenever i leave, i think of her”. This sentence has a dependent clause and conjoins it to an independent clause. The overall structure is one of cause and effect. The dependent clause is the cause and the independent clause is the effect. She begins with the dependent clause, “whenever i leave . . ”. This clause begins with the adverb “whenever”, which denotes the idea of at any time. The subject of the sentence is, again, the lowercase “i” with its diminished agency. The verb “leave” suggests perhaps that she is leaving the safety and tranquility of her home and venturing out into the world where she might face discrimination. The independent clause that follows the dependent clause states the effect of her leaving. She writes, “i think of her”. Fatima maintains the subject of the sentence, the lowercase “i”. The verb is “think” followed by the prepositional phrase “of her” in which the object of the preposition “of” is the deictic “her”. As mentioned earlier, deictics only create meaning when a prior context has been understood. At this point in her poem, however, Fatima still has not disclosed the identity of “That One Girl” referred to in the title. Additionally, the temporal circumstances outlined in Line 13 by “everyday” and Line 14 by “whenever” suggest a continuity of a condition. In Fatima’s case, it is the continuity of fear that results from facing an environment that is hostile to her religious identity and expression. In Lines 15-16 she writes, “that one unlucky girl, the wrong place wrong time girl, but what if i was that girl?” Fatima shares a little more about the anonymous girl by using the adjective “unlucky” and the modifying phrase “wrong place wrong time”. Both of these point to the negative 189 consequences encountered by the “girl” about whom Fatima is writing. Importantly, Fatima ends line 16 with a rhetorical question, “ . . . but what if I was that girl?” Whoever this “girl” is, Fatima is identifying with her to some degree. Whatever danger “that one girl” encountered, Fatima is projecting it onto her own experience. However, in order to learn more about “That One Girl” and her connection to Fatima I will use intertextuality and examine her interview and essay. During the course of our semi-structured interview, I asked Fatima about the role the media has in spreading Islamophobia, and this question led her to share who “That One Girl” was. She began by saying one critique she has of the media is that whenever there is a Muslim victim, those stories do not get enough coverage. Then she talks about a Muslim girl who was attacked, raped, and murdered during Ramadan. From her perspective, she comments on the lack of media coverage : . . . that was not portrayed, it was not given–she was not given justice, it was not represented at all. And it was just swept under the rug. I find everything being swept under the rug. Something will happen, it will probably . . . be shown for a day. And then it's, everyone just forgets about it. And they normalize it . . . (p. 7) She goes on to assert, “I don't want to be like that one girl, and she was the girl I was talking about in that poem, actually. And I can't remember her name right now but it was like that story really hit me . . .” (p. 7). Toward the end of our interview, Fatima took out her phone and did a search to find the name of the girl. She shared with me that her name was Nabra Hassanen. Thus, the interview yields the identity of “That One Girl” and the inspiration for Fatima’s poem: Nabra Hassanen. Tragically, Nabra was a 17-year old Muslim American woman 190 who was raped and murdered in Virginia in June of 2017 by Darwin Martinez Torres, a man from El Salvador who was living in the U.S. illegally (Chavez & DiGiacomo, 2018). And although the official investigation suggested that her death was a result of road rage and not connected to her religious identity, her family and their religious community say she was targeted because of her faith (Andone, Shortell & Simon, 2017). For Fatima, then, this violent incident that occurred to a young Muslim woman who was wearing the hijab while she was attacked, served as a stark reminder of the dangers she might also face in a society that can often discriminate against young Muslim women (Ansary, 2018; Mogahed and Chouhoud, 2018). In her essay, Fatima expands her concern to include not just herself, but other Muslim girls. She writes: Tayah warns against the way [a] corrupt society fears “that one girl,” and explores how that refers to many girls, many of whom are already afraid of being consumed by the hate, and, in doing this, she encourages the expression of identity without resulting in hostility . . . The hijab, an expression of her religious identity, endures a tremendous amount of hate within our society today. Therefore, Tayah fears for her safety because her personal choice of religion causes others to dangerously act out against her and other Muslim girls. (p. 1) Through her text-composing agency, the effects of Islamophobia on Fatima are clear. The hijab, which signals her Muslim identity, can become a target for Islamophobes who would discriminate against Muslims. Intertextuality combined with Critical Discourse Analysis suggests that Fatima believes what happened to Nabra Hassanen or “That One Girl” could happen to her or to any Muslim girl who expresses their religious commitment by wearing the 191 hijab. In some cases, this discrimination can have a chilling effect on some Muslim girls’ faith, and some choose not to wear the hijab in order to avoid encounters with hate. In her Line 6 of her poem Fatima writes, “they have made my scarf feel as if it is a burden to me, a paperweight holding me down”. In this sentence, Fatima uses the deictic “they”, presumably, to refer to private Islamophobes who she might encounter in her daily life or, perhaps, Islamophobic narratives that frame the hijab as inherently oppressive to Muslim women. “Have made”, which combines the auxiliary verb “have” with the past participle “made”, yields a present perfect tense that connotes an action that has occurred in the past and continues on into the present time. The action is Fatima being made to feel as though her scarf (hijab) is a “burden”. The phrase “as if it is” sets up a relationship of equivalence between “scarf” and “burden” Fatima goes on to add an appositive phrase “ . . . a paperweight holding me down” and uses the metaphor of a paperweight to describe her “burden”. In essence, Islamophobia in its private, cultural form, and in its structural form, as I shall soon show, becomes a force that restricts her in the ways a paperweight might restrict a piece of paper. In some sense, Islamophobia is used to keep her in her place, a place of fear. And even though Fatima, in spite of struggles and fears that come with wearing her headscarf, decides to continue wearing the hijab. However, for other Muslim girls and their families, the weight of discrimination is too great, and they decide not to portray their religious identity in that way. Fatima shares about some of the girls she knows: I know girls that have taken it off because they're literally so afraid that they're going to get hurt by other people, by people that are just full of hate. They're afraid they're going to get hurt, so they take it off. And there's families that will have their daughters take it 192 off. I know a girl that her dad asked her to take it off because he was afraid for her well-being. And it's right to be afraid. Look at the environment we're living in. This hate is so justified, and it's normalized, and people are just okay with hating. (p. 6) Fatima’s comments are a sobering reminder of the reality that some young Muslim women regularly face. Fatima identifies private Islamophobes who “are just full of hate” and who desire to “hurt” Muslims. Because the hijab is one way to identify Muslim women, it becomes, in some sense, a lightning rod for Islamophobia. The effect of this hatred is fear. In this short passage, Fatima uses the adjective “afraid” to characterize young Muslim girls and their families. This state of affairs forces some families into difficult choices. Should one exercise one’s religious freedom and the right to express one’s religious identity and yet risk one’s personal “well-being”? Or should one sacrifice one’s religious freedom and expression and thereby gain some semblance of religious anonymity and, hence, bodily safety. It is a tragic choice. And yet Fatima asserts that the fear is justified; she says, “And it’s right to be afraid. Look at the environment we’re living in. This hate is so justified, and it’s normalized . . .” As I shall soon show, one mechanism by which anti-Muslim hatred is “justified” and “normalized” descends from the highest echelons of political power in the United States. President Trump’s Islamophobia influencing Private Individual Islamophobia Fatima begins her poem with the following lines: everyday i wrap my scarf around my head, placing a target on my back with everything i do i must beware afraid of those racist mindsets that greatly lack (Lines 1-3) She begins her poem with a cause and effect scenario that happens daily. The adverb “everyday” suggests that which is commonplace and sets up the temporal circumstances for the 193 rest of the line. The subject is the lowercase “i” with its diminished agency. The process she engages in is identified by the verb “wrap”. The direct object of the verb is “my scarf”, and she completes the thought with the prepositional phrase “around my head”. Thus, she is relaying a ritual that she engages in everyday to express her faith, and yet, this ritual of donning the hijab is like “ . . . placing a target on my back.” The present participle status of the verb “placing” suggests continuity of action. In Fatima’s case, the daily wearing of the hijab is like wearing a target. A target at which Islamophobes may strike. This feeling of being targeted because of her religious beliefs results in a fearful hyperawareness. In Line 2 she writes, “with everything i do i must beware”. The subject of this line is the lowercase “i”. The auxiliary verb “must” works with the verb “beware” to suggest that in “everything” Fatima does, she is compelled to be on her guard. Through the use of the intertextual chart, Line 2 in the poem corresponds to a sentence in her essay where she speaks to the continual burdening fear she experiences, “For every day, the action of simply putting on her hijab causes her to reflect on every minute of her day and the interactions, stares, and judgements she will face (p. 2)”. She details some of the Islamophobic encounters she has: interactions, stares, and judgments. These all contribute to the burden of othering she feels. Line 3 of the poem addresses the reason why she must always be on guard. She writes, “afraid of those racist mindsets that greatly lack”. Even though the subject is not explicitly stated, given the preceding two lines, I know the subject is the speaker, Fatima, and the verb is some form of “to be”. Through the adjective “afraid” and the following prepositional phrase “of those racist mindsets”, it is clear that Fatima fears people who are racists, and given the context of the preceding lines in which she discusses her hijab as being compared to a “target”, I assume 194 that part of the racist mindsets she fears include private Islamophobes inspired by Cultural Islamophobia. She writes in her essay, “Therefore, Tayah fears for her safety because her personal choice of religion causes others to dangerously act out against her and other Muslim girls” (p. 2). Her experiences with Islamophobia, as well as other girls’ experiences with Islamophobia, cause her to fear for her safety and the safety of other Muslim girls. During the interview, I mention President Trump’s history of making Islamophobic remarks. Picking up on this thread, she initimates that the “racist mindsets” of private Islamophobes may be encouraged by structural Islamophobia, specifically, the Islamophobic rhetoric espoused by President Trump. She shares: Islamophobia, that is something to fear in itself, not knowing, when I'm walking the street, who has this hatred for me inside, this unknown hatred that–how am I supposed to know that he hates me inside, for some reason, that he hates me? And who knows what he wants to do to me? Me walking alone portraying my religious identity like a target. Like I said, everyone knows that I'm Muslim because of my scarf, and I would never change that. I want people to know that I'm Muslim, but it does at times make me afraid that I'm unaware of other people's actions. I can control my own actions, but I can't control theirs. How am I supposed to know, with this environment, that he's condoning, Trump? He's condoning this hate. And that literally, in itself, makes me afraid because it's like our own president is allowing this, and he's saying that–and he's making the comments himself. (p. 6) Moving down a street is a typical activity for many; however, for Fatima and other Muslim girls, this commonplace, everyday activity can take on fearful dimensions in an 195 Islamophobic context. As Fatima describes what could happen, she uses the third person singular masculine pronoun “he”. She asks a series of two questions: . . . how am I supposed to know that he hates me inside, for some reason that he hates me? And who knows what he wants to do to me? In her mind, her would be attacker is an Islamophobic man, someone who has hatred for her and other Muslims inside him, but it is a hatred that she might only be able to identify when it is too late. Afterall, she knows that she cannot control the actions of Islamophobes, so in some sense, her agency is reduced to that of a target. Importantly, though, Fatima points to a potential interplay between structural Islamophobia in the Executive Branch and the private Islamophobia of individuals. It is to our discussion of structural Islamophobia that I now turn. To return briefly to our concept of Structural Islamophobia, Beydoun (2018) suggests that structural Islamophobia is enmeshed in government policies, legislation, and organizations. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence that points to Islamophobia’s being rooted in the executive branch because of several anti-Muslim comments that President Trump has voiced or tweeted (Johnson & Hauslohner, 2017). Fatima shares her concerns about Trump, “How am I supposed to know, with this environment, that he's condoning, Trump? He's condoning this hate? And that literally, in itself, makes me afraid because it's like our own president is allowing this, and he's saying that–and he's making the comments himself” (p. 6). Crucially, Fatima is sensing a connection between Trump’s Islamophobia at the structural level and the ways it operates to condone hate in private Islamophobes in the broader society. One thing I noticed in the analysis of Fatima’s writing is that she references “society” several times. She refers to “society” in her poetry once, but in her five-page essay she uses “society” 22 times. The associations she makes with society are often negative (e.g. corrupt society, society 196 hating, society fearing, society inflicting, etc.). I asked her if she is referring to White people when she invokes “society”. Her answer shared her insight into the interplay between Structural Islamophobia and the Cultural Islamophobia enacted by private individuals. She says: I would say that, yes, but then again it's not always just White people. The majority of the time it is White people, which is sad to say. I don't like saying that, but that's what it is. In reality, that's what it is. All the encounters I've heard are with White people, which is so upsetting because it shouldn't be like that, but occasionally, there are other groups that do have hate. They will be hateful. Everyone can have hate. It doesn't matter on the color of your skin, but it just tends to be White people that are–for example, Trump and most of his supporters are White people, like Republicans, and those are the people that he tends to fuel with hate. So yes, it correlates because if you're a supporter of what he's saying–not all supporters of him are hateful, but if you support his hatred and him just saying that and stuff, you are most likely going to also be hateful against those people that he's preaching against . . . (p. 8) Here Fatima acknowledges that while “there are other groups that do have hate” and that “Everyone can hate”, she believes that most Islamophobes tend to be White people. She then describes a connection between Trump’s Islamophobic rhetoric and his White Republican base. She says that Trump fuels at least some White Republicans with hate. This observation comports with Mogahed and Chouhoud (2018) that White Evangelicals tend to evince greater Islamophobia than other demographics (e.g. Jews, Catholics, atheists, etc.) and that an overwhelming 81% of White Evangelicals voted for Trump (Martinez & Smith, 2016). And although she is quick to point out that “not all supporters of him are hateful”, she thinks there is 197 some sort of interplay going on. She explains that if there is an Islamophobe who hears Islamophobic rhetoric emanating from the most powerful office in the country, that Islamophobe is going “to support [Trump’s] hatred and him just saying that and stuff, you are most likely going to also be hateful against those people that he's preaching against . . .” Incisively, Fatima points to a top-down relationship between structural Islamophobia and the actions of Private Islamophobes. That is, Islamophobia at the structural level endorses and incites cultural Islamophobia at the private level. Beydoun (2018) would refer to this as Dialectical Islamophobia; however, the dialectic implies not only structure acting on agents but also agents acting on structure. And although the top-down effect of structure on agency can be construed (e.g. the New Zealand mosque attacker praised Trump’s election as renewing a sense of White identity for some White people), it is more difficult to know if the acts of private Islamophobes embolden Trump and the policies and legislation produced at the White House. Fatima goes on to describe the “mentality” of the private Islamophobe whose actions may be endorsed by Trump. She says they think: “It's okay for me to go hurt this person. It's okay for me to do that.” That mentality is so dangerous. He is enlisting that hatred into people without even trying. He's so effortlessly doing that, and that's what [is] scary because if that's what it takes to make people want to kill and hurt and threaten and do things like that, it's not going to get any better . . . Like the Muslim Ban, what if he takes that into account? What if people then are like, “Oh, wait, you're actually not supposed to be here”? And you already get those statements anyway like, “Go back home. Go to your country.” All that stuff, you get that all the time. (p. 9) 198 Fatima uses quotations to directly report the dangerous mentality and internal dialogue of an Islamophobe justifying an attack on an innocent Muslim, which is encouraged by, so she says, Trump’s influence. Fatima uses the deictic “He” for Trump and the present participle “is enlisting”.The verb “enlisting” is a militaristic term and has associations of volunteering for military service and being trained to defend one’s country. From Fatima’s perspective, perhaps Trump’s rhetoric will “fuel with hate” private Islamophobes who engage in a covert war of terror against Muslims that is tacitly underwritten by President Trump’s Islamophobic declarations. Fatima further suggests that his Islamophobic behavior is done “effortlessly” and that it could influence Islamophobes to “ . . . want to kill and hurt and threaten and do things like that”. The verbs “kill”, “hurt”, and “threaten”–ostensibly, all actions justified in times of war–point to the effects that Islamophobia has already had for some Muslims and potentially for herself and other Muslim girls. She then points to Trump’s Executive Order 13769, which is also known as “the Muslim Ban”. This order prohibited travel from several predominantly Muslim countries (e.g. Syria, Yemen, Iran, Libya, and Somalia). During his campaign for the presidency, Trump promised a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" (Barnes & Marimow, 2017). She connects Trump’s activation of the Muslim Ban with Islamophobes telling Muslims “ . . . you’re not supposed to be here” and “Go back home. Go to your country”. This rhetoric which Fatima says “you get that all the time” is similar to the type of rhetoric that Bassim endured from his peers. She employs the “generic you”, to function as the subject of the sentence and which likely refers to Muslims who “get that all the time”. The verb “get” suggests that one receives something. In Fatima’s utterance what is received is the deictic “that”, which stands for 199 comments that Islamophobes make like “Go back home. Go to your country”. She ends with the adverbial phrase “all the time” to suggest that Muslims as a group regularly receive comments that tell them to go back to their country. The irony of course is that approximately 42% of adult Muslims are born in the United States, and cannot go back to their country because they are already in their country (Pew Research Center: Religion & Public Life, 2018) Thus, an analysis of the linguistic structures of the social events of Fatima’s poetry, essay, and interview reveals that she is connecting Trump’s Islamophobic rhetoric and policy generated at the structural level with influencing the Islamophobic acts of private individuals that she and other Muslims encounter. To review, Critical Discourse Analysis, when applied to the texts that Fatima creates, shows that the social events of her texts were produced in response to her perception of a confluence of structural Islamophobia from the executive branch, as well as private Islamophobia from individuals. The social events of her texts, then, can be linked to the level of the social practice where Islamophobic discourse operates to dehumanize Muslims. Finally, at the level of socio-cultural structures, one can see the ways Islamophobia might be operating to influence the rhetoric and policies at the structural level, as well as at the cultural level where it authorizes discrimination against Muslims. Having completed the Critical Discourse Analysis, I will now apply Archer’s Morphogenetic theory to determine more about the effects of the interplay between Islamophobic socio-cultural structures and Fatima’s text-composing agency. Fatima as Person->Primary Agent->Social Actor Archer’s (1995) concept of the human begins with the assertion that all humans are fundamentally Persons, and that their personhood is what anchors their status as an Agent and as 200 a Social Actor. To review, Archer says that at birth humans are Persons, yet, their birth also places them within particular natural and social conditions: class, sex, ethnicity, race, etc. Thus, from birth, persons are also a part of collectivities. These collectivities are what Archer calls Primary Agents and Corporate Agents. Primary Agents are characterized by lacking power, as well as social organization and an articulated agenda. For the purposes of this study, I believe that Fatima is acting within a collectivity of Primary Agents, and I will explain why this is the case shortly. Corporate Agents, on the other hand, are characterized by the opposite. They have power, they have organization, and their goals are clearly articulated. I am including President Trump in a collectivity of Corporate Agents, and perhaps also some private Islamophobes, inspired by Cultural Islamophobia who threaten and intimidate with Islamophobic rhetoric and actions. Additionally, whereas Primary and Corporate Agents are always collectivities and, thus, plural, Social Actors are individual members of these collectivities that fill Social Roles and acquire a Social Identities. With this framework of the Person-Agent-Actor established, I want to theorize how Fatima fits within this schema. First, Fatima, by virtue of being a human, is a Person. And, for the purposes of this study, I will focus on her as a member of a collectivity of Muslim students. Further, I am also characterizing this group of Muslim students as Primary Agents as opposed to Corporate Agents. The main reason for this designation is that for Fatima and Muslim students like her, even though they are able to articulate their individual pain, they are not part of a collectivity of Agents that are organized and clearly articulating their demands for fair treatment. This is not to say that there are no Muslim student groups that do this. It is completely conceivable for student movements to band together in broad coalitions that generate enough 201 political power to move them into the status of Corporate Agents, indeed, there are pro-Muslim groups that do this (e.g. the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, etc.). But without broader political networks, the texts that Muslim students compose in response to Islamophobia are likely to reach only a fairly narrow sphere and lack a role in “negotiated societal transformations” (Archer, 1995, p. 185). However, even though Fatima seems to be a Primary Agent, according to Archer, she is nonetheless mature enough to be a Social Actor, which, in the context of this research, means that she is a high school English student who creates poetry and analytic essays that reflect her critical consciousness of the socio-cultural structures that impinge upon her. So even though her current status as Primary Agent suggests that her impact on changing larger socio-cultural structures is limited, she still has the ability to resist Islamophobia in various ways. And, perhaps, if she were to join a group of Corporate Agents, it is conceivable that the texts she composes could be used as a catalyst to inspire political change. Analytic Dualism and Socio-cultural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis To review, Archer (1995) holds Social Structures, Cultural Structures, and Agents to be ontologically distinct because they belong to different strata of reality, yet they have an interplay that can lead to either change or stasis over time in all three entities. For Archer, Socio-cultural Morphogenesis or Morphostasis occurs during three phases: Phase One: Structural Conditioning, Phase Two: Socio-cultural Interaction, and Phase Three: Structural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis. 202 Phase One: Structural Conditioning entails pre-existing societal conditions (e.g. involuntaristic placement, vested interests, opportunity costs, degrees of interpretive freedom, and directional guidance) into which one is born and which set the table, as it were, for the second phase. Phase Two: Socio-cultural Interaction comprises interactions Agents have with socio-cultural structures, as well as with other Agents, both Primary and Corporate. This is the phase where Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis is particularly helpful in exploring the interplay between socio-cultural structures and students’ text-composing agency. Finally, Phase Three results in either socio-cultural elaboration (e.g. Morphogenesis or change) or socio-cultural reproduction (e.g. Morphostasis or sameness). I will attempt a tentative discussion of Fatima’s experience by using Archer’s Basic Morphogenetic Cycle with its three phases. Because Archer’s theory takes into account time, there is an infinite number of choices where one might begin analysis. However, because this research is examining Islamohpobic socio-cultural structures and because Fatima’s texts referenced Islamophobic rhetoric that President Trump voiced, as well as incidents of discrimination and violence against Muslims, it seems a reasonable place to start would be during 2016 when Trump campaigned and won an election while trotting out Islamophobic remarks. Phase One: The Structural Conditioning Phase For this research, Phase One, the Structural Conditioning Phase, is situated in the United States in 2016, an era that, for Fatima, could be characterized as a time with significant Islamophobic socio-cultural pressures. Fatima (of the Primary Agents of Muslim students) is not only hearing from the Corporate Agents of the executive branch of the U.S. government via 203 Trump’s Islamophobic rhetoric but is also aware of various incidents of private Islamophobia inspired by Cultural Islamophobia. Therefore, Fatima experiences the involuntary placement of being a Muslim student in a U.S. society that can be Islamophobic. Because she recognizes the religious discrimination she experiences is a contradiction to the value of religious freedom that all U.S. citizens should have, she has a vested interest in changing the socio-cultural Islamophobia she witnesses. Yet, the opportunity costs she is faced with in changing Islamophobic socio-cultural structures are relatively steep because her Primary Agent status precludes her from having the political resources to do so. But, even though she is a Primary Agent, this does not prevent her from composing texts that speak against injustice. Thus, she has some degree of interpretive freedom such that, although Islamophobic socio-cultural structures condition her through the negative effects they have on her (e.g. fear, hyper-vigilance, etc.), nevertheless, she is able to sustain enough freedom that she uses these socio-cultural structures as directional guidance or reasons to create texts that resist Islamophobia. Phase Two: The Socio-cultural Interaction Phase Moving to Phase Two, the Socio-cultural Interaction Phase, in her position as a Social Actor (e.g. a student) she begins to process these events and give voice to them in the poetry and the essay she writes for her sophomore English class in 2018. So, from 2016 and through the middle of 2018, there is an “interaction” or an “interplay” between socio-cultural structures (e.g. Islamophobic rhetoric from Trump, Islamophobia through private actors) and Fatima’s text-composing agency, which ultimately ends in her creating texts in response to Islamophobic discrimination. Or, to borrow Fairclough’s (2003) terminology, at the Socio-cultural level, Structural and Cultural Islamophobic forces take up Islamophobic discourse at the level of Social 204 Practice and produce Social Events of Islamophobia (e.g. Trump’s Islamophobic rhetoric). Meanwhile, Fatima, as a Muslim student, is absorbing the Islamophobic discourse at the Social Practice level and creating her own anti-Islamophobic discourse through the Social Events of her poetry and essay. But to what effect? Was there social change or not as a result of Fatima’s texts? For that answer I turn to Phase Three: Socio-cultural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis Phase Three: Socio-cultural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis As with Bassim, the interplay between the Islamophobic socio-cultural forces that Fatima faces seem to yield a necessary incompatibility and a situational logic of compromise that results in Morphostasis or sameness (Archer, 1995). In this situation, Fatima understands that as a citizen of the U.S., she has a right to freedom of religion. She should be able to peacefully practice her religion without fear or harm. However, she also recognizes that, at the highest level of U.S. government, President Trump makes repeated Islamophobic remarks, and she believes this has the effect of tacitly affirming Islamophobic acts from private individuals. Thus, in her view, the government is defaulting on its responsibility to protect her and other Muslims from discrimination. However, even though Fatima can identify some of the sources of Islamophobia that affect her, nevertheless, she is acting in the capacity of a Primary Agent (e.g. she is not involved in a group of Muslims who are organized and can articulate a clear set of demands to the government). As a result, she can write about her experiences and pain but without collaboration with a group of anti-Islamophobic Corporate Agents (e.g. groups of people who advocate for Muslims’ rights like CAIR or the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee) her texts are unlikely to have an effect on the Islamophobic Corporate Agency of President Trump, his rhetoric, or the policies emanating from the executive branch. Further, unless Fatima 205 is able to engage private Islamophobes in persuasive dialogue and share her texts with them, it seems unlikely that their Islamophobic ideology and actions would cease. Hence, she will find herself batting with the incoherencies of being a citizen in the U.S., namely, being told that all are equal and yet experiencing inequality because of a core part of her identity. Further, unless she joins a group of anti-Islamophobic Corporate Agents who are advocating for Muslim rights, she is likely to stay in a situational logic of compromise where she lives with the contradiction and does her best to exist and navigate a potentially hostile and dangerous environment. In sum, this chapter has examined the ways Islamophobic socio-cultural structures affect Fatima’s text-composing agency. The effects of the Islamophobic social structure of the executive branch of the U.S. government and Cultural Islamophobic acts of private individuals have permeated Fatima’s poetry, analytic essay, and speech. Her observations of and experiences with Islamophobia supplied her with reasons to compose texts that struggle against this dehumanizing ideology. And even though these socio-cultural forces do not completely circumscribe her agency, unless she collaborates with a group of anti-Islamophobic Corporate Agents, Morphogenesis of Islamophobic socio-cultural structures is unlikely to occur. In the next chapter, I will take up some of the implications that this research has by returning to the research questions and how they were answered. 206 Chapter 11: Discussion and Implications 207 Structure of This Chapter This section will return to the research questions and show how this study answered these questions, explore the implications of these answers, and conclude in a thought-experiment that shows how Bassim’s text-composing agency might influence change in a social structure, the TSA. Development of a Theoretical-Methodological Apparatus In answering my first research question: How might Archer, Beydoun, and Fairclough’s work be joined together to create a theoretical-methodological apparatus capable of examining the interplay between socio-cultural forces and two Muslim students’ text-composing agency? , this research advances a theoretical-methodological approach that is relatively novel regarding the way educational researchers can examine the interplay between structure and agency. As shown in Chapter 4, Archer’s (1995) theory of structure and agency is consistent with Fariclough’s (2003) Critical Discourse Analysis methodology. This question was explored in part because of Fairclough’s (2003) exhortation to inform Critical Discourse Analysis methodology with social theory. It was also explored because finding coherence between one’s theory and one’s methodology can be a gadfly for researchers. Because both Archer and Fairclough assume a critical realist meta-theoretical substrate, their approaches are philosophically consistent with one another. Moreover, in Chapter 4 I show specifically where Archer and Fairclough’s approaches align. At Archer’s Phase Two: The Socio-cultural Interaction Phase, she theorizes that this is where the interplay between structure and agency occurs. It is in this phase that Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis can be deployed to examine what texts can tell us about the interaction between structure and agency. This work shows how Fairclough’s specific 208 approach can be nested and applied within Archer’s more general framework and offers a template that other researchers can use who are interested in questions of socio-cultural structures and text-composing agency. The following schematic illustrates these frameworks working together: 1. Phase One: Structural Conditioning (Archer, 1995) Involuntaristic placement a. b. Vested interests c. Opportunity costs d. Degrees of interpretive freedom e. Directional guidance 2. Phase Two: Socio-cultural Interaction (Archer, 1995) a. Social Practice (Fairclough, 2003) i. Discourse 1. Orders of Discourse a. Discourses (representation) i. ii. Social events of Agents (Fairclough, 2003; Archer, 1995) 1. Ideologies/discourse from socio-cultural structures 2. Poetry 3. Analytic Essay 4. Interview Text-Composing Agency: Elements of representational meaning in the social events of the texts: poetry, essay, interview and what they tell us about the interplay between socio-cultural structures and texts individuals create 1. Process Types (verbs) 2. Participants (subject, objects, indirect objects, etc.) 3. Agentive representative variables (activated, passivated, included, excluded, etc.) 4. Circumstances (adverbs, time, place) 3. Phase Three: Socio-cultural Morphogenesis/Morphostasis a. Socio-cultural configurations->situational logics->Morphogenesis (MG)/Morphostasis (MS) (Archer, 1995) i. ii. iii. iv. Necessary complementarities->Protection->MS Necessary incompatibilities->Compromise->MS Contingent incompatibilities->Elimination->MG Contingent compatibilities->Opportunism->MG 209 In this study, my gaze focused on experiences of two Muslim students and Islamophobia, which is why Beydoun’s (2018) theory added a helpful nuance. However, researchers can shift the nuance to fit the populations they are working with. Instead of Islamophobia, the nuance might be an anti-Black racism framework, anti-Asian racism framework, an alternately-abled framework, etc. This theoretical-methodological combination can be applied to a range of populations and circumstances to understand not only how text-composing agents are affected by socio-cultural structures but also how text-composing agents can affect socio-cultural structures. In answering the second research question: What types of socio-cultural forces do two Muslim students identify and how do they respond to these forces via their text-composing agency? , I found that socio-cultural structures do affect these students; however, they do not completely circumscribe their agency. These Muslim students use their text-composing agency in myriad ways to engage with various socio-cultural forces thereby demonstrating their critical consciousness (Freire, 1990; 1996; Morrell, 2002; Bishop, 2014). For Bassim and Fatima, their text-composing agency suggests that they are critically aware of the way socio-cultural structures position them via their ability to identify forces like Patriarchal White Supremacy and its effects, the ways they use their texts to critique various forms of discrimination by the media and their perception of the devaluing of Muslim and Non-White life. Furthermore, they also used their texts to demonstrate their respect for the differences of others, inviting dialogue, and, for Fatima at least, expressing hope. In answering the third research question: How do Islamophobic socio-cultural structural forces affect the text-composing agency of two Muslim students? , I found that, for Bassim and Fatima, their critical awareness of the ways that Islamophobic socio-cultural structures 210 positioned them manifested in similar ways. They both expressed encounters with Islamophobic rhetoric that attempted to subjugate them as an unwanted “other”. They also commented upon their continual hyperawareness of the consequences of their Muslim identity, as well as the fear they experienced due to Islamophobia. Islamophobic Rhetoric and the Unwanted Other Through their text-composing agency, Bassim and Fatima shared about their experiences with Islamophobic rhetoric that aimed to exclude them and position them as the unwanted “Other” (Said, 1979). Bassim shared about some of the Islamophobic rhetoric he received like being called a “terrorist”, being affiliated with ISIS, being asked, “Are you going to bomb something now?”, and also the stares he observes when people look at his mother when she wears her hijab. He also shared that some Islamophobes told him, “Go, fuckers.” He added that comment was meant to associate him with ISIS. Similarly, Fatima shared that she has heard, “Go back home. Go to your country” and that she gets “ . . . that all the time.” Like Bassim’s observations with his mother, Fatima also wrote about the negative “ . . . interactions, stares, and judgments she will face” as a result of wearing her hijab. Continual Hyperawareness of Being Muslim The Critical Discourse Analysis brings in to view the continual pressure and hypervigilance Bassim and Fatima experience and enact because of their religious identity. Their linguistic choices represent the temporal context (Fairclough, 2003) in which they perceive themselves to be continually under suspicion and threatened. For example, Bassim’s present continuous tense use through the word “drowning” in a “quicksand” of Islamophobic hate, as well as adverbial use of “always” getting extra security screening by the TSA, represent the 211 everpresent awareness he has of the ways socio-cultural structures negatively position him because of his Muslim identity. Fatima also shared similar sentiments of the continual pressure she feels from Islamophobia through her choice of adverbs. For instance, she uses “everyday” when she talks about how often she fears for her life and “whenever” she leaves her home, she thinks of Nabra Hassanen. Fear of Islamophobic Treatment Bassim and Fatima also use their text composing agency to communicate that Islamophobic socio-cultural structures cause them to fear. For Bassim, when he is at the airport, he speaks of the need to be “mindful” of what he says; otherwise, “ . . . people may begin to think he is a threat to the safety of America.” Because of Bassim’s fear that his Muslim identity frames him as a potential “terrorist” he expresses this fear through self-censorship. Rather than being able to speak freely, he must be circumspect about his words, anticipating the ways others might interpret what he says. This experience of self-censorship has also been cited other research with young Muslims (Shresthova, 2016) and on other marginalized groups like Black girl writers (Muhammad, 2012). Fear is replete in Fatima’s poetry and her essay. In her essay, she uses the world “fear” 22 times. In her poem, “That One Girl”, she writes, “ . . . i must beware/afraid of those racist mindsets that greatly lack”. She also speaks of her “paranoia and fear” and “i fear for my life everyday”. The concluding line of her poem asks rhetorically, “when will my life be void of fear?” From Bassim and Fatima’s text-composing agency, it is clear that Islamophobic socio-cultural structures cause a pervasive and unrelenting fear. It is also clear that for Bassim and Fatima, their English classroom was an important place to process their complex realities. In 212 light of this, I offer a few implications for the ways English classrooms, specifically, can perhaps offer support to Muslim students who face similar challenges. English Classrooms as Spaces of Support for Muslim Students English classsrooms can offer Muslim students support in important ways. First, English classrooms can give students text-composing assignments that offer flexibility both in terms of the text structure and text content (Behizadeh, 2014a; Borsheim & Petrone, 2006; Everett, 2018; Haddix, 2018). This gives Muslim students the opportunity to write about things that are important and meaningful to them and also gives them the freedom to incorporate their religious identity (Juzwik & McKenzie, 2015; Reyes, 2009; Skerrett, 2015; Weyand & Juzwik, 2020; Wheatley, 2019a). English classrooms can also give students the opportunity to reflect upon and compose texts in relation to their critical consciousness (Freire, 1990; 1996; Bishop, 2014; Morrell, 2002). Each of these will be explored in turn. Importance of Choice in Structure and Content of Writing Assignments The poetry chapbook assignment Ms. Smith presented to her classes is an example of “structured choice” (Behizadeh, 2014b) where Bassim and Fatima had both structure (e.g. poetry) and also choice (e.g. expressing their experiences with Islamophobia). Bassim’s structure was that of a “modernist” poem and Fatima’s was a “confessional” poem. However, they were given the latitude to use those structures to voice the deeply painful feelings they experienced as a result of their marginalized identity. As critical literacy scholars cite, one reason for a lack of choice is the pressure to perform well on high-stakes tests (Behizadeh, 2014b; Haddix, 2018). And yet, this need not be a false dilemma of either unbridled creativity or a formulaic straight jacket for one’s writing. Teachers can teach form, like Ms. Smith does with her poetry chapbook, 213 but then they can allow students to include content that is meaningful and relevant to their own lives. English Classrooms Allow Muslim Students to Leverage Their Religious Literacies English classrooms can also be spaces where students’ whole selves are invited into the classroom, and this should include their religious identities. When given the opportunity, Bassim says that he wrote his poem on “being a Muslim”. As mentioned earlier, there are many things that he could have written about in relation to being a Muslim (e.g., his spiritual life, his piety, his Quranic literacy practices, etc.); however, he uses this assignment to share that, for him, at this time in the U.S., to be a young Muslim is to be persecuted and discriminated. This assignment offered him the opportunity to share his profound fears and sorrows that he experiences because of his religious identity. But, in some sense, this assignment has also given him the opportunity to not only voice the negative experiences but to also speak back to and against them (Kinloch, 2005; Kirkland, 2011). Similarly, Fatima uses her text-composing agency to explore the distinctly gendered Islamophobic consequences that the wearing of the hijab has for her life. As in Bassim’s case, the poetry chapbook gave her the opportunity to write about something important to her and presented her with a chance to take all of the fear, pain, and anger she experienced to “fuel” her writing. English Classrooms Can Be Spaces to Support Critical Consciousness This research supports the claim that English classrooms can be spaces where Muslim students, among others, can reflect upon and represent through their text-composing agency their critical consciousness of the ways socio-cultural structures position them (Freire, 19990; 1998; Bishop, 2014; Morrell, 2002). Both Bassim’s and Fatima’s text-composing agencies spoke to the 214 ways they were positioned by various socio-cultural forces. In Bassim’s case, he spoke of the Islamophobic rhetoric he experienced by private Islamophobes, as well as the ways he is regularly “randomly” singled out for extra security screening by the TSA. Similarly, Fatima talks about the ways she is made to feel afraid because of the Islamophobic responses her hijab may elicit from private Islamophobes. And in our interview, she astutely shared her perception of the way President Trump’s Islamophobic rhetoric may tacitly encourage the actions of private Islamophobes (Beydoun, 2018). Thus English classrooms can afford students the time and place they need to think about issues that are important to them, to think about their place in the world and some of the larger forces at play that are acting upon them, and how they might use their text-composing agency to respond to and change those forces for good. Practically, one of the clearest ways English classrooms can facilitate critical consciousness that is aimed at socio-cultural analysis is through the research paper. The research paper is a perennial feature of high school English and if students are given the latitude to research a relevant socio-cultural problem of local, national, or international significance, this can begin to help them develop insight into the larger forces and causes of various problems. As I will show in the next section via a thought-experiment, the research paper can be a stepping stone to socio-cultural change, when combined with the efforts of Corporate Agents acting toward those changes. Students’ Texts Need to be Combined with the Political Power of Corporate Agents Finally, regarding my final research question: How might a Muslim student’s text-composing agency influence socio-cultural forces? , my analysis of Bassim’s and Fatima’s texts suggests that it is unlikely that their text-composing agency exerted any change on 215 socio-cultural structures. The primary reason I offered for this claim is that both Bassim and Fatima are Muslim students who are Primary Agents that lack clear organization and a clearly articulated agenda. Per Archer’s (1995) theory, Corporate Agents are those who are primarily responsible for enacting “negotiated societal transformations” (p. 185) in the sense of a change in socio-cultural structures (e.g. government structures, policy, legislation, etc). So even if Bassim and Fatima were able to present their texts to their classmates, school board, local newspaper readership, social media account, blog, etc. (Behizadeh, 2019; Borsheim & Petrone, 2006), unless they also partner with Corporate Agents that have a clear anti-Islamophobic agenda, clear organization, and political power (e.g. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, etc.), their texts are likely to achieve very limited socio-cultural change. This is not to say that Muslim students could not organize into Corporate Agents. Indeed some scholars have urged schools to allow Muslim student groups to form so that Muslim students can find support (Abu El-Haj, 2007; Oikonomidoy, 2009; Zine, 2000). Yet, to expect these students to be able to spontaneously organize themselves, articulate a clear political agenda, and then act on that agenda, while also maintaining the commitments they have to their family and their academics, seems a bit much to ask. To be clear, it is good for Muslim students to create texts and present them to their classes, school boards, and broader communities. It is also good for them to have support groups. But, if Archer’s theory is correct, the type of socio-cultural change that critical literacy scholars envision (Bishop, 2014; Morrell, 2002) is unlikely to occur unless these students join the efforts of Corporate Agents that have an agenda, an organizational structure, and political will and power. One way this partnership could be achieved is by connecting students with Corporate 216 Agents. This could be done by having a Corporate Agent group sponsor a writing workshop that allows students opportunities to create texts that are aligned with the agenda of that particular Corporate Agent. This might increase the likelihood that students’ texts could be used by Corporate Agents in their political activity. Additionally, internships and mentoring relationships could be established that develop students’ political skills so that they can be more effective in their contributions to socio-cultural change. Consequently, this study now points to a vision of what this partnership between students, English classrooms, and Corporate Agents might look like through a Morphogenetic thought-experiment inspired by Bassim’s text-composing agency. The Effect of Bassim’s Text-Composing Agency on the TSA: A Thought Experiment How might a Muslim student’s texts affect socio-cultural structures? On the face of it, there is no evidence that Bassim’s texts had any effect on either the social structure of the TSA or on his peers. It could be that this English assignment was limited to an audience of himself and his teacher. If this is the case, it would seem that Bassim’s texts would have no effect on socio-cultural structures and thus they are left unchanged, or in the words of Archer (1995), they are Morphostatic. That is, even after Bassim created his texts, his peers may likely continue to espouse Islamophobic rhetoric and the TSA is likely to continue overprofiling Muslim passengers. But how might change occur via Bassim’s texts and what might it look like? In this next section I want to focus on the interplay between the social structure of the TSA and Bassim’s text-composing agency by using a thought experiment whereby Archer’s work will inform the possibilities that could exist for Morphogenesis (social change) to occur through the texts that Bassim composes and the role that English classrooms can have in this process. 217 As students are given opportunities to critically reflect upon socio-cultural phenomena and their own place in society through the texts they create, certain sites of investigation may arise. In Bassim’s case, he used his English class’s poetry assignment to develop and communicate his critical awarenes of Islamophobic forces that impinge upon his freedom and well-being. Among various socio-cultural structures, he alluded to the TSA. Therefore, one way to extend critical work that is grounded in students’ experiences and texts is to offer them the opportunity to research a socio-cultural problem and develop a plan to address it. Historically, in the English classroom, this task is most closely aligned with the research essay. Roughly, this process might look like a preliminary investigation of the problem, which could draw from empirical and theoretical research. This preliminary investigation could lead to a more detailed identification of the problems and potential causes. And, importantly, it could include research regarding how these problems might be solved. Thus, this process, particularly for students who are marginalized by socio-cultural structures, might be a way to not only develop critical consciousness, but also to organize and resist structures that impede human flourishing and/or support structures that enhance human flourishing. Let us now explore a thought experiment of how Bassim, extending the critical consciousness he developed via his poetry and analytic essay, might construct a research essay with an activist component to resist the overprofiling of the TSA and call for equitable change. The first step in this process for Bassim could be to conduct preliminary research on the TSA and incidents of overprofiling. Admittedly, the TSA is tasked with a Herculean job. Certainly, there is a need for safeguards regarding our airways, roadways, waterways, etc. However, it is not an uncommon occurrence for some Muslims, citizens who merely want to live 218 their life in peace, to be subject to discriminatory searches. Indeed, preliminary research in recent years suggests that there has been a significant elevation of interest regarding the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA’s logics and methods of surveillance. Concerns have included charges of racial profiling (Ackerman, 2017), repeated and excessive searches of innocent individuals (Handeyside, 2018c), flawed criteria for detecting suspicious persons (Winter, 2018), biased analysis (Handeyside, 2018a), and the need for Congressional hearings to apply more accountability (Editorial Board, 2018). Those voicing these concerns are not limited to the ACLU but include federal air marshals and the president of the Air Marshal Association (Winter, 2018). The preliminary research on the TSA suggests that the organization may discriminate against certain persons, particularly Muslims. This preliminary research may then lead to more in-depth research about the causes of problematic practices and outcomes. For Bassim, part of this research will require an understanding of the TSA, its structure, its position under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the DHS’s position under the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch via the Standing Committee on Homeland Security, the body tasked with the mission of overseeing the Department of Homeland Security. The understanding of the structures of these various government agencies is important because knowing the “social positions”, roles, and hierarchies is necessary to know where concerns and resistance ought to be directed. For instance, once Bassim has built a case from his research paper, he can then figure out where to send his complaint. In the case of the TSA, Bassim has several channels. He could contact the TSA directly. He could also contact his elected representative. And he might also research and reach out to the bodies that oversee the 219 TSA. That body would be the Standing Committee on Homeland Security, a bipartisan group of congresswomen and congressmen who handle the oversight of and legislation related to the DHS and the TSA. Recalling Archer’s difference between primary (disorganized and/or inarticulate) and Corporate Agents (organized and articulate), initially, Bassim is a primary agent. Even if he were able to articulate his demands, according to Archer, he will likely only achieve piecemeal change, if that. Because he lacks the coalitional support and influence that Corporate Agents have, questionable socio-cultural structures are likely to be left intact. If, however, he is able to build broader support for his cause through building coalitions of allies from members of the Muslim community, Muslim Students’ Associations, activists organizations like the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), as well as the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), then political pressure could be exponentially amplified and directed at any or all of the aforementioned channels that influence the TSA. Thus, if Bassim, through his social networking, were able to move from Primary Agent to Corporate Agent, then the potential to bring significant change to the TSA through his (and other’s) text-composing agencies (e.g. research findings, lists of grievances, petitions, protest poetry, etc.) might be more possible. This thought experiment speaks to the possibilities that exist when English classrooms become incubators for reflection, research, and action. By centering students’ voices in our classrooms and listening carefully to their stories, more insight is generated into their broader socio-cultural milieu. Further, students develop the skills and the vision that they need in order to change the world for the better. 220 APPENDICES 221 Appendix A: Sample Semi-Structured Interview Protocol 1. In as much detail as possible, please describe a time when you experienced discrimination because of your religious identity at your high school. 2. What happened right before this experience? 3. 4. What changes in how you are treated by others because of your religious identity have In what ways did you respond verbally and physically to this discrimination? you noticed, if any, since the presidential election? 222 Appendix B: Sample Field Notes 2.27.19 Meeting with Bassim Diversity committee - district wide diversity conference. DC runs dialogue sessions and asks them what they think about societal issues: racial, sexual, gender Make a student survey, Dialogue sessions? Run by the students, get their issues, Use that information to talk with the teachers/administrators or run an event to bring awareness to the situation. How do you know what to change? Most students said student/teacher relations should be better; teachers need to be more welcoming and not just authority Career fairs Cultural day Book clubs Ms. Holcomb Recently had a dialogue session; the facilitator was looking at student mental health issues in an adult way, she said the depression and anxiety is due to the laziness of the situation. Speaker was picked by students. Ms. Assad coordinates the diversity committees Ask Assad about volunteering. 223 Appendix C: Sample Coded Essay Codes: Identifying General Discrimination Identifying General White Supremacist Discrimination Identifying Structural White Supremacist Discrimination Identifying Results of White Supremacist Discrimination Identifying General Islamophobia Identifying Private Individual Islamophobia Identifying Private Media/Organizational Islamophobia Identifying Private Media/Organizational Discrimination Identifying Structural Islamophobia Identifying Impacts of Islamophobia on speaker Identifying Resources that the speaker cannot have Identifying the Minimization of the worth of Muslim life Responses: Resisting Assertion of Equality Asking for help Ignoring/minimizing Discrimination Writing in Response to Discrimination Respecting Differences of Others Hoping Inviting dialogue Martin Luther King Jr., a civil rights activist, once stated, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” King implies that freedom must 224 be fought for to be obtained as for it will never be given out if people do not pressure their governments to give it to them. They watch their rights be taken away, and all they can do is sit and watch. His words are still relevant in today’s society. Many people's freedom has been taken away because of the labels placed on them . Baasim Abbas, a Muslim poet who has constantly been labeled as a terrorist, criticizes the repressive actions America takes on its citizens. In his modernist poem, “The Desert,” he writes about his freedom slowly disappearing in America as a Muslim growing up through the time period of Islamic terror attacks. Since 9/11, Muslims have been on watch. Any action these Muslims take can be held against themselves. Abbas feels that he needs to be mindful of what he says as people may begin to think he is a threat to the safety of America. He always gets “randomly” checked at airports once they see that his dad lived in Saudi Arabia. He gets judgemental stares when walking around with his mom, who wears a hijab He also gets bombarded with constant ridicule about being a suicide bomber and being part of Isis. Life has always been a struggle for him because of the label placed on Muslims. Throughout his poetry, he symbolizes these hardships faced not just by him but by many others trying to obtain the true freedom which is all the rights listed in the constitution and bill of rights . Through the use of poetic devices, Baasim Abbas writes about the pain of growing up as a different race and religion to criticize the lack of true freedom and inequality in America . Abbas demonstrates how America is built on the idea of equality for “everyone,” but in reality, many people are treated differentl y . Numerous amounts of people face discrimination because of who they are. Now, this prejudice is spreading farther apart as new unjust laws are being enacted. Abbas writes about this inequality that his people face in his poem ; There lies a lone tree in this Desert Tall and mighty Fruitful with golden apples and silver oranges I say the fruit is bitter He says it’s sweet (Line 1-5) Baasim Abbas uses “Desert” as a symbol for America and the “lone tree” and the “oasis” symbolizes the true freedom that is rarely present in America. Food and water in the desert are rare, much like how true freedom is scarcely available to people in America. This true freedom although very desirable is only accessible to certain people specifically the White males. Many people strive to achieve true freedom in this desirable America but soon they realize this is impossible as there is no real equality for all as some people will always be treated better than others. This is seen when the author writes “I say the fruit is bitter/He says it is sweet.” He signifies that this other man who is also going for fruit on the same tree is experiencing something different. He is rewarded for reaching this point while the author is punished . He also separates bitter from his words to portray the insignificance of his beliefs about the freedom he earned. The inequality that he tries to preach is hidden behind the preaching that this other man is experiencing true freedom . This illustrates that Abbas could never experience true freedom growing up. Abbas adds on to the unjustness by showcasing the hate he receives from everyone around him. Racial slurs are said with little care for what they mean and how the person feels when called this word. They are used carelessly in media, and this shows people that maybe it is 225 alright to say this. Media portrays a particular image as an ordinary thing for a race like terrorists for muslims and gang members for African Americans. This image can’t easily be erased. Abbas writes of how this hate affects him; Help me I’m drowning in the quicksand of hate I’m suffocating I can’t break free Please help me (Lines 21-25) He writes “Quicksand of hate” to symbolizes how everything around him is blocked by the hate speech and racial slurs of the people around him. He is “drowning” in this hate, and he can’t break himself out of it no matter what he does . He requires aid from someone else to come and help but all people are doing is bystanding. No one takes action to help prevent this man from drowning. The author uses an analogy, “Quicksand of hate,” to compare quicksand to the people around him who spew out hate. Quicksand is something that latches onto you and the more you fight back, the harder it grabs onto you. This is similar to what he experiences as he can’t fight the racists around him or he would just become more damaged and hurt. He is also “suffocating” in all this hatred which adds on to how he is surrounded by this hate that is just shoved down his throat . He repeatedly calls for help, but no one is willing to aid someone who is different. Everyone just watches and laughs along. They are not willing to rescue this drowning man. This is shown through the vast spacing of “please help me,” and “ I can’t break free. ” This is to signify the unimportance of his words and his slow suffocation and death on these hateful comments. His freedoms are slowly being repressed, and he is becoming distant from all the people around. He believes he is no longer American because this is what everyone around him tells him. Abbas explores the suppression of freedom not just in Muslims but also in other races and people. He brings his poem together by highlighting that this oppression is not just faced by Muslims but also faced by many others. America won’t give out freedom to everybody. People have to fight to obtain this freedom , and only a select few can make it through to the true freedom and equality. He writes this passage to signify that true freedom cannot be easily obtained as advertised in America: In this Desert there are 7 men Each one owns a well of water Around them WomenAfricanAmericansMexicansAsians Dead This Desert is lethal Few make it through I lie there Thirsty 226 This desert is blocking his path to freedom. He writes about “7 men” which symbolize the founding fathers of America whose ideology is a free world. They wanted to break free from Britain because of their oppressive nature on the citizens of the U.S. This oppression is now still faced by citizens, except now they look a little different. Each man has “a well of water.” This water symbolizes the true freedom in America. Even though they have a huge amount of water, they still conserve it as if they cannot give any to anyone. This true freedom is given to only a select few in this country. Only if they fit the requirement of being White and male. All around these founding fathers, people are pleading for a sip of this water so they could earn their freedom but the founding fathers never give up their supply. He then writes “WomenAfricanAmericansMexicansAsians,” to show the insignificance of these people in the eyes of the founders. They all are the same, people who cannot obtain this true freedom. The men don’t care for these people, and they only care about their kind. He then writes “few make it through” to signify that only a limited amount of people are really free in this country. He also writes “this desert is lethal,” to imply that not many people can make it past this desert to freedom no matter how hard they try, they get stuck in the false freedom which they cannot escape. Abbas then ends his poem by writing “thirsty for freedom” to signify the importance of freedom to the people. Even though water is essential to stay alive, they would rather be dead then not truly free in this world . The only thing they want is to finally be free but this government takes actions to suppress other races, so they can never truly experience freedom. Freedom is a right that should always be available in America, but many cannot experience the true freedom. Abbas explores the dwindling of these freedoms in his life due to him being part of a religion. He talks about how many Muslims are treated differently in America, and how certain actions are taken by the government to limit the freedom he has. He also extends on the unjustness faced by demonstrating how much hate he receives on a daily basis. He doesn’t understand why there is so much hate thrown at him when all he is doing is worshipping God . Finally, he relates how his poem also affects individuals from other races too, as they also face discrimination of some sort. He does all of this to showcase that America is a nation with problems that need to be addressed by the oppressed. One can never obtain true freedom unless one is willing to fight against the oppressors for it. 227 Codes: Identifying General Discrimination Identifying General White Supremacist Discrimination Identifying Structural White Supremacist Discrimination Identifying Results of White Supremacist Discrimination Identifying General Islamophobia Identifying Private Individual Islamophobia Identifying Private Media/Organizational Islamophobia Identifying Private Media/Organizational Discrimination Identifying Structural Islamophobia Identifying Impacts of Islamophobia on speaker Appendix D: Sample Coded Poem Identifying Resources that the speaker cannot have Identifying the Minimization of the worth of Muslim life Responses: Resisting Assertion of Equality Asking for help Ignoring/minimizing Discrimination Writing in Response to Discrimination Respecting Differences of Others Hoping Inviting dialogue The Desert by Bassim Abbas There lies a lone tree in this Desert Tall and mighty Fruitful with golden apples and silver oranges I say the fruit is bitter 5 He says it’s sweet There lies an Oasis in this Desert Pristine and luscious Refreshing with water bluer than blue I say the water is hot 10 He say’s it’s cool 228 Why am I treated differently? Is it because I believe in a religion of peace? I say I believe in the same thing you do I say I don’t hate this Desert 15 But all I get is a handful of rotten apples The Desert doesn’t love me It’s giving me a cup of bitter coffee I will make it sweeter the Desert hates me 20 I am a “terrorist” Help me I’m drowning in the quicksand of hate I’m suffocating I can’t break free 25 Please help me In this Desert there are 7 men Each one owns a well of water Around them WomenAfricanAmericansMexicansAsians 30 Dead This Desert is lethal Few make it through I lie there 34 Thirsty 229 Appendix E: Table 4: Agential Coding Chart Examples: They watch their rights be taken away, and all they can do is sit and watch . . . Many people's freedom has been taken away because of the labels placed on them (Bassim, Essay, p. 2) Racial slurs are said with little care for what they mean and how the person feels when called this word. They are used carelessly in media, and this shows people that maybe it is alright to say this. [The] Media portrays a particular image as an ordinary thing for a race like . . . gang members for African Americans (Bassim, Essay, p. 3). Table 4: Agential Coding Chart IDENTIFYING TYPES OF DISCRIMINATION : 1. Identifying General Discrimination : Mistreatment that is non-specified, that is, it is directed at several groups of people, particularly non-White people. Code Abbreviation: IDGenDis Color 2. Identifying Private Discrimination of Non-Muslims by the Media : Drawing on Beydoun’s (2018) distinction between structural and private, Private Discrimination of non-Muslims by the Media gestures towards the media’s independence from government (structural) oversight, and, therefore, it is a private entity. This category also refers to discrimination of non-Muslim groups by the media. Code Abbreviation: IDPDNMM Color Islamophobia: Why am I treated differently? Is it because I believe in a religion of peace? (Bassim, Poem, Lines 11-12). 3. Identifying General Islamophobia : This is a general reference to discrimination against Muslims, but the source of the discrimination is vague, that is, it cannot be categorzed as either structural or private. Code Abbreviation: IDGenIPH Color 230 Table 4: Agential Coding Chart (contd.) 4. Identifying Private Individual Cultural Islamophobia : This is Islamophobia that is generated by a non-State (non-structural) actor. This could be a private individual (e.g. a fellow student or a group of people). Code Abbreviation: IDPCIPHP Color 5. Identifying Private Cultural Islamophobia from the Media : This is Islamophobia that is generated by a media/news outlet and also what might be found on the Internet. Code Abbreviation: IDPIPHM Color 6. Identifying Structural Islamophobia : Drawing from Beydoun (2018) this is discrimination against Muslims that is rooted in government policy, legislation, and organizations. Code Abbreviation: IDSIPH Color I don't know where this came from, but like, apparently it's related to ISIS, and stuff like, “You’re from ISIS, oh, are you going to bomb something now?” (Bassim, Interview, p. 2). [Racial slurs] are used carelessly in media, and this shows people that maybe it is alright to say this. Media portrays a particular image as an ordinary thing for a race like terrorists for muslims . . . (Bassim, Essay, p. 3). [Bassim] always gets “randomly” checked at airports once they see that his dad lived in Saudi Arabia (Bassim, Essay, p. 2) Now, this prejudice is spreading farther apart as new unjust laws are being enacted (Bassim, Essay, p. 2). White Supremacy: 7. Identifying General Patriarchal White Supremacist Discrimination : This is discrimination of non-White people and the privileging of being White (and in many cases being male). However, the cause of the White Supremacist discrimination is not clear. Code Abbreviation: IDGWSD Color Food and water in the desert are rare, much like how true freedom is scarcely available to people in America. This true freedom although very desirable is only accessible to certain people specifically the white males. Many people strive to achieve true freedom in this desirable America but soon they realize this is impossible as there is no real equality for all as some people will always be treated better than others (Bassim, Essay, p. 3). 231 Table 4: Agential Coding Chart (contd.) 8. Identifying Structural White Supremacist Discrimination : This is discrimination of non-White people by structural influences (e.g. government legislation, policy, organizations, etc.) because they are not White. Code Abbreviation: IDSWSD Color IDENTIFYING EFFECTS OF DISCRIMINATION: Results of Discrimination: 9. Identifying the Effects of Patriarchal White Supremacist Discrimation : This refers to the effects that Patriarchal White Supremacist Discrimination has on non-White males. Code Abbreviation: IDEWSD Color 10. Identifying the Effects of Islamophobia on Speaker : This points to the effects of Islamophobia as stated by the speaker in the various texts. Code Abbreviation: IDEIPHS Color 11. Identifying Resources the Speaker Cannot Have : This gestures towards things (e.g. freedom, rights, etc.) that the speaker cannot have because of discrimination. Code Abbreviation: IDRSCNTH Color The only thing they want is to finally be free but this government takes actions to suppress other races, so they can never truly experience freedom. (Bassim, Essay, p. 6) Around [the seven founding fathers] WomenAfricanAmericansMexicansAsians Dead (Bassim, Poem, Lines 28-30). I’m drowning in the quicksand of hate I’m suffocating I can’t break free (Bassim, Poem, Lines 22-24). Abbas then ends his poem by writing “thirsty for freedom” to signify the importance of freedom to the people . . . Freedom is a right that should always be available in America, but many cannot experience the true freedom (Bassim, Essay, p. 6). 232 Table 4: Agential Coding Chart (contd.) 12. Critiquing the Minimization of the Value of Muslim and Non-White Life : These references indicate instances where Muslim life is specifically mentioned as being devalued (e.g. a lack of reporting in the media on events where Muslim lives are lost). Code Abbreviation: CMVML Color Uhm, a week ago, I think, there was a bombing in, somewhere in the Middle East; uh, there was a car bomb and it killed about 80 people and I never saw that in the news. I saw that, like, in a small, like news bit and that’s it. I never saw it on TV or anything and that killed 80 plus people. And I just hate how it’s like everything that happens to like any first world country is immediately known by if anything bad happens to any like third world or anything else . . . (Bassim, Interview, p. 11). AGENTIAL RESPONSES TO DISCRIMINATION: 13. Resisting Discrimination : The speaker indicates active resistance to discrimination. Code Abbreviation: RD Color 14. Asserting Equality: The speaker appeals to human equality as a basis for equal treatment and to condemn discrimination. Code Abbreviation: AE Color 15. Asking for Help: The speaker pleads for someone to rescue them from discrimination and mistreatment. Code Abbreviation: AH Color 16. Ignoring/Minimizing Discrimination : In the face of discrimination, the speaker ignores, downplays, or otherwise minimizes the mistreatment. Code Abbreviation: IMD Color He does all of this to showcase that America is a nation with problems that need to be addressed by the oppressed. One can never obtain true freedom unless one is willing to fight against the oppressors for it (Bassim, Essay, p. 6). I say I believe in the same thing you do I say I don’t hate this Desert (Bassim, Poem, Lines 13-14). Help me . . Please help me (Bassim, Poem, Lines 21 & 25) In response to Islamophobic comments from non-Muslim peers: I just like play it off, just, just ignore it (Bassim, Interview, p. 3). 233 Table 4: Agential Coding Chart (contd.) 17. Writing in Response to Discrimination : In the face of discrimination, the speaker writes about one’s experiences. Code Abbreviation: WRD Color 18. Respecting Differences of Others : In spite of discrimination, the speaker respects the value and fundamental rights of those who are mistreating them. Code Abbreviation: RDO Color 19. Expressing Hope : The belief that conditions will improve such that discrimination and Islamophobia will recede, so that people can live their lives free from fear. Code Abbreviation: HP Color 20. Inviting Dialogue : The student encourages non-Muslims to ask questions about her religion and religious identity in order to dispel myths. Code Abbreviation: INVD Color ...we were writing some poetry and I just wrote one on being a Muslim, right? . . . And I wrote an essay on that too, so I kind of like, in the poetry it was really subtle, like hinting of it being like a Muslim relationship, but then in my essay I wrote a lot about being a conflict with Muslims and all this hatred that’s happened (Bassim, Interview p. 4). However, their choice of attire is never questioned by her mindset due to her understanding and respecting their differences (Fatima, Essay, p. 4) Tayah hopes for a day where she and others can put on the hijab without a fearful thought (Fatima, Essay, p. 6) And that's the thing, people are just afraid to ask questions about the unknown. They're unsure, but I love questions. It's better to ask a question and get the true answer than make your own assumptions because assumptions can lead to hateful actions and things like that that are all truly a misunderstanding (Fatima, Interview, p. 6). 234 Appendix F: Table 5: Sample of Coded Intertextual Chart Identifying Resources that the speaker cannot have Identifying the Minimization of the worth of Muslim life Responses: Resisting Assertion of Equality Asking for help Ignoring/minimizing Discrimination Writing in Response to Discrimination Respecting Differences of Others Hoping Inviting dialogue Codes: Identifying General Discrimination Identifying General White Supremacist Discrimination Identifying Structural White Supremacist Discrimination Identifying Results of White Supremacist Discrimination Identifying General Islamophobia Identifying Private Individual Islamophobia Identifying Private Media/Organizational Islamophobia Identifying Private Media/Organizational Discrimination Identifying Structural Islamophobia Identifying Impacts of Islamophobia on speaker Table 5: Sample of Coded Intertextual Chart A. Interview with Baasim Abbas B. “The Desert” Poem C. “The Desert” Essay A1. B1. There lies a lone tree in this Desert C1. Baasim Abbas uses “Desert” as a symbol for America and the “lone tree” and the “oasis” symbolizes the true freedom that is rarely present in America. Food and water in the desert are rare, much like how true freedom is scarcely available to people in America. This true freedom although very desirable is only accessible to certain people specifically the white males. 235 Table 5: Sample of Coded Intertextual Chart (contd.) B2. Tall and mighty C2. A2. A3. A4. B3. Fruitful with golden apples and silver oranges B4. I say the fruit is bitter C3. Food and water in the desert are rare, much like how true freedom is scarcely available to people in America. This true freedom although very desirable is only accessible to certain people specifically the white males. C4. This true freedom although very desirable is only accessible to certain people specifically the white males. Many people strive to achieve true freedom in this desirable America but soon they realize this is impossible as there is no real equality for all as some people will always be treated better than others. This is seen when the author writes “I say the fruit is bitter/He says it is sweet.” He signifies that this other man who is also going for fruit on the same tree is experiencing something different. He is rewarded for reaching this point while the author is punished . He also separates bitter from his words to portray the insignificance of his beliefs about the freedom he earned. The inequality that he tries to preach is hidden behind the preaching that this other man is experiencing true freedom . This illustrates that Abbas could never experience true freedom growing up. C5. [Bassim] signifies that this other man who is also going for fruit on the same tree is experiencing something different. He is rewarded for reaching this point while the author is punished . this other man is experiencing true freedom . This true freedom is given to only a select few in this country. Only if they fit the requirement of being White and male. 236 A5. B5. He says it’s sweet REFERENCES 237 REFERENCES Abu El-Haj, T. R. (2007). “I Was Born Here, but My Home, It’s Not Here”: Educating for Democratic Citizenship in an Era of Transnational Migration and Global Conflict. Harvard Educational Review , 77 (3), 285–316. Ackerman, S. (2017, February 8). TSA screening program risks racial profiling amid shaky science – study. The Guardian . Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/08/tsa-screening-racial-religious-profiling-a clu-study Al Jazeera. (2017, December 4). US Supreme Court allows Trump travel ban to take effect. Retrieved December 15, 2017, from http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/supreme-court-trump-travel-ban-effect-171204212 650204.html Ali, M. (2018). Young Muslim America: Faith, Community, and Belonging . New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Andone, D., Shortell, D., & Simon, D. (2017, June 20). Police: Death of Muslim girl not believed to be a hate crime - CNN. Retrieved February 7, 2020, from https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/us/muslim-teen-killed-trnd/index.html Ansary, N. (2018). Religious-Based Bullying: Insights on Research and Evidence-Based Best Practices from the National Interfaith Anti-Bullying Summit . Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. Retrieved from https://www.ispu.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ISPU-AMHP-Religious-Based-Bullying. pdf Archer, M. (1995). Realist social theory: the Morphogenetic approach . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. (1996). Culture and agency: the place of culture in social theory (Rev. ed). Cambridge [England] ; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Archer, M., Decoteau, C., Gorski, P. S., Little, D., Porpora, D., Rutzou, T., … Vandenberghe, F. (2016, December 23). What is Critical Realism? Critical Realism Network. Retrieved from http://www.asatheory.org/current-newsletter-online/what-is-critical-realism Bakali, N. (2016). Islamophobia understanding anti-Muslim racism through the lived experiences of Muslim youth . Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN =1429086 238 Barnes, R., & Marimow, A. (2017, June 26). Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban - The Washington Post. Retrieved July 10, 2018, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-b an/2018/06/26/b79cb09a-7943-11e8-80be-6d32e182a3bc_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_te rm=.84ec271e9b4e Behizadeh, N. (2014a). Adolescent Perspectives on Authentic Writing Instruction. Journal of Language and Literacy Education , 10 (1), 27–44. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1030675 Behizadeh, N. (2014b). Xavier’s Take on Authentic Writing: Structuring Choices for Expression and Impact. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 58 (4), 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.357 Behizadeh, N. (2019). Aiming for Authenticity: Successes and Struggles of an Attempt to Increase Authenticity in Writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 62 (4), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.911 Beydoun, K. (2018). American Islamophobia: Understanding the Roots and Rise of Fear . Oakland: University of California Press. Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism: a philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences . Atlantic Highlands, N.J: Humanities Press. Bhaskar, R. (2008). A realist theory of science . London ; New York: Routledge. Bishop, E. (2014). Critical Literacy: Bringing Theory to Praxis. JCT (Online); Rochester , 30 (1), 51–63. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1540953062/abstract/22D009FAC0274D14PQ/1 Blumberg, A. (2019, May 2). Death Toll From New Zealand Mosque Shooting Rises To 51 | HuffPost. Retrieved March 19, 2020, from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/new-zealand-shooting-death-toll-rises_n_5ccb8248e4b0e4d 7573010fe Borsheim, C., & Petrone, R. (2006). Teaching the Research Paper for Local Action. English Journal, High School Edition; Urbana , 95 (4), 78–83. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/237300995/abstract/2BA94870AA394D79PQ/1 CAIR California. (2016). Mislabeled: The impact of school bullying and discrimination on California Muslim students. CAIR. Retrieved from https://ca.cair.com/sfba/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CAIR-CA-2015-Bullying-Report-Web. pdf 239 Chavez, N., & DiGiacomo, J. (2018, November 29). Man pleads guilty to rape and murder in killing of Muslim teen attacked near mosque - CNN. Retrieved February 7, 2020, from https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/29/us/slain-muslim-teen-plea-deal/index.html Collier, A. (1994). Critical realism: an introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s philosophy . London ; New York: Verso. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review , 43 (6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039 Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. C. (2002). Explaining society: critical realism in the social sciences . London ; New York: Routledge. Diamond, J., & Starr, B. (2018, October 13). Trump’s $110 billion Saudi arms deal has only earned $14.5 billion so far. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/politics/trump-khashoggi-saudi-arabia-arms-deal-sanction s/index.html Durkheim, E., & Thompson, K. (2004). Readings From Emile Durkheim . London: Routledge. Editorial Board. (2018, July 31). TSA’s Quiet Skies may sound creepy, but there’s logic to it — if it’s done right. The Washington Post . Emdin, C. (2016). For White Folks Who Teach in the Hood... and the Rest of Y’all Too: Reality Pedagogy and Urban Education . Beacon Press. Everett, S. (2018). “Untold Stories”: Cultivating Consequential Writing with a Black Male Student through a Critical Approach to Metaphor. Research in the Teaching of English , 53 (1), 34–57. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change . Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research . New York: Routledge. Fairclough, N., Jessop, B., & Sayer, A. (2002). Critical Realism and Semiosis. Alethia , 5 (1), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1558/aleth.v5i1.2 Freire, P. (1990). Education for Critical Consciousness . New York: Continuum. Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the Oppressed . London: Penguin Books. Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C. W. (Eds.). (1958). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology . New York: Oxford University Press. 240 Gillborn, D. (2008). Racism and Education: Coincidence or Conspiracy? London, UNITED KINGDOM: Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/michstate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=331000 Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction . Boston: Pearson. Gorski, P. S. (2013). “What is Critical Realism? And Why Should You Care?” Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews , 42 (5), 658–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306113499533 Haddix, M. (2009). Black Boys Can Write: Challenging Dominant Framings of African American Adolescent Males in Literacy Research. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 53 (4), 341–343. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.53.4.8 Haddix, M. (2018). What’s Radical about Youth Writing?: Seeing and Honoring Youth Writers and Their Literacies - ProQuest, 25 (3), 8–12. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/2009536254?pq-origsite=summon Haddix, M., Everson, J., & Hodge, R. Y. (2015). “Y’all Always Told Me to Stand Up for What I Believe In.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 59 (3), 261–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.474 Halliday, M. (1978). The sociosemantic nature of discourse. In Language as Social Semiotic . London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, Michael A. K., & Hasan, R. (2009). Cohesion in English (Nachdr.). London: Longman. Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood, & Hasan, R. (1991). Language, context and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (3. impr). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Handeyside, H. (2018a, February 7). Leaked DHS Report Uses Junk Science to Argue for Surveillance of Muslims. Retrieved June 12, 2020, from https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/discriminatory-profiling/leaked-dhs-report-uses- junk-science-argue Handeyside, H. (2018b, July 30). TSA Darkens the Skies With Secret Surveillance of Americans. Retrieved June 12, 2020, from https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/discriminatory-profiling/tsa-darkens-skies-secret -surveillance-americans Handeyside, H. (2018c, August 14). This Woman’s Endless Ordeal Shows How the Watchlisting System Harms Innocent People. Retrieved June 12, 2020, from https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/discriminatory-profiling/womans-endless-ordeal -shows-how-watchlisting-system 241 Hubbard, B., Gladstone, R., & Landler, M. (2018, October 26). Trump Jumps to the Defense of Saudi Arabia in Khashoggi Case. The New York Times . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/world/middleeast/pompeo-saudi-arabia-turkey.html Johnson, J., & Hauslohner, A. (2017, May 20). ‘I think Islam hates us’: A timeline of Trump’s comments about Islam and Muslims. Washington Post . Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/20/i-think-islam-hates-us-a -timeline-of-trumps-comments-about-islam-and-muslims/ Juzwik, M., & McKenzie, C. (2015). Writing, Religious Faith, and Rooted Cosmopolitan Dialogue: Portraits of Two American Evangelical Men in a Public School English Classroom. Written Communication , 32 (2), 121–149. Kinloch, V. (2005). Poetry, Literacy, and Creativity: Fostering Effective Learning Strategies in an Urban Classroom. English Education , 37 (2), 96–114. Kirkland, D. (2011). Listening to Echoes: Teaching Young Black Men Literacy and the Distraction of ELA Standards. Language Arts , 88 (5), 373–380. Kurzman, C., & Schanzer, D. (2017, December 21). Opinion | The Growing Right-Wing Terror Threat. The New York Times . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html Love, E. (2017). Islamophobia and Racism in America . New York: New York University Press. Martinez, J., & Smith, G. (2016, November 9). How the faithful voted: A preliminary 2016 analysis. Retrieved April 8, 2020, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-20 16-analysis/ Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Edition 3). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Mogahed, D., & Chouhoud, Y. (2018a). American Muslim Poll 2018: Pride and Prejudice-Full Report . Washington DC: Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. Retrieved from https://www.ispu.org/american-muslim-poll-2018-full-report/ Mogahed, D., & Chouhoud, Y. (2018b). American Muslim Poll 2018: Pride and Prejudice-Key Findings . Washington DC: Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. Retrieved from https://www.ispu.org/american-muslim-poll-2018-key-findings/ Morrell, E. (2002). Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Popular Culture: Literacy Development among Urban Youth. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 46 (1), 72–77. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40017507 242 Muhammad, G. E. (2012). Creating Spaces for Black Adolescent Girls to “Write It Out!” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 56 (3), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00129 Muhammad, G. E. (2015). Iqra: African American Muslim Girls Reading and Writing for Social Change. Written Communication , 32 (3), 286–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088315590136 Nuryatno, E., & Dobson, P. (2015). Examining the social aspects of Enterprise Architecture Implementation: A Morphogenetic Approach. Australasian Conference on Information Systems , 1–9. Oikonomidoy, E. (2009). The multilayered character of newcomers’ academic identities: Somali female high‐school students in a US school. Globalisation, Societies and Education , 7 (1), 23–39. Pew Research Center: Religion & Public Life. (2018, April 17). Muslim Americans: Immigrants and U.S. born see life differently. Retrieved February 7, 2020, from https://www.pewforum.org/essay/muslims-in-america-immigrants-and-those-born-in-u-s-see -life-differently-in-many-ways/ Porpora, D. (2015). Reconstructing sociology: The critical realist approach . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rao, K., & Shenkman, C. (2018). EQUAL TREATMENT? MEASURING THE LEGAL AND MEDIA RESPONSES TO IDEOLOGICALLY MOTIVATED VIOLENCE IN THE UNITED STATES . Washington DC: Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. Reyes, C. (2009). El Libro de Recuerdos [Book of Memories]: A Latina Student’s Exploration of Self and Religion in Public School. Research in the Teaching of English , 43 (3), 263–285. Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism (1st Vintage Books ed). New York: Vintage Books. Shresthova, S. (2016). Between Storytelling and Surveillance The Precarious Public of American Muslim Youth. In H. Jenkins, S. Shresthova, L. Gamber-Thompson, N. Kligler-Vilenchik, & A. Zimmerman (Eds.), By any media necessary: the new youth activism . New York: New York University Press. Skerrett, A. (2014). Religious Literacies in a Secular Literacy Classroom. Reading Research Quarterly , 49 (2), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.65 Smith, C. (2011). What is a person? rethinking humanity, social life, and the moral good from the person up (6. print). Chicago, Ill.: Univ. of Chicago Press. 243 Tuck, E. (2009). Suspending Damage: A Letter to Communities. Harvard Educational Review , 79 (3), 409–427. Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). Unbecoming Claims: Pedagogies of Refusal in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry , 20 (6), 811–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414530265 Uprichard, L. (2019, November 6). What Is Quebec’s Secularism Law? Everything You Need To Know. Retrieved February 25, 2020, from https://www.chatelaine.com/news/quebec-secularism-bill-21-women/ Van Leeuwen, T. (1993). Genre and field in critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society , 4 (2), 193–223. Weyand, L., & Juzwik, M. M. (2020). Schooling activist evangelical literacy: Speaking, writing, and storying Christian faith in dialogue with public secondary literacy curriculum. Linguistics and Education , 55 , 100789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2019.100789 Wheatley, L. (2019a). ‘Quicksand of Hate’: Experiences of Islamophobia and Poetic Resistance. Changing English , 26 (2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2019.1580141 Wheatley, L. (2019b). Resisting Islamophobia: A Young Muslim Male’s Experience in a U.S. Public High School. Religion & Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2019.1577792 Williams, R. L. (2009). Marxism and literature (repr). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Winter, J. (2018, July 28). In “Quiet Skies” program, TSA is tracking regular travelers like terrorists in secret surveillance. Retrieved June 12, 2020, from https://apps.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/graphics/2018/07/tsa-quiet-skies Zine, J. (2000). Redefining Resistance: Towards an Islamic subculture in schools. Race Ethnicity and Education , 3 (3), 293–316. 244