Construction of (collective, diasporic) identity through objects: Re-memory and materiality

In the examination of Palestinian identity by way of objects’ social and material elements, Turan makes two arguments in Material objects as facilitating environments: the Palestinian diaspora. First, objects enable and aid in the construction of “facilitating environments,” a social space which allows for, and contributes to, the construction of diasporic identity. Second, while the symbolic value associated with objects is clearly crucial in the construction of the diasporic identity, the materiality of the object is likewise vital; its function is as important as its meaning. Turan’s research methodology draws upon interviews with individuals, a useful practice allowing for self-description by participants, yet it also places a subjective twist on the narrative recounted (which the researcher must appraise).

While the argument is presented as a universal feature of objects (that materiality is likewise as important in constructions of identity as symbolic value and meaning), the use of research on the Palestinian diaspora solely in New York detracts from Turan’s argument. While the case study is interesting, particularly in light of the differentiation/integration element regarding the role of objects (and Turan’s conclusion on the viability of both, simultaneously), in a multifarious sociopolitical place such as New York is greatly interesting, I find the geographical specificity reduces the generality of the article. Whether or not objects’ ability to enable both an expression of individual and collective identity is not my contention - my issue is whether this “both, simultaneously” effect is geographically, and socially, specific. Namely, is it specific to locations where individuality is valued?

The role of material objects in constructions of collective identity post-migration is examined in Tolia-Kelly’s article Locating processes of identification: studying the precipitates of re-memory through artefacts in the British Asian home, by use of conceptualizing “re-memory” (2004, 314). She argues that re-memory serves as a valuable concept when examining South Asian identity in contemporary Britain; it enables the recognition of everyday memories surrounding the diaspora, i.e. enables the continued memory, and thus existence of the collectivity, compared with the individual act of remembering. Re-memory is ‘activated’ by everyday diasporic objects, which partake in the construction of pre-migration and post-migration narrative(s) vis-à-vis (diasporic) identity. Methodologically, Tolia-Kelly uses three modes of gathering research: “home tours” of participants’ homes; group interviews; and “biographical mapping,” consisting of explicating the migratory routes, in this case to Britain (2004, 317). The use of a variety of methods enables both individual, in-depth qualitative data, as well as a broader contextualization in which to place this: South Asian Britons in post-colonial “vernacular landscapes” (2004, 315).

Here it is interesting to relate the two articles together. Bringing in Turan’s argument that symbolic and functional (materiality) elements of objects are equally important in the construction of identity and narrative, where does the image of the shrine fit into this dual role of objects in identity? I would cautiously argue that, from Tolia-Kelly’s work, it appears that the shrine encompasses both symbolic and functional value.

The conceptualization of re-memory appears to share certain elements in its use and effect as myth does in nationalism: Re-memory is the engagement with everyday objects in the home, which prompt a sense of heritage and placement, post-migration compared to pre-migration existence. Re-memory is ‘remembering’ what others’ remember - and these actual memories are still subject to subjective interpretation, fluidity and selection. Similarly to the construction of the imagined community in the project of nationalism, there is a detachment, a distance, from the collectivity and the past. This distance, which is within diasporas both spatial and temporal, is diminished though the construction of emotive ties. Having material objects present around oneself, and also figuring in the memories/myths of one’s past (or parents’ past, and so forth) places one in a “facilitating environment” to interpret one sense of (otherwise dis-located) self.

Questions

Turan writes that: “People are able to simultaneously claim membership in the group, and announce individuality.” (1) Is this a “Western” bias, focusing on individuality as part of identity? If so (or not), does it [the concept of individuality] even matter when discussing the role of objects in the construction of diasporic identity? This is to say, (2) are objects’ features as both symbolic and material aids in facilitating collective identity universal for that diaspora, or is the post-migration place a determining factor in the usefulness of specific objects in identity construction?