**2. Thinking about gift-giving**

and gender has to deal with the sometimes controversial issues surrounding Islamic female dress and bodily comportment. This includes types of garments intended to cover parts of the female body in certain ways that are taken to be expressive of Islamic piety. Such clothing objects are often made available to women and their families by a complexly globalised Islamic fashion industry, the latter being part of broader trends towards the appearance of multiple Islamic cultural industries [1]. (For an extensive review of the production and con-

Garments conventionally associated with Islamic observance are important tools for socialising individual women into the expectations of Islamic faith, as these are held by both local and transnational religious groupings. Garments can of course be used by women as means of individualisation and resistance to group norms [2]. Here, by contrast, we will focus on the means whereby such sartorial objects are used by representatives of religious groups to encourage females to adopt certain kinds of practices, which are thought to be expressive of

A potentially powerful means of socialisation and persuasion in this regard is the act of giftgiving. We focus on what happens, or what is intended to happen, when one woman gives another the gift of some sort of Islamic garment. When such an object is rendered as a gift, it brings with it a set of obligations on the part of the receiver, and these obligations function as often potent means of ensuring acceptance of group norms as to acceptable and unacceptable visual appearance and behaviour. We consider the obligatory nature of gifts, which pull recipients into a broader social system (here, observance of religious rules and community norms), in light of Marcel Mauss's classical anthropological work on the institution of gift-

Since Mauss's time, gift-giving has been widely acknowledged by social scientists as an important form of socialisation. For Islamic people today, gift-giving is tied up in various ways with diaspora, migration, and the Islamic fashion industry [4, 5]. Life in diaspora contexts necessarily transforms the ways a religious or ethnic community operates, creating new practices that may be different from those back in the country of origin. Younger generations are engaged in different sorts of religious practices from earlier generations, as well as creating newer forms of gift-giving. One major innovation here is the ubiquity of giving low-cost Islamic garments, often with the aim of recruiting new believers into religious observance. The low prices of such garments are made possible by the ready availability of them made possible by the globalisation of the Islamic fashion industry [1]. The easy access to clothing of this sort makes some women's wardrobes so large that charitable gift-giving becomes not just possible, but instead

The empirical material that we consider here is drawn from ethnographic fieldwork carried out by one of the authors (Almila) in 2011–2012 among Islamic diaspora groupings in Finland [6]. The particular groups in question are Finnish-born converts to Islam, and Iraqi Shi'a and

Migration of these ethnic groups into Finland is a relatively recent phenomenon [7], and all the women cited here are

In each case, gift-giving and gift-receiving functioned as

a practical necessity, as well as a religious imperative, as we will see below.

sumption of Islamic garments, see [2]).

156 Socialization - A Multidimensional Perspective

the religious norms of a given community.

Somali Sunni migrants to Finland.1

first generation immigrants.

giving [3].

1

Since the initial publication in 1925 of Mauss's *Essai sur le don* (translated into English as *The Gift*) [3], there has been a huge amount of critical responses to his claims about the roles played by gifts in human societies, some being sympathetic extensions of his arguments, others involving sometimes severe refutations of the work on theoretical or empirical grounds [9]. Nonetheless, the central arguments remain influential in understanding how gifts operate within particular social contexts.

The general thrust of Mauss's argument is that the phenomenon of the gift is highly ambivalent. Gifts operate in the socio-psychological spaces that exist between sets of opposed values: kindness and aggression, disinterestedness and self-interest, cooperation between individuals and conflict between them, care for others and endeavours to control them, giving away wealth and making personal gain, the power of the giver over the receiver (and vice versa), inner volition and social obligation and interior piety and the social display of virtue [10, 11]. Gifts are uneasily, yet dynamically, located within a complex social-psychological terrain.

For Mauss, in most if not all societies, a great deal of 'everyday morality is concerned with the question of obligation and spontaneity in the gift' [3]. On this view, the act of one person giving a gift to another is at one level a spontaneous and self-willed act of kindness, and may very well be experienced as such by the giver. But the giving and receiving of gifts is a social, rather than individual-psychological, phenomenon *par excellence.* Gifts, 'which are in theory voluntary, disinterested and spontaneous … are in fact obligatory and interested … the gift [may be apparently] generously offered … [but] the transaction itself is [in fact] based on obligation' [3]. Thus surface-level generosity masks tacit, subterranean but nonetheless powerful forms of obligation, whether or not the giver is explicitly conscious of this fact, or whether s/he intends it to have that effect.

arise from th[e] reciprocal creditor-debtor relationship' [3]. The intimate nature of the giverreceiver relationship fundamentally goes together with the risk of 'losing face' if one cannot adequately reciprocate the donor with an appropriate counter-gift [3]. To be unable to proffer

The Hijab as Gift: Mechanisms of Community Socialisation in the Muslim Diaspora

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74649

159

The gift-exchange chain need not (and according to Mauss, does not usually) involve a simple dyadic relationship between two individuals. Instead, if the donor is (or presents themselves as) a representative of a given social group, then the receiver is pulled into a set of obligations to, and forms of reciprocity with, that group as well as with the individual donor. This is why for Mauss the gift is 'a means of controlling others', for the obligations involved in the gift relationship entail that the initial receiver comes into the gravitational pull of the group of which the initial donor is, or presents themselves as, a representative. In so doing, the gift opens pathways by which the group can instil its values into the mindset and behaviour of

That is why the gift-giving process can act as a very effective means of socialisation. The latter term is conventionally taken to refer to processes whereby a child born into a particular group is inducted into the habits, values, outlooks and so on of that particular community. But gift-giving can operate as a means whereby adults raised within the cultural parameters of one group may be pulled towards observing obligations to another group, those obligations involving some level of subscription to the values of the group to which the gift donor belongs. Alternatively, gift-giving can operate as a means of re-socialisation of existing group members, pulling them back more thoroughly than hitherto into the moral life of the group. This may happen especially in cases where the donor may perceive the recipient to be exhibit-

Some other features of gift-giving identified by Mauss are also pertinent here. The object that is given as a gift is transformed from being a mundane material thing into a special sort of entity. In many non-capitalist economies, things are thoroughly bound up with the persons who make or give them; the personality of the maker or giver is felt to inhere within the object in profound ways. This stands in stark contrast to capitalist economic logic, which disentangles the object from those who made or passed it on to a consumer [13]. Once the capitalist consumer has purchased the object, it is (usually) wholly 'theirs'. But gifts work differently, and gift relationships that exist within a broader capitalist economy may still operate according to their own specific logics that are irreducible to capitalist market principles. This is because gifted 'objects are never completely separated from the [people] who exchange them' [3]. Therefore, if we are dealing with gift relationships rather than capitalist market transactions alone, then the giver retains 'a magical and religious hold over the recipient' [3]. This is because the object is felt to be invested with some of the spiritual essence, or the soul,

For example, one might be reluctant to sell on e-Bay a gift received from a favourite relative, even if the object itself is not particularly appealing. The object seems like an avatar of the favoured person, and so to give it away or sell it seems somehow wrong, because to do that would be to insult the image of the person who gave it to you. The spiritual element of the gift is a pronounced one: when giving a gift, 'one gives away … a part of one's nature and

ing less strongly than would be desirable the attitudes and practices of the group.

an adequate counter-gift is to lose honour, social status and self-esteem.

the initial recipient [3].

of the giver.

The receiver of the gift is in fact under two forms of obligation, sanctioned by the social group to which (often but not always) both giver and receiver belong. First, there is an obligation to accept the gift being offered. Refusing to accept a gift is like 'a declaration of war', because it involves 'refusal of friendship' and other forms of positive social intercourse [3]. Moreover, a person 'does not have the right to refuse a gift … [because to] do so would show fear of having to repay … admitting defeat in advance' [3]. '[Y]ou accept [the gift] … because you mean to take up the challenge and prove that you are not unworthy' of the gift you are being offered [3].

However, Mauss adds that, 'in certain circumstances … a refusal can be an assertion of victory and invincibility' [3]. A refusal to receive a proffered gift is possible if the putative receiver has both the personal bravery and social resources necessary to resist the blandishments of the putative donor, refusing their overtures to enter into a gift-giving relationship, while being content to risk giving potentially grave offence to the would-be donor.

Second, there is an obligation for the receiver, after a certain period of time, to reciprocate the initial gift, by in turn giving the original giver another gift, the counter-gift. The initial receiver is strongly obliged 'to make a return gift for a gift received' [3]. Strong social sanctions are attendant on someone who fails to return a gift. In this social situation, the return gift usually must be of equal or greater value to the initial gift. According to Mauss, we 'must always return more than we receive; the return [gift] is always bigger and more costly' than the original one [3]. '[S}uch a return will give the donor [i.e. the initial recipient] authority and power over the original donor, who now becomes the latest recipient' [3].

In other words, the power gained over the initial receiver by the initial donor is reversed, when the counter-gift shifts the balance of power back towards the initial recipient, who now as donor gains the moral high ground. We can add that a counter-gift need not necessarily take the same form as the gift. As we will see below, the gift of an Islamic garment can be repaid by the recipient through publicly shifting their visual appearance and their behaviour in the direction felt to be appropriate by the donor. In this way, certain gifts can operate as powerful mechanisms of socialising people into the observance of certain religious and/or community norms.

An initial round of gift-giving is very likely to provoke a further series of gifts and countergifts between both parties involved, a process that may last a long time, possibly even for life. The important point here is that through the initial stimulus of the first gift, both donor and receiver are pulled into a social system that is given both life and permanence by the to-ing and fro-ing of gift exchange [12]. There is an 'obligation upon the [gift partners] thereafter to make perpetual gift-exchange' [3]. This explains why 'it is the nature of the gift in the end to be … its own reward', because the initial expenditure by the first donor leads to a chain of counter-gifts, which tends to be of at least equal value to the initial gift, and the existence of the chain itself may bring various benefits to the original donor [3]. Yet gifts are also deeply ambivalent, precisely because of the combination of 'intimacy and … fear which arise from th[e] reciprocal creditor-debtor relationship' [3]. The intimate nature of the giverreceiver relationship fundamentally goes together with the risk of 'losing face' if one cannot adequately reciprocate the donor with an appropriate counter-gift [3]. To be unable to proffer an adequate counter-gift is to lose honour, social status and self-esteem.

on obligation' [3]. Thus surface-level generosity masks tacit, subterranean but nonetheless powerful forms of obligation, whether or not the giver is explicitly conscious of this fact, or

The receiver of the gift is in fact under two forms of obligation, sanctioned by the social group to which (often but not always) both giver and receiver belong. First, there is an obligation to accept the gift being offered. Refusing to accept a gift is like 'a declaration of war', because it involves 'refusal of friendship' and other forms of positive social intercourse [3]. Moreover, a person 'does not have the right to refuse a gift … [because to] do so would show fear of having to repay … admitting defeat in advance' [3]. '[Y]ou accept [the gift] … because you mean to take up the challenge and prove that you are not unworthy' of the gift you are being

However, Mauss adds that, 'in certain circumstances … a refusal can be an assertion of victory and invincibility' [3]. A refusal to receive a proffered gift is possible if the putative receiver has both the personal bravery and social resources necessary to resist the blandishments of the putative donor, refusing their overtures to enter into a gift-giving relationship, while being

Second, there is an obligation for the receiver, after a certain period of time, to reciprocate the initial gift, by in turn giving the original giver another gift, the counter-gift. The initial receiver is strongly obliged 'to make a return gift for a gift received' [3]. Strong social sanctions are attendant on someone who fails to return a gift. In this social situation, the return gift usually must be of equal or greater value to the initial gift. According to Mauss, we 'must always return more than we receive; the return [gift] is always bigger and more costly' than the original one [3]. '[S}uch a return will give the donor [i.e. the initial recipient] authority and

In other words, the power gained over the initial receiver by the initial donor is reversed, when the counter-gift shifts the balance of power back towards the initial recipient, who now as donor gains the moral high ground. We can add that a counter-gift need not necessarily take the same form as the gift. As we will see below, the gift of an Islamic garment can be repaid by the recipient through publicly shifting their visual appearance and their behaviour in the direction felt to be appropriate by the donor. In this way, certain gifts can operate as powerful mechanisms of socialising people into the observance of certain religious and/or

An initial round of gift-giving is very likely to provoke a further series of gifts and countergifts between both parties involved, a process that may last a long time, possibly even for life. The important point here is that through the initial stimulus of the first gift, both donor and receiver are pulled into a social system that is given both life and permanence by the to-ing and fro-ing of gift exchange [12]. There is an 'obligation upon the [gift partners] thereafter to make perpetual gift-exchange' [3]. This explains why 'it is the nature of the gift in the end to be … its own reward', because the initial expenditure by the first donor leads to a chain of counter-gifts, which tends to be of at least equal value to the initial gift, and the existence of the chain itself may bring various benefits to the original donor [3]. Yet gifts are also deeply ambivalent, precisely because of the combination of 'intimacy and … fear which

content to risk giving potentially grave offence to the would-be donor.

power over the original donor, who now becomes the latest recipient' [3].

whether s/he intends it to have that effect.

158 Socialization - A Multidimensional Perspective

offered [3].

community norms.

The gift-exchange chain need not (and according to Mauss, does not usually) involve a simple dyadic relationship between two individuals. Instead, if the donor is (or presents themselves as) a representative of a given social group, then the receiver is pulled into a set of obligations to, and forms of reciprocity with, that group as well as with the individual donor. This is why for Mauss the gift is 'a means of controlling others', for the obligations involved in the gift relationship entail that the initial receiver comes into the gravitational pull of the group of which the initial donor is, or presents themselves as, a representative. In so doing, the gift opens pathways by which the group can instil its values into the mindset and behaviour of the initial recipient [3].

That is why the gift-giving process can act as a very effective means of socialisation. The latter term is conventionally taken to refer to processes whereby a child born into a particular group is inducted into the habits, values, outlooks and so on of that particular community. But gift-giving can operate as a means whereby adults raised within the cultural parameters of one group may be pulled towards observing obligations to another group, those obligations involving some level of subscription to the values of the group to which the gift donor belongs. Alternatively, gift-giving can operate as a means of re-socialisation of existing group members, pulling them back more thoroughly than hitherto into the moral life of the group. This may happen especially in cases where the donor may perceive the recipient to be exhibiting less strongly than would be desirable the attitudes and practices of the group.

Some other features of gift-giving identified by Mauss are also pertinent here. The object that is given as a gift is transformed from being a mundane material thing into a special sort of entity. In many non-capitalist economies, things are thoroughly bound up with the persons who make or give them; the personality of the maker or giver is felt to inhere within the object in profound ways. This stands in stark contrast to capitalist economic logic, which disentangles the object from those who made or passed it on to a consumer [13]. Once the capitalist consumer has purchased the object, it is (usually) wholly 'theirs'. But gifts work differently, and gift relationships that exist within a broader capitalist economy may still operate according to their own specific logics that are irreducible to capitalist market principles. This is because gifted 'objects are never completely separated from the [people] who exchange them' [3]. Therefore, if we are dealing with gift relationships rather than capitalist market transactions alone, then the giver retains 'a magical and religious hold over the recipient' [3]. This is because the object is felt to be invested with some of the spiritual essence, or the soul, of the giver.

For example, one might be reluctant to sell on e-Bay a gift received from a favourite relative, even if the object itself is not particularly appealing. The object seems like an avatar of the favoured person, and so to give it away or sell it seems somehow wrong, because to do that would be to insult the image of the person who gave it to you. The spiritual element of the gift is a pronounced one: when giving a gift, 'one gives away … a part of one's nature and substance, while to receive something is to receive a part of someone's spiritual essence' [3]. The process of gifting and counter-gifting involves not mere economic exchange but rather 'a pattern of spiritual bonds between things which are to some extent parts of persons' [3]. As the spiritual presence of the person who originally gave the gift resides within and lingers around it, then the gift received is owned by the receiver, 'but the ownership is of a particular kind', for the gift retains strong traces of the personal charisma of the person who first offered it. For Mauss, this shows that the gift is a complex of different properties which modern, Western thought usually separates from each other: it is simultaneously both 'property and a possession, a pledge and a loan, an object sold and an object bought', among other things [3].

amenable to be used as a gift and transformed into an even more unique entity. People in Islamic communities are likely to think that garments for women, which indicate the wearer's piety are particularly suitable to be defined and used as gifts. An Islamic headscarf given as a gift is made *doubly special*. It both reverberates with piety, because it is understood by all relevant parties as an expression and embodiment of faith, and it is also disentangled from capitalist economic relationships, being rendered as superior to them by dint of being proffered not as a mere object for sale, but rather as a gift, that is, as a part of an apparently disinterested, friendly gesture on the behalf of one Muslim believer towards another. The Islamic headscarf has the potential to function as an exceptionally powerful and compelling gift. To refuse to accept it would require a great deal of bravery and social resources on the behalf of the intended recipient. It is usually very difficult to turn down an object so deeply invested with the powers of both piety and friendship, an exceptionally potent combination of socio-

The Hijab as Gift: Mechanisms of Community Socialisation in the Muslim Diaspora

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74649

161

The connections that can pertain between gift-giving and religions are complex, but one can note that the major world religions tend to stress the importance of believers giving gifts and alms, especially to those less fortunate than themselves. Donors are meant to expect no explicitly earthly return on their generous acts of gift-giving. Nonetheless, they may tacitly expect some credit in the afterlife on the basis of their religiously-inspired gift-giving in this world [16]. Once again, we see that the act of gift-giving oscillates between the display of selfless generosity on the one side, and on the other, the expectation that one stands to achieve something by giving the gift away. This applies as much to explicitly religious gifts as to any others. This is worth bearing in mind as we now turn to examine the empirical data concern-

, a Finnish woman in her mid-20s, converted to Islam at the age of 18. Having grown up in a small Finnish town, she now lives in Helsinki, the capital city, and studies at a university. Soon after her conversion, she arranged her marriage to an Arab man through her religious community, and they now have one child. Aisha's views and dress choices – a full-length

she regularly visits a mosque that some other Finns consider 'Salafi-influenced'. Aisha is very articulate and critical of what she considers the cultural and commercial objectification of the

Khimar refers to a head-covering, initially worn by both women and men. By the 1980s, khimar had come to mean 'a headcover that covers the hair and extends low to the forehead, comes under the chin to conceal the neck, and falls down over the chest and back'. [17] Khimars come in different lengths: below the hips, down to the knees, and full-length with

Niqab is an Arabic face-veil, 'a free-flowing piece of black cloth of various lengths that covers the lower part of the face'. [18] It typically leaves the eyes visible, although there are niqabs that can be used to cover the eyes as well. More recently,

– reflect a conservative interpretation of Islam, and

psychological properties.

ing gift-giving among Muslim women.

and previously also the niqab4

All names of the interviewees have been changed.

niqabs have been available in a variety of colours.

female body in Finland and in 'the West' more generally.

**3. The hijab as an invitation**

Aisha2

khimar3

2

3

sleeves. 4

In other words, a received gift is not a mere object; it is a powerful reminder of someone else, and most likely of the social group that stands behind them too. Wearing such an object, then, is a potent and embodied reminder of the desires of the donor and of the group to which s/he belongs. To wear a gift garment is to acquiesce, at least to some degree, in the intentions of the donor and their social group. By wearing such a garment, I start to resemble, to some degree, the image that the donor and their group have of me, or the image which they want me to have.

Any object can potentially take on the special qualities of a gift; it just must be given to a recipient in the spirit of gift exchange. As Mauss puts the point, 'everything is stuff to be given away and repaid … [thus becoming] a perpetual interchange of what we may call spiritual matter' [3]. So deeply can objects be invested with special significance by both donors and receivers, that for those in a gift-giving chain these objects can come to seem to have 'a virtue of their own which [itself seems to] cause … them to be given and [in turn] compels the making of counter-gifts' [3]. In essence, once objects become gifts, those 'things have personality', [3] and are felt to have a special sort of resonance and charisma. They possess both the traces of the personality of the individual donor, and of the group to which s/he belongs. For example, a Bible given by a grandmother to a grand-daughter resonates with the personality not only of the esteemed elderly relative but also, because it is an explicitly religious object of the Christian church, community and belief system to which the grandmother belongs and subscribes. The Bible-gift seeks to pull the child into the ambit of the religious community of which the more senior woman feels herself to be part and representative of.

We can note here that some authors have pointed to the especially strong bonds between women, whether as relatives or as friends, that can be created through gift-giving processes [14]. We can add that certain objects will be defined by particular groups as being especially worthy of being given as gifts. Weiner's extension and critique of Mauss's original formulations notes that hand-made objects, especially those made by donors themselves, operate as particularly powerful gifts, as they very deeply embed the personality of the maker-donor into the material fabric of the object. Objects that are not made by donors, but which are framed by donors as having been very carefully selected and sought out by them for the recipient, can also take on strong traces of the donor's personality [15].

Objects that a given community regards as especially spiritual are also likely to operate as particularly potent gifts. An object already defined as somehow spiritually *special* is particularly amenable to be used as a gift and transformed into an even more unique entity. People in Islamic communities are likely to think that garments for women, which indicate the wearer's piety are particularly suitable to be defined and used as gifts. An Islamic headscarf given as a gift is made *doubly special*. It both reverberates with piety, because it is understood by all relevant parties as an expression and embodiment of faith, and it is also disentangled from capitalist economic relationships, being rendered as superior to them by dint of being proffered not as a mere object for sale, but rather as a gift, that is, as a part of an apparently disinterested, friendly gesture on the behalf of one Muslim believer towards another. The Islamic headscarf has the potential to function as an exceptionally powerful and compelling gift. To refuse to accept it would require a great deal of bravery and social resources on the behalf of the intended recipient. It is usually very difficult to turn down an object so deeply invested with the powers of both piety and friendship, an exceptionally potent combination of sociopsychological properties.

The connections that can pertain between gift-giving and religions are complex, but one can note that the major world religions tend to stress the importance of believers giving gifts and alms, especially to those less fortunate than themselves. Donors are meant to expect no explicitly earthly return on their generous acts of gift-giving. Nonetheless, they may tacitly expect some credit in the afterlife on the basis of their religiously-inspired gift-giving in this world [16]. Once again, we see that the act of gift-giving oscillates between the display of selfless generosity on the one side, and on the other, the expectation that one stands to achieve something by giving the gift away. This applies as much to explicitly religious gifts as to any others. This is worth bearing in mind as we now turn to examine the empirical data concerning gift-giving among Muslim women.
