In this section, social research on blended identity provides further examples of blended identification. Two examples are drawn upon: British Muslims and citizenship, as well as studies of Latin Australians.

British Muslims and citizenship

In line with other theorists, ^[20] social psychologists Hopkins et al. suggest that sensitivity to cultural diversity has also created a tension between ‘the actuality of a plurality of social identities and the singular identity implied by citizenship’. ^[21] In terms of self-categorisation theory, ^[22] these researchers analysed how British Muslims used Islamic identity to encourage or dissuade citizens voting during the 1997 general election. The British National Party (BNP) claimed that there was a contradiction between being a Muslim and being a British citizen. Against this political backdrop, the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain asked British Muslims to boycott the polls and to demand alternative institutional arrangements through which they could express their political views. ^[23] They also claimed a degree of identity incompatibility, stating that British Muslims could not be loyal to the Labour Party and God at the same time. ^[24] The Muslim Parliament called for British Muslims to live up to the example of the Prophet and to aim for interaction with the community without integration in Britain.

To counter that call, the UK Action Committee on Islamic Affairs cited Qur’anic verse to produce an anti-boycott message encouraging British Muslims to vote in order to fulfil the duty they owed to Britain. This civic duty as British citizens was asserted to be the same type of outward-looking, communal duty they owed as Muslims to other Muslims.

This political debate is a dramatic example of how blended identity can be used for political purposes in a dispute over citizenship rights (voting and representative democracy). It demonstrates that blended identity allows for the possibility of encouraging, as well as sometimes dissuading, civic participation when using rhetoric derived from all the aspects of a blended identity. Hopkins et al. state there is little use concluding that blended identities will always have negative effects for national politics and harmony. The researchers note that conceptualising subjective notions of citizenship or blended British Muslim identity as fixed, essentialistic, homogenous or universally expressed concepts is misguided. Even if the BNP believed there was only one essential type of British Muslim, analysis of the real political context showed that there could be at least two British Muslim views on the importance of voting in the general election, both derived from Islamic texts. The ideological content of blended identifications and descriptions of citizenship will vary in line with specific political context and the political end sought, as may the case when single category national identities are used for political purposes. ^[25]

This dynamism should not be perceived as a weakness of blended identification per se. It is not as if all blended identities have an essence tending towards inevitable identity conflict. Rather, the social constructions revealed in this study reflected strategic political behaviour from a salient identity perspective. It demonstrates that each element of blended identification can be mutually reinforcing, as much as they can be antagonistic. In this sense, the research shows that one group of highly identified British Muslims sought political autonomy that downplayed the significance of British citizenship rights. The other, a similarly highly identified group of British Muslims, argued for election voting and full civic participation as a core duty consistent with their Muslim identity. The latter political approach demonstrated an ability to unify both aspects of their crossed categorisation despite political attack suggesting that a single British citizenship must prevail as it was inconsistent with blended identification as a British Muslim.

Identification by Latin Australians

Zevallos conducted a study of 13 young (seventeen to twenty-five year old) women of Latin American heritage living in Australia. ^[26] Five of the participants were Australian born, and the remaining eight had come to Australia between the ages of two and seven. One finding obtained was that 11 of the 13 interviewees rejected the notion that their identities were best captured by the simple label ‘Australian’; only two interviewees were happy with that label, having grown up in Australia.

This rejection of the singular label Australian did not mean they rarely felt Australian, or had low attachment to Australia. Indeed, they felt most Australian, and were treated most as Australians, when travelling in Latin American countries. ^[27] When this salience occurred, they readily attributed traits, views and behaviours to their ‘Australian side’ or to the Australian influence upon their self-definition as, say, ‘a South American living in Australia’. When discussing gender and sexuality issues, for example, the women endorsed values of egalitarianism as an Australian influence. In terms of the citizenship values debate in Australia, it is noteworthy that use of a blended identity does not mean these interviewees failed to endorse values (for example, egalitarianism) that some would claim as Australian.

Most of the women reported that Australia was considered to be home and where they hoped to have careers and children; interviewees contemplated only holidays in Latin American countries. However, they still preferred not to be defined simply as Australian. Based on the data collected, Zevallos concluded that: ‘There has been no consensus on the best way to bridge the gap between the ideology of multiculturalism and an all-encompassing Australian identity.’ ^[28]

Perhaps the missing consensus on the best way to bridge the gap between the ideology of multiculturalism and an all-encompassing Australian identity is to truly celebrate the existence of blended identities socially, politically and legally. Indeed, Australian citizenship law has moved from a rejection of dual or multiple citizenships to an acceptance and affirmation of these in legislation, to which this article now turns.