By Roman R. Williams, William L. Sachs, Catherine Holtmann, Elena G. van Stee, Kaitlyn Eekhoff, Michael Bos and Ammar Amonette*

Introduction

The current political milieu in the United States has heightened questions around immigrants and refugees, particularly those with Muslim backgrounds. In June 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States narrowly decided in favor of the hotly-contested travel ban on migrants from several Muslim countries the Trump administration pursued since its inauguration in 2016. Over the years, many communities have responded as advocates for these populations by offering sanctuary and/or material support (e.g., Hondagneu-Sotelo 2008; Yukich 2013). They seek to stand in solidarity with people of other religions and countries of origin, but often efforts are organized around political action and social services, neglecting the lens of faith.

As we survey interfaith activity in the United States, particularly between Muslims and Christians, there is no shortage of goodwill and attempts at strengthening the relationship between faiths. However, people still struggle to find the means to build bridges between their communities. This project introduces a new strategy in interfaith encounters, one that opens the possibility for anyone to give voice to their experiences in ways that engage their broader community. Specifically, we explore the extent to which a participatory action research technique called photovoice may be used in interfaith dialogue as a means to strengthen relationships, bridge cultural divides, encourage mutual advocacy, engage communities, and pursue social justice goals around questions of faith, diversity, and immigration. Likewise, we highlight the potential of photovoice as a research technique.

Approaches to Interfaith Dialogue

Although the meaning of “interreligious dialogue” seems abundantly clear, its meaning has shifted significantly since the mid-twentieth century. In the past, this dialogue referred to formal occasions at which senior religious scholars and leaders discussed fine points of academic difference and areas of prospective affirmation between different traditions. Typically, such “dialogue” occurred in formal assemblies, including such gatherings as the World Council of Churches, which meant conversations surrounding religious difference usually took place between adherents of a single religion. Formal gatherings and the elaborate statements that resulted helped to unite branches of the Christian tradition. For much of the twentieth century, the ecumenical movement embodied interreligious dialogue. Important points of understanding between Lutherans and Episcopalians, for example, drew these churches together in forms of mutual recognition. Formal expressions of respect advanced cooperation between religious institutions.

So long as the religious spectrum of the United States was defined predominantly by institutions that were Christian, “dialogue” was construed narrowly. Dialogue took the form of meetings led by senior scholars and administrators who spoke on behalf of their institutions. However, in the latter part of the twentieth century, the size and influence of religious denominations began a steady decline. The so-called “mainstream” churches that once seemed to embody American religious life were severely affected. They had developed institutional structures that mimicked the form of twentieth-century corporate life. Bolstered by loyal support from their regional structures and local congregations, denominational headquarters sought to administer religious life by setting standards and providing resources. Representatives who gathered for dialogue could presume they spoke for clearly defined religious traditions.

Two historic developments reshaped the meaning of dialogue and the manner in which it would occur. The consensus that gave religious institutions coherence began to falter. Conflicts over civil rights for African-American persons and over the roles of women in religious life generated forms of activism that secured historic advances and highlighted inequities in institutional power structures. A “culture war” embroiled religious life in divisions between liberals and conservatives, the latter including the growth of fundamentalism. At times, the issues at stake seemed subsumed by conflicting forms of activism, with religious institutional coherence suffering as a result.

At the same time, North American religious life gained unprecedented variety and diversity. Once characterized as “Protestant, Catholic, Jew” (Herberg 1955), religious pluralism became elaborate and more pervasive with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act (also known as the Hart-Cellar Act) in 1965, which opened the United States to immigrants from non-western countries who brought their faith with them. Whereas only the largest metropolitan populations included a panoply of religions in the past, today religious diversity is palpable across all regions of the United States. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, the variety of American religious life included significant numbers of Asian religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. The numbers of their adherents, and their dispersal across North America, made their presence palpable at the local level in many communities for the first time.

One notable case, certainly in public awareness, is the growth of Islam in the United States. The Pew Research Center reported in 2017 that the Muslim population of the United States had reached 3.45 million, approximately one percent of the national figure. Pew found that three-quarters of American Muslims are immigrants or the children of immigrants. The number is not large, but the rate of growth by immigration is notable: since 2011, “Muslim population has continued to grow at a rate of roughly 100,000 per year, driven both by higher fertility rates among Muslim Americans as well as the continued migration of Muslims to the US” (Mohamed 2018). Pew also notes the high educational level of American Muslims and the high proportion of youth among the Muslim population. It is also striking that diversity of race, ethnicity, and religious practice comprises American Muslim communities. The global distinction between Sunni and Shia is extended, for example, by Black Muslims, a subgroup of African-American origin in the US. Islam in America is characterized by encounters between peoples of differing national identities and cultural backgrounds, making the organization of local Muslim life challenging. Though many Muslims gather along ethnic lines, some Islamic mosques attempt to transcend differing origins for the sake of common religious observance.

For Christians, the shrinkage of religious institutions and the rise of religious pluralism could be interpreted as decline. The conflicts that confounded denominational life, especially as fundamentalist and sectarian groups arose, seemed to sap the former mainstream’s role in American life. By the early twenty-first century, the Christian percentage of the population had fallen to roughly 70 percent (Pew Research Center 2015). A further challenge to all religious groups was the fact more than 20 percent of all Americans professed no religious affiliation, even though quite a few of these same people continue to identify as religious and/or spiritual. Still, in 2017 nearly 90 percent of the US population continued to profess belief in God or a higher power as they understood it (Pew Research Center 2018b).

“Interreligious dialogue” now relies on the initiative of local leaders who summon their congregation or religious group toward engagement with people of different faiths in their vicinity. In this setting, the meaning of “interreligious dialogue” has shifted to launching forms of practical initiative and patterns of cooperation. People of different faiths can recognize their common stake in the life of their neighborhood, city, and region. With this recognition, dialogue becomes experiential and intentional. It requires a mixture of reflection and action in ways that create fresh social bonds.

There is a clear basis for interfaith initiative in both Christian and Muslim traditions. It may seem surprising to some that not merely acceptance but engagement with other faiths proves intrinsic to Islam, as Zeyneb Sayilgan maintains (2016). She grants that a recent Pew survey finds “the overwhelming majority” of the world’s Muslims “believes that Islam is the only true religion leading to eternal salvation” (Sayilgan 2016: 20). She also acknowledges that “a marginal but vocal minority” of the world’s Muslims rejects other faiths and even intends them harm. But the weight of Islamic tradition is on respectful “engagement” (Sayilgan 2016: 23). Qur’an 5:48 celebrates religious difference as God’s creation. In Muslim eyes, other traditions may be incomplete, yet those traditions and their adherents are to be respected. As the Prophet lived among people of other faiths, so Muslims are enjoined to build bonds, which Sayilgan interprets as dialogical and social. People of “the book” (i.e., the Abrahamic faiths) are referenced in the Qur’an and so are especially welcomed. Indeed, Jesus is identified as a prophet in the Qur’an.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 prompted many American Muslims to give careful thought to their approach to civic life and interfaith relations. The aftermath also brought sharp controversy surrounding the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero in New York City and resistance to building other mosques in some American communities. Additionally, conversations about shariah continue to provoke heated religious and political debates, particularly among the most politically conservative Americans. In the midst of these tensions however, we also see an increased commitment to dialogue and cooperation; these national controversies have sparked new expressions of local interfaith activism.

Sayilgan’s colleague, Robert Heaney (2016), notes that Christianity is a missionary religion, which manifests across a spectrum of humanitarian and conversionist projects. The centrality of Jesus Christ and the Trinitarian basis of faith both define Christianity’s uniqueness and present obstacles to finding common ground with Islam – Muslims perceive the Christian construction of a triune God as polytheism, for example. But as an Abrahamic faith rooted in a creator God, in love of neighbor, and in compassion, Christians also have a profound basis for respectful engagement. “Mission” readily becomes “proclamation,” or living the faith in dialogue and in action without the intention of proselytism (Heaney 2016: 12). “Mission” also translates into forms of service which seek the common good amid pluralism without diminishing the commitments of one’s neighbors to differing faiths. For both Muslims and Christians, in practice, there are ways to strike a balance between affirmation of one’s own faith and constructive engagement with persons who profess another faith.

Photovoice opens such a door. Different sorts of challenges attend contextual rather than institutional dialogue. To gain shared vision of their community, and to address it constructively, people of different religious traditions require a means of coming together, that is, an easily grasped rationale for being introduced and seeking to work together. Common purpose requires common vision. Photovoice provides a readily understood means of exploring shared affirmation of the place where they live for people whose lives otherwise are defined by difference.

Photovoice: Amateur Photography, Critical Conversations, And Social Engagement

This project leverages the widespread availability of cameras – in the United States 95 percent of adults own a camera-equipped mobile phone (Pew Research Center 2018a) – and cultural practices of sharing images with others. Specifically, we employ a participatory action research technique called photovoice (PV). A typical PV project invites a group of people to work together to identify, photograph, and discuss their shared experiences and concerns (Wang and Burris 1997; Powers, Freedman, and Pitner 2012; Delgado 2015). As a form of participatory-action research, PV pursues partnerships between the researcher, participants, and community organizations to identify needs and concerns, raise awareness, and instigate social change. Empowerment is a common goal. While some projects involve one or two meetings, robust photovoice applications comprise a series of meetings that unfold over several weeks or months with a stable and committed group of participants.

In preparation for a photovoice meeting, participants create photographs around a common theme or question. During a typical meeting, participants take turns describing and discussing their photographs with the goal of identifying shared experiences, needs, and concerns. Often these conversations are structured by a series of questions represented with the acrostic S.H.O.W.E.D (Wang 1999: 188):

S – What do you See?

H – What is really Happening here?

O – How does this relate to Our lives?

W – Why does this situation, concern, or strength exist?

D – What can we Do about it?

This sequence of questions leads participants through a process of discovery and collaboration that not only identifies issues, but also involves them in developing solutions.

A photovoice project usually culminates in a public exhibition of photographs chosen from among the many produced during the course of the project. Photos are enlarged and framed. Each piece is labeled with a title and/or a caption that helps communicate the meaning(s) behind the image. Participants may choose to include their name with their framed composition. An opening night event for the exhibition provides participants the opportunity to engage in conversations with guests, including friends and family, community members, stakeholders, local leaders, the general public, and the media. The goal of the event is to give voice to the project outcomes represented in participants’ photographs. As such, it is “a venue for participants to take action and speak out against social injustices” (Graziano 2004: 312). Likewise, the photographs remain on display for several weeks or months, which allows additional opportunities to engage the community.

Very few have utilized photovoice to facilitate conversations about religion and spirituality. Where religion and spirituality do appear in the existing body of photovoice literature, these topics often have been introduced by the participants in conversations about their photographs rather than initiated by the researcher at the onset of the photovoice project. There are, however, a handful of projects that have used photovoice with the intent to create opportunities for dialogue around topics directly related to religion and/or spirituality (e.g., Side 2005; Mulder 2014, 2015; Harley 2015). Other researchers have studied religion and spirituality through collaborative photography projects that have much in common with photovoice, but resist identification as such (Dunlop and Ward 2012, 2014).

Currently, we are aware of only two other projects that have used collaborative photographic methods in the context of interfaith dialogue. In 2012, Claire Dwyer and Liz Hingley worked with six senior citizens in West London, each of whom represented a different faith tradition (Dwyer 2015). Although many elements of Dwyer’s project are consistent with the photovoice method, Dwyer does not use this label. Instead, she refers to her work as a “photography project” and a “collaborative research project” (Dwyer 2015: 531, 532). In addition to Dwyer, we are also aware of an Erasmus+ project entitled “Cultural diversity and Interfaith Dialogue in the Youth Perspectives,” which lists “photovoice” as one element of its program agenda (European Commission 2018). Unfortunately, the results of this project were not available at the time of writing.

Background to the Project

This project is built around applications of photovoice in four communities: Richmond (Virginia), Grand Rapids (Michigan), New York City, and Fredericton (New Brunswick, Canada). These locations were selected due to strong local interfaith partnerships and professional relationships among project personnel. Each local project comprises 20–30 participants who meet a minimum of five times. During photovoice meetings, members of the research team record fieldnotes and collect the materials that participants generate. At each site project personnel interview a minimum of eight participants after the opening of the exhibition to explore their experiences as participants in the photovoice project. Fieldnotes, photographs, and interviews are subsequently analyzed by applying a coding strategy facilitated by qualitative data analysis software. Of particular interest is understanding the effectiveness of photovoice in interfaith dialogue, the impact of public engagement events, and best practices for advocacy/interfaith work using photovoice. In what follows, we focus on Richmond, Virginia, our first research site, as research in the other three locations continues to unfold.

Research Context

The metropolitan area of Richmond, Virginia illustrates the spread of religious and cultural diversity across North America. Population data from 2010 indicate that Muslims represented just under three percent of the area’s population, or about 35,000 people (arda 2010). Today, this number appears to be growing steadily. There are eight mosques and a Muslim school. Intrareligious diversity is apparent: each mosque is different in its ethnic center of gravity, theological emphasis, and socioeconomic profile. Like other congregations, there are concerns about finances, leadership, faith formation, and conflict resolution. Shaping the lives of young adults is a priority. Many young Muslims are warmly expressive of their faith and culture. They seek a distinctive place in American life even as they uphold their religious identity.

In recent decades the pace of dialogue between people of different faiths has increased. We can now speak of both interfaith initiative and religious pluralism in ways that were not possible until the current generation. While global and national developments are noted locally, they do not prove definitive of life in Richmond. Despite awareness of tensions between faiths elsewhere, in Richmond there is evidence that people of diverse faiths can work together to build up the common good. Clusters of religious people address social needs in nimble ways that government agencies rarely match. For example, a coalition of dozens of congregations called Caritas provides shelter and meals to people in need. In the process, cooperation on various service projects has advanced.

Of course, there are also formal programs aimed at promoting cross-cultural and interfaith understanding. The Virginia Center for Inclusive Communities promotes understanding in schools, businesses, and public life through education and consultation. Meetings of senior religious leaders, including Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, and Methodist bishops occur regularly. But Richmond’s diversity has fueled informal gatherings that transcend faith distinctions. In one case, clergy and lay people of various faiths, including Christians, Muslims, and Jews, meet occasionally for lunch. With no agenda other than to gather, the group has found much in common. Life in central Virginia prompted various topics: how children were faring, who knew of a good plumber, how to face one’s congregational board, the illness of a spouse, and work with students at a local university, to name a few examples. No topic was off-limits. Likewise, there was no formal dialogue. The goal was understanding and a sense of strong ties arose among the group. The widening circle of interfaith friends was primed for photovoice.

Participants

In Richmond, the project focused on Christians and Muslims. The decision to limit this initial application of PV to these two religions was due to (1) the composition of the project team (Sachs is an Episcopal priest and Amonette is an imam) and (2) an interest in managing the religion variable while working out our approach to photovoice in interfaith dialogue. Participants comprised eight Muslims and thirteen Christians, ranging in age from 19–73, and included sixteen women and five men. Six participants were college students and the rest held college or graduate degrees. Those who completed college reported household socio-economic statuses in the middle and upper-middle classes.While all our Christian participants indicated that their families immigrated to the United States over 100 years ago, all Muslims migrated after 1969 – the most recent arrival was 2013. The majority of participants attended religious services once or twice a week, but for nearly half of the group, this was their first time participating in formal interfaith dialogue.

Photovoice Meetings

In Richmond, recruitment began in the fall of 2017 and included a preview event during which potential participants ate a meal together, were introduced to the project, and had the opportunity to meet the research team. Attendees also learned what photovoice entailed through a discussion of photographs on their smartphones. Along with giving people a taste of what photovoice entails, the preview meeting was an important way for us to generate interest in the project.

Our first official photovoice meeting took place in early February 2018 at Saint Stephen’s Episcopal Church. Even though the church was not neutral ground, its longstanding participation in interfaith work made it a familiar and friendly environment for our meetings. During this initial meeting we introduced attendees to the project, completed informed consent, discussed ethical and safety issues in photography, provided tips on composing photographs (e.g., rule of thirds, filling the frame, lighting), and asked participants to complete a demographic questionnaire. We also provided a handout with a photography assignment in which participants were invited to create 10–15 photographs (total) that explored (1) their faith in everyday life, (2) challenges they face as a person of faith in their community, and (3) changes they would like to pursue to strengthen their community. These photographs were emailed to a member of the research team who printed them in preparation for the subsequent meeting.

A week after our initial meeting, the group met for the first of three discussions about their photographs. Participants sat around tables in small groups, with a mix of Muslims and Christians, and discussed their photos. Meetings took place in the evening, after work, and began with a light meal, which provided attendees an opportunity to socialize. After the meal, small groups (3–5 participants) spent approximately 30 minutes exploring one another’s photos and narratives for each of the three topics (faith in everyday life, challenges, and changes), wrestling with each question in turn (Photo 1). While the initial meeting was structured by the S.H.O.W.E.D. questions (above), we found that participants were able to sustain thoughtful conversations without using them, so we suspended their use after the first meeting. Each session ended with an opportunity for each small group to share a summary of their conversations, which allowed for the sharing of ideas across groups (Photo 2). Participants left each meeting with the assignment to continue refining their ideas by finding examples of topics that had emerged in the evening’s conversation, exploring ways to represent their experiences and concerns visually, and composing photographs that spoke to shared interests without glossing over differences.

During the final meeting we led the group through the process of curation. Working in small groups, they sifted and sorted through their photographs and returned to the important themes that were generated at earlier stages of the project (Photo 3). For each selected image, the photographer created a mockup of the photograph using a sheet of paper, which included their photo, a title, caption, and their name. Using tape, individuals affixed their materials to the wall. As photos were added, individuals perused the emerging collection, considered each piece, and worked together to arrange the photographs into categories (Photo 4). Next, participants used stickers to vote on the most compelling photos, the ones they thought should be included in our exhibition.

After considerable discussion, participants organized their photographs into several broad themes. One set of photographs described “the brokenness of the world” with photographs of homelessness and a broken window. A second theme was titled “ritual and tradition,” which contained images contrasting approaches to prayer in Christianity and Islam, the Christian ritual of the eucharist, a rosary, words from the pages of a participant’s journal, and a Christian foot washing ceremony. Under the heading “faith in everyday life” participants selected six photographs of nature. Other photos brought participants’ internal faith commitments into contact with the challenges they face as persons of faith in a category titled, “external manifestations of internal realities and struggles.” They struggled, for example, over remaining committed to purity and modesty in contrast to contemporary fashion and advertising trends, which were depicted as problematic to both Muslim and Christian participants. A final theme was “acceptance and understanding,” which emerged as the message the group wanted to emphasize as their hope for their community. The photographs selected for the exhibition were enlarged and mounted on foamboard.

The collection of images went on display in the main branch of the Richmond Public Library during May 2018 (Photo 5). The photos were arranged by theme, which created a compelling visual narrative. An opening night reception coincided with Richmond’s monthly “First Friday” event, which draws community members to downtown on the first Friday of each month. Turnout at our reception included fourteen photovoice participants and approximately 150 guests who passed through the exhibition during a two-and-a-half-hour open house. Many of these visitors were invited by participants with images on display and included friends, family, and members of their religious communities. As people filtered through the exhibition, participants greeted them, shared their experiences as photovoice participants, and briefly discussed the ideas the photographs conveyed.

Findings

As a form of visual sociology, this project is driven by participants’ photographs (Dell Clark 1999). The images constructed by the Richmond cohort provided a rich collection of visual data that was analyzed by a member of our research team. Electronic copies of the 185 participant photos were imported in maxqda, a qualitative data analysis software. After an initial preview of the complete data set, photographs were coded and re-coded to reflect visible patterns in the manifest content of the images. According to Pink, “The meanings of photographs are contingent and subjective; they depend on who is looking, and when they are looking” (2013: 75). Because we recognize that photographs can contain multiple meanings, our analysis was not intended to replace participants’ narratives surrounding these images; rather, this analysis offered a way to “expand and extend both what is said about, as well as interpreted, through photographs” (Oliffe 2008: 537).

Unsurprisingly, our content analysis demonstrated that many participants composed images depicting religious spaces, symbols, and artifacts. However, less ostensibly religious themes were also identified in this collection of photographs; for example, nature emerged as a central feature of many images (cf. Williams 2010, Ammerman 2014). More specifically, the photographs of the natural world often feature the sky: eighteen images supplied by ten participants portray the sun, moon, clouds, or a clear sky, often captured at sunrise or sunset. Although one of these photographs includes a church steeple, the majority of these images contain no identifiable religious symbols. Additionally, the issue of homelessness was highlighted by multiple participants. One image, for example, portrays an individual (presumed to be homeless) sleeping under a blanket on the sidewalk.

Participants also incorporated words into their images, with one third of all the images in the collection showing legible text. Smartphones and laptops provided one way for participants to include textual messages: five images supplied by three participants consist of screenshots or photographs of computer screens that capture text-based web content. For example, onesmart phone screenshot depicts an image of a Muslim man with the caption “I’M A MUSLIM NOT A TERRORIST.” Additionally, four participants produced thirteen images that capture text from decals, murals, or street art. Phrases painted on buildings, for example, include positive messages such as “Be love. You MATTER,” “TRUST,” and “Change the narrative.”

Another important component of our project are semi-structured interviews with participants after the completion of the project. From the perspective of the ten participants we interviewed, photovoice is a productive way to discuss personal faith and experience difference. Discussing one’s faith with people one has just recently met can raise feelings of fear and uncertainty. These feelings can be compounded if some of the people in the conversation belong to a faith tradition about which one knows little. Many of the participants who took part in the Richmond photovoice process spoke about how the use of photos helped to ease their fears and provided a means for dealing with uncertainty. In the words of one participant, creating and sharing a photo of faith in everyday life helps to “focus on an intangible [and] gives people something to do to stimulate conversation in the work of connection.” For this woman, faith is about developing connections with other people – building community.

For others, the photos of everyday faith were more concrete. As we report above, many participants shared photos of nature. “I love nature, I definitely, like ... I see God through nature. Like, every time I'm out, you know we have our little sayings ... which is ‘Praise be to God.’ So every time I see something beautiful, or something like that, it just reminds me to say these little things, and I'm like. ‘Ah, I gotta take a picture of this.’” In conversations about nature photos, participants shared that the natural world connects them to the sacred, helps them to acknowledge God as creator, and evokes feelings of awe and gratitude. Nature photos were just one example of similarities in the everyday faith of Muslims and Christians.

Because the photos provided the opportunity to share deeply personal experiences of faith with one another, the process helped to develop an atmosphere of trust and shared intimacy. According to one participant,

[My husband] and I have travelled the world, we've had lots of interface with other religions and for me, this was the first time that I saw people really opening up – just about their lives, and, and their faith. Because it gave a forum, an easy forum, really, if you had your photographs, and you explained them to your group, what they meant, it made you sort of articulate what you were trying to say in the photographs.

The trust that developed between participants through the photovoice process also facilitated respectful discussions about religious differences. As one Christian participant recalled a photovoice conversation with a Muslim participant, there was a new understanding that emerged for a particular photo (Photo 6).

One of the photographs that struck me the most was, it was a picture of streets and with different signs on, you know, businesses on both sides and I asked question, you know, “What’s this?” And they said, “Well, there’s nowhere on this street that I can eat. There’s nowhere on this block where I can eat and because of the food preparation.” Which I had never thought of, you know? But it’s something that they are cognizant of all the time.

One of the Muslim participants believed that in general American Muslims know more about Christians than Christians know about Muslims. However, many of the participants indicated that they do not have regular opportunities to deliberately engage in interfaith conversations. They were grateful that the photovoice process enabled them to do this. For example, several of the Christian participants spoke about the insights they gained about Muslim practices of modesty in public.

Differences in prayer practices were also discussed. A particularly poignant example of the reality of differences between Christians and Muslims was explained by a Muslim participant.

There was another time where one of the participants ... said she had seen a man, a very handsome young man, praying in the middle of a parking lot, and I think she said she was in Atlanta at the time, and she said it was just so beautiful. The way he just took out, I think a prayer rug or a piece of cloth, or maybe he just prayed on the ground, and she said, “I just stood there and I stared at him from a distance.” And she said, “It just looked so beautiful, and he was such a strong, young person, but he had the desire to do this and he wasn’t afraid of his surroundings,” and I was really surprised that she said that.

And I said to her, “You know, I have a 22-year-old son and I remember one time when he was going out to the movies with his friends and I said, ‘You guys are going out right around the time of prayer, so what are you going to do?’ He goes, ‘Oh, we’re just going to pray in the parking lot,’ and I was terrified as a mother to think that my child, who has a beard, and some of his friends have a beard, and they’re all brown, and they’re going to be praying together in the parking lot of the movie theatre.” To me, that was dangerous. Like they could get themselves in trouble, people could misconstrue what they’re doing, somebody may try to hurt them.

This narrative highlights a significant difference in perspective between a Muslim mother whose racialized son prays in public and a Christian who had observed a public act of prayer. The photo – an object – became the focus around which the women navigated a difficult conversation. Information about the women’s conversation provides a glimpse of the varied emotional consequences of the intersection between race, religion, and politics in the US and the possibility of increased awareness.

Discussion

As a participatory action research technique, much of the conversation about the effectiveness of photovoice in the literature relates to raising awareness, engagement, and change around social justice issues. While this remains a concern of our work, we are struck by the endogenous effects of photovoice. In what follows, we offer initial observations from the project.

Photovoice gives participants permission (a reason or invitation) to have meaningful conversations about topics or with people they may not normally have the opportunity to do so. Due to the ways American society is structured around race and religion (e.g., Emerson and Smith 2000), it is not surprising that Christians and Muslims do not normally cross paths and when they do come into contact with one another these encounters do not automatically provide opportunities to explore one another’s faith. Likewise, some people are not socialized by their religious tradition to discuss their faith – as one interviewee quipped, “Episcopalians don’t talk about their faith.” Perhaps due to evangelical Christians’ proclivity toward proselytization, Christians of other stripes may be reticent to strike up conversations about faith in communities where evangelical outreach abounds. A focus on the photographs structured the interactions across differences (e.g., race, ethnicity, social class, gender, and religion) represented within the group. And one’s agreement to participate in conversations about photographs is tacit permission to talk about one’s own faith and to be curious about the faith of others. As described by a participant above, the photograph “gives people something to do to stimulate conversation” and that something is what we term permission.

Intentional conversations about photographs build bridges between people across differences. This effect will be familiar to anyone who has used photographs in interviews (i.e., photo elicitation). As Harper asserts, “The photo becomes a bridge between people who may not even understand the extent to which they see the world differently” (Harper 2012: 157). By definition, interfaith photovoice anticipates that participants would be cognizant of contrasts. For example, Christians were fascinated by and expressed admiration for Muslims’ practice of praying five times a day. During one photovoice meeting, a Muslim woman used a screenshot of a university bathroom to explain wudhu, the ablution ritual that precedes prayer (Photo 7). Along with the challenges of finding a suitable location to pray and living in a culture that does not structure time around the daily prayers, this conversation opened Christians’ eyes to the complexity of Islam in everyday life. It also compelled the individuals involved to reflect on their personal commitment to prayer. Photographs like this were essential to communication among people unfamiliar with one another’s ideas, artifacts, practices, and experiences. As explanations gave way to understanding, images provided a relational bridge between individuals and across differences.

As these bridges were built, conversations about photographs help participants (and researchers) see the familiar from a perspective that may challenge their assumptions in a way similar to what the photo elicitation literature describes as “breaking frames” (Harper 2002, Samuels 2004, Ammerman and Williams 2012). Differences certainly abounded and enlivened conversations in constructive ways. One important example is a Muslim woman’s photographs about her struggle to wear the hijab (or not), which prompted other Muslim women to recall experiences of white male classmates in high school teasing them about – and in one case attempting to pull off – their hijab. Discussions like these were revealing. In other cases, participants gained new perspectives on one another’s faith through discovering similarities. Christians were surprised when Muslims would recognize a narrative or character from the Hebrew scriptures (i.e., Old Testament). Muslims seemed heartened by a photograph of a purity pledge ring – a ring worn by some Christians to signal to themselves and others to remain chaste until marriage. Muslims and Christians alike seemed pleasantly surprised to discover that the other group also experienced God in nature. Likewise, learning or being reminded that both religions value compassion and kindness, face similar challenges in everyday life, and worry about their children reinforced the open secret that they hold much in common. The similarities between Christians and Muslims may be common knowledge to social scientists or religious leaders, but are not always as visible to everyday practitioners. Discoveries about one another (and about themselves) disrupted taken-for-granted understandings and boundaries.

As a result of the above – permission to have conversations about faith, building bridges across differences, and challenging assumptions about Christians and Muslims (breaking frames) – relational bonds (healthy relationships and communication) are created among participants (e.g., Garcia 2013). In contrast to approaches to interfaith dialogue that rely on religious leaders, the Richmond participants readily took ownership of the photovoice process. Several of the people interviewed spoke about how they hoped that they would continue to meet with others who participated in the project. Some saw potential in using the established relational bonds to address challenges, such as homelessness, based on the shared values of their religious traditions. Others are eager to use the photovoice process as a method of dialogue in other groups.

Conclusion

From the outset, our use of photovoice to facilitate interfaith dialogue was experimental. Few have used PV in this way and we regard this initial application a success. Participants’ photographs gave them permission to be curious about faith in everyday life, to identify challenging circumstances in their community, and to imagine change. Photographs created bridges of understanding across religious and cultural differences, challenged taken-for-granted assumptions, and forged meaningful bonds within the group. Participants also engaged the community of Richmond through their month-long exhibition, especially through their opening night reception. Likewise, the materials produced throughout photovoice meetings and interviews became an important collection of data with which researchers could explore the effectiveness of photovoice and the lived experiences of photovoice participants. Ultimately, photovoice enabled participants, researchers, and those who viewed their exhibition to see the world through one another’s lenses.

* * *

*Originally published as “Through One Another’s Lenses: Photovoice and Interfaith Dialogue.” Pp. 253–274 in Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion, Volume 10: Interreligious Dialogue: From Religion to Geopolitics. Edited by Giuseppe Giordan and Andrew P. Lynch. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Acknowledgements

This project is funded by the Louisville Institute and benefitted from the research assistance of Cassidy Dykstra. We are grateful to Lynn Vandenesse and the staff of the Richmond Public Library for assistance with the exhibition.

References

American Religion Data Archives (ARDA). 2012. “Richmond, VA, Metropolitan Statistical Area: Religious Traditions, 2010.” http://www.thearda.com/rcms2010/r/m/40060/rcms2010_40060_metro_name_2010.asp, retrieved 27 June 2018.

Ammerman, Nancy T. 2014. Sacred Stories, Spiritual Tribes: Finding Religion in Everyday Life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ammerman, Nancy T. and Roman R. Williams. 2012. “Speaking of Methods: Eliciting Religious Narratives through Interviews, Photos, and Oral Diaries.” Pp. 129–146 in Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion, Volume 3: New Methods in the Sociology of Religion. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Delgado, Melvin. 2015. Urban Youth and Photovoice: Visual Ethnography in Action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Dell Clark, Cindy. 1999. “The Autodriven Interview: A Photographic Viewfinder into Children’s Experience.” Visual Sociology 14: 39–50.

Dunlop, Sarah and Pete Ward. 2012. “From Obligation to Consumption in Two-and-a-half Hours: A Visual Exploration of the Sacred with Young Polish Migrants.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 27(3): 433–451.

Dunlop, Sarah and Pete Ward. 2015. “Narrated Photography: Visual Representations of the Sacred among Young Polish Migrants.” Fieldwork in Religion 9(1): 30–52.

Dwyer, Claire. 2015. “Photographing Faith in Suburbia.” Cultural Geographies 22(3): 531–538.

Emerson, Michael O. and Christian Smith. 2000. Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

European Commission. 2018. “Cultural Diversity and Interfaith Dialogue in the Youth Perspectives.” Available at http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/projects/eplus-project-details/#project/a1aab460-8158-4843-93b4-2d49aae2ca4a, retrieved 25 June 2018.

Garcia, Carolyn M., Rosa Maria Aguilera-Guzman, Sandi Lindgren, Rodolfo Gutierrez, Blanca Raniolo, Therese Genis, Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez, and Lisa Clausen. 2013.

“Intergenerational Photovoice Projects: Optimizing This Mechanism for Influencing Health Promotion Policies and Strengthening Relationships.” Health Promotion Practice 14(5): 695–705.

Graziano, Kevin J. 2004. “Oppression and Resiliency in a Post-Apartheid South Africa Unheard Voices of Black Gay Men and Lesbians.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 10(3): 302–316.

Harley, Dana and Vanessa Hunn. 2015. “Utilization of Photovoice to Explore Hope and Spirituality Among Low-Income African American Adolescents.” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 32: 3–15.

Harper, Douglas. 2002. “Talking about Pictures: A Case for Photo Elicitation.” Visual Studies 17(1): 13–26.

Harper, Douglas. 2012. Visual Sociology. New York: Routledge.

Heaney, Robert S. 2016. “A Christian Rationale for Interfaith Engagement.” Pp. 3–19 in Faithful Neighbors: Christian-Muslim Vision & Practice, edited by R.S. Heaney, Z. Sayilgan, and C. Haymes. New York: Morehouse.

Herberg, Will. 1955. Protestant – Catholic – Jew: An Essay in American Religious Sociology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette. 2008. God’s Heart has no Borders: How Religious Activists are Working for Immigrant Rights. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Mitchell, Claudia, Naydene De Lange, and Relebohile Moletsane. 2017. Participatory Visual Methodologies: Social Change, Community, and Policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Mohamed, Besheer. 2018. “New Estimates Show US Muslim Population Continues to Grow.” Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/03/new-estimates-show-u-s-muslim-population-continues-to-grow/, retrieved 30 June 2018.

Mulder, Cray. 2014. “Unraveling Students’ Experiences with Religion and Spirituality in the Classroom Using a Photovoice Method: Implications for MSW Programs.” Social Work & Christianity 41(1): 16–44.

Mulder, Cray. 2015. “From the Inside Out: Social Workers’ Expectations for Integrating Religion and Spirituality in Practice.” Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought 34(2): 177–204.

Oliffe, John L., Joan L. Bottorff, Mary Th Kelly, and Michael Halpin. 2008. “Analyzing Participant Produced Photographs From an Ethnographic Study of Fatherhood and Smoking.” Research in Nursing & Health 31: 529–539.

Pew Research Center. 2015. “America's Changing Religious Landscape.” http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/, retrieved 29 June 2018.

Pew Research Center. 2017. “Demographic portrait of Muslim Americans.” http://www.pewforum.org/2017/07/26/demographic-portrait-of-muslim-americans/, retrieved 25 June 2018.

Pew Research Center. 2018a. “Mobile Fact Sheet.” http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/, retrieved June 25, 2018.

Pew Research Center. 2018b. “When Americans Say They Believe in God, What Do They Mean?” http://www.pewforum.org/2018/04/25/when-americans-say-they-believe-in-God-what-do-they-mean/, retrieved 27 June 2018.

Pink, Sarah. 2013. Doing Visual Ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Powers, Meredith, Darcy Freedman, and Ronald Pitner. 2012. “From Snapshot to Civic Action: A Photovoice Manual.” Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, College of Social Work. Available at http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/M_Powers_From_2012.pdf, retrieved June 25, 2018.

Samuels, Jeffrey. 2004. “Breaking the Ethnographer’s Frames: Reflections on the Use of Photo Elicitation in Understanding Sri Lankan Monastic Culture.” American Behavioral Scientist 47(12): 1528–1550.

Sayilgan, Zeyneb. 2016. “A Muslim Rationale for Interfaith Engagement.” Pp. 20–36 in Faithful Neighbors: Christian-Muslim Vision & Practice, edited by R.S. Heaney, Z. Sayilgan, and C. Haymes. New York: Morehouse.

Side, Katherine. 2005. “Snapshot on Identity: Women’s Contributions Addressing Community Relations in a Rural Northern Irish District.” Women’s Studies International Forum 28: 315–327.

Wang, Caroline C. 1999. “Photovoice: A Participatory Action Research Strategy Applied to Women’s Health.” Journal of Women’s Health 8(2): 185–192.

Wang, Caroline, and Mary Ann Burris. 1997. “Photovoice: Concept, Methodology, and Use for Participatory Needs Assessment.” Education Health and Behavior 24(3): 369–387.

Williams, Roman R. 2010. “Space for God: Lived Religion at Work, Home, and Play.” Sociology of Religion 71(3): 257–279.

Yukich, Grace. 2013. One Family Under God: Immigration Politics and Progressive Religion in America. New York: Oxford University Press.