Although the future of Yemen is increasingly unclear, the National Dialogue that ended in early 2014 put forward propositions for a federal system that, rather than attenuating regional identities, seemed to reveal their tenacity. Different groups (Hadramis, Huthis) attempted to ensure that they would be granted their own province, or a province that met their expectations, both politically and geographically, in the new formation. The proposed six-province format that emerged from the National Dialogue seemed to satisfy Hadramis, but there remain those who support full independence for the region, both within Yemen and elsewhere, particularly in Saudi Arabia. The Hadrami community in Saudi Arabia is not only important (both numerically and economically), it has specific characteristics that distinguish it from other communities of the Hadrami diaspora. In this chapter I look at Hadrami identity from an anthropological perspective, considering the personal, subjective and affective aspects of Hadrami identity in Saudi Arabia in the context of, on the one hand, (hypothetical) political possibilities that range from a unitary Yemeni state to an independent Hadramawt within the GCC, and on the other, the criteria for belonging, both formal and social, for Hadramis in the kingdom. I begin by establishing a theoretical framework that will permit an analysis of Hadrami identities in the kingdom.

The Self and Identity

Contemporary thinking in the anthropology of migration and mobilities has led to significant changes in the way issues of identity and belonging are conceptualised, and to a reflection upon the ways people negotiate relationships with each other, with groups, and with (and within) states. However, as Glick Schiller observes, much work remains focused on difference and negotiations thereof, in contexts where difference are perceived to be already existing, rather than being created by the social interactions under consideration. This is unfortunate since questions of identity and belonging become particularly interesting, and more complex, if similarities are considered to be more salient than differences, either by the actors themselves or by observers. However, it is also understandable: the negotiation of differences when they appear to be evident – Catholic Filipino migrant labourers in Riyadh – is a reasonably straightforward problematic; an analysis of differences between individuals and groups who do not appear to be different – members of the Tamim tribe in the Arabian Peninsula – requires a prior problematisation of otherness before any analysis of difference is possible.