Conclusion

How do the discussion about the field in general and the analysis of the entering phase facilitate the approach and contextualisation of the following chapters? This chapter introduced the reader to the specific context of this book for (1) the research in general and for (2) the Fenerbah^e Pub in particular. It offered a contextualising analysis and a critical reflection of (3) the approach and the role of the researcher in this process.

  • 1. First of all, it is necessary to focus on the discourses that (co-)deter- mine social affiliations among Turkish football fandom in an Austrian society and their intermingling meanings and discourses. This includes the socio-cultural background of the researcher in general and the specific academic and personal context in which she is situated. Prejudices on all sides towards Turks, Germans, Austrians, men, football fans and also the personal bias of the researcher are a central part of the analysis of this book. The situatedness and assemblage of all these different factors in specific situations in the research field is a key element of anthropological research (cf. SuEmann 2007).
  • 2. The exemplary analysis of the approach to the Fenerbah^e Pub put its emphasis on the link between the mobility of the researcher and the growing social capital of the researcher. My loyalty to a German club and going away to matches of Turkish clubs became the entrance ticket to my field. Because of that I proved that my interest in football in general and also in Turkish football and its fans was serious. My changing social status and thus my growing social capital can be seen from my different stops in the pub. Likewise it is possible to get a first impression about the social status and capital of others in the place. It is a mapping of social hierarchies. By mapping the social hierarchies between the members of the group in the pub, power relations can be revealed as well as the social and also the cultural capital in a social space (Bourdieu 2006, p. 358). But this can only be a first step as other factors co-decide which seat you can take.

The analysis of emotional practices in the Fenerbah^e Pub also proved to be helpful to understand the relationship between the researched and the researcher. This sometimes complicated relationship can often only be understood when social rules are broken or people leave their roles they usually obtain in a specific environment. In this case the observer became the observed and likewise the other way around. At the beginning of this chapter I underlined that the entering phase of a fieldwork process can provide detailed insights about how a group of people or a specific place deal with outsiders or newcomers. It became clear that outsiders are not very common in this environment when football matches take place. Outsiders in this case are people that have no link to Turkey. This is due to the fact that outside a constructed Turkish community the interest in Turkish football is extremely low. People are included however - it just takes some time.

3. One aim of this chapter was to discuss how problems that are specific to the field can help to gain deeper insights in one’s research and also the bias of the researcher. A research field is always the construction of the researcher (cf. Knecht 2013). The researcher chooses more or less deliberately what to research, where to look, who to interview and what to write down or not to write down in a notebook. This is why the ethnographic description is always a very specific constructed representation - and othering practice - towards the ‘researched’ (Schiffauer 2002). The methodology and the questions itself need to be theoretically embedded and reflected to understand the research approach. Lila Abu-Lughod argues that research results can always only be understood as ‘positioned truths’ (Abu-Lughod 1991, p. 147). She makes it clear that every answer an ethnographer gets or every fieldnote an ethnographer writes down is strongly dependent on his or her own background and the context of where it was conducted. She further argues that ‘[t]his does not make such studies any less valuable; it merely reminds us that we must constantly attend to the positionality of the anthropological self and its representations of others’ (ibid., pp. 141-2).

The analysis of the approach to the Fenerbahqe Pub made clear that my bias on the definition of a ‘real fan’ limited my research to a certain extent. I was critically looking at the role of emotional practices with regard to how I conducted my participant observations and chose my interview partners. As a result of this self-reflection, I understood that my emotional requirements to what is supposed to be a ‘real fan’ narrowed my insights and access at the beginning. This does not only apply to the Fenerbahqe Pub but also to other places in the research. The type or symbolic figure of the ‘real fan’ is a recurring image in this book. This chapter made it clear that not only fans themselves but also the researcher relate to this powerful discursive construction.

Whereas this chapter was an introduction to the dynamics between the researcher and the researched, the following chapter deals with the dynamics between Galatasaray and Fenerbah^e fans on different levels. There, complex othering processes that are never rigid nor onedimensional, but that are fluid and flexible and marked the whole 18 months of ethnographic fieldwork, will be unscrambled.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >