Encompassment

Louis Dumont’s concept of encompassment (1980) explains how in a universalising manner, ‘Others’ are made to be one of ‘Us’. The crucial point about the concept of encompassment is that the ‘Others’ are made to be ‘Us’ without their knowing or approval. Encompassment consists of two levels only, the lower level that thinks it is different and the superior level that denies the difference and encompasses the lower level. Encompassment is thus, like orientalism, strictly hierarchical. The hierarchical superior decides who becomes part of ‘Us’ and who stays an outsider (Baumann 2004, pp. 25-6):

Encompassment means an act of selfing by appropriating, perhaps one should say, adopting or co-opting, selected kinds of otherness. [...] To put it somewhat polemically: “you may think that you differ from me in your sense of values or identity; but deep down, or rather higher up, you are but a part of me.” (Baumann 2004, p. 25)

Intersecting and Ternary Grammars

Baumann summarises the three grammars as they were intended by Said, Evans-Pritchard and Dumont as the ‘exclusion and exoticized appreciation’ of orientalism, the ‘contextual flexibility’ of segmentation and the ‘universalizing rigour’ of encompassment (Baumann 2004, p. 25). One of the crucial points about Baumann’s interpretation of these three grammars is that they do not stand for themselves but are indeed interacting and intersecting. He emphasises that all these three concepts do not necessarily appear separately but can appear at the same time. This is what makes Baumann’s approach helpful to the analysis of othering practices among Galatasaray and Fenerbah^e fans in Vienna. There is never just one way of othering the ‘Other’ but it is a multi-facetted, flexible performance. Thereby, Baumann further explains, the grammars do not only interact but also compete with each other in the selfing and othering processes and practices of ‘constructing identity and alterity’ (Baumann 2004, p. 26). Baumann’s second core concern about the seemingly binary grammars is that they are in fact all ternary (Baumann 2004, pp. 38-40). As we will also see in the case of Galatasaray and Fenerbah^e fans in Vienna, there is always a third party that is left out.

In the grammar of orientalism, the third party is an additional group or are additional groups that are added to the binary system. Baumann, in reference to Roland Barthes’ concept of the myth, calls it a ‘ternary staggering of the orientalizing grammar’ (Baumann 2004, p. 39). Here, he refers to an additional group, often a new group, that joins the seemingly binary practices of orientalism and adds an additional layer to it.

In the grammar of segmentation, the ternary part depends on the level of segmentation and changes accordingly. But it always exists. Cheering for Rapid Wien against Austria Wien in the Austrian League excludes all other teams and its fans of the Austrian League. When these Rapid fans then cheer for the Austrian national team in the European Championship together with their rivals from Austria Wien the ternary party changes. Now fans that do not cheer for the Austrian national team are in the ternary position (Baumann 2004, pp. 38-40).

In the seemingly binary grammar of encompassment the ternary parties are the ones that are excluded from the encompassment. The excluded ones are in this case the ones that are not encompassed by the superior actor in the hierarchy. This means that the superior level includes one or several lower levels but thereby excludes many other levels. Being Catholic and saying about Protestants that ‘we all are Christians’ encompasses Protestants but excludes any other religion (Baumann 2004, pp. 38-40).

The examples to explain the ternary notion of the three grammars are simplified to illustrate how the grammars work in order to use them as one theoretical framework for the following analysis of othering practices. I will refer to the different practices of the three grammars throughout the chapter. In the chapter conclusion, I will further analyse which grammars were particularly relevant in the different examples of rivalry and loyalty constructions, where and when these different grammars are interacting, competing or excluding each other.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >