Alevi-Olmayan Bir Araştırmacı Olarak Alevilik Üzerine Çalışmak: Göç-Mekânda Ama Evde Çok-Alanlı Etnografi

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1 - Etnografi, 52 - 72, 15.06.2017

Besim Can Zırh

Öz

Bu çalışma etnografi yöntemine dair bir tartışmaya, çok-alanlı bir etnografi saha araştırmasından doğru katkı sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. 1980’lerle birlikte araştırmacının üyesi olduğu toplulukla çalıştığı saha deneyimlerini betimlemek üzere önerilen “evde antropoloji” yaklaşımı, antropolojide bilgi üretme sürecini de zorunlu olarak yeniden düşünmemizi gerektiren bir tartışma gündemi olmuştur. Bu tartışmaya yaklaşmazdan evvel Malinowski’den doğru geleneksel etnografi yöntemini betimleyerek sonraki kuşaklara miras kalan iki soruya odaklanacağım. Etnografi yöntemine özgünlüğünü veren “ötekilik sarsıntısı” deneyiminin doğal sahnesi olarak düşünülen “sahanın” gerçekte inşaa edilen bir mekân olması düşüncesini ziyaretle “evde antropoloji” yaklaşımına dair bir tartışma yürütmeyi amaçlıyorum. Son kısımda ise Alevi-olmayan bir antropolog olarak gurbet-mekânda ama evde Alevilik konusunda gerçekleştirdiğim çok-alanlı saha çalışmasından öz-düşünümsel bazı notlar aktararak Türkiye düzleminde konunun önemini tartışmaya açmaya çalışacağım.

Anahtar Kelimeler

etnografi, evde antropoloji, yöntem, Alevilik, göç

Studying On Alevism as a Non-Alevi Researcher: Multi-Sited Ethnography on the Context of Migration Yet At Home

Öz

This paper aims to contribute to a debate on the ethnographic methodology from a multi-sited research I conducted among my nationals at-home-abroad. During the 1980s, debates on this newly emerging research position, commonly known as, “anthropology at home,” became institutionalized and this issue inevitably lead to reconsideration of the knowledge production in anthropology. Before adressing this issue, I will attempt to define methodological inclinations of ethnography in the light of Malinowski’s pioneering portrayal, which has bequeathed us two significant questions: (a) how to locate the role of “shock of otherness” in producing anthropological knowledge and (b) how to understand the “field” imagined as the natural scene of this production. At the end of the paper, I will focus more on my own ethnographic experience as a non-Alevi researcher among fellow nationals (Alevis) in various locales at home (Turkey) and abroad (Europe) to be able to discuss the issue of “anthropology at home” in the case of Turkey.   

Anahtar Kelimeler

ethnography, anthropology at home, Alevism, methodology, migration

Kaynakça

• Abu-Lughod, L. (1986). Veiled sentiments: Honour and poetry in a Bedouin society. London: University of California Press.
• Abu-Lughod, L. (1988). Fieldwork of a dutiful daughter. Soraya Altorki ve Camillia Fawzi El-Solh (Der.), içinde, Arab women in the field: Studying your own society (s. 139-161). New York: Syracuse University Press.
• Abu-Lughod, L. (1991). Writing against culture. Recapturing anthropology: Working in the present. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
• Altorki, S. (1988). At home in the field. Soraya Altorki ve Camillia Fawzi El-Solh (Der.), içinde, Arab women in the field: Studying your own society (s. 49-68). New York: Syracuse University Press.
• Altorki, S. ve Fawzi El-Solh, C. (1988). Introduction. Soraya Altorki ve Camillia Fawzi El-Solh (Der.), içinde, Arab women in the field: Studying your own society (s. 1-24). New York: Syracuse University Press.
• Andrews, P. A. (1989). Ethnic groups in the Republic of Turyey. Wiesbaden: Reuidiger Benning-Haus.
• Appadurai, A. (1988). Putting hierarchy in its place. Cultural Anthropology. 3 (1), 36–49.
• Asad, T. (1982). A comment on the idea of non-western anthropology. Hussein Fahim (Der.), içinde, Indigenous anthropology in non-western countries (s. 284-287). Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
• Atay, T. (1996). Batı’da bir Nakşi cemaati: Şeyh Nazım Kıbrısi örneği. İstanbul: İletişim.
• Ergül, H. (Der.), (2013). Sahanın sesleri: İletişim araştırmalarında etnografik yöntem. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi.
• Fahim, H. M. (1977). Foreign and indigenous anthropology: The perspectives of an Egyptian anthropologist. Human Organization. 36 (1), 80-86.
• Fahim, H. ve Helmer, K. (1982). Themes and counter-themes: The Burg Wartenstein Symposium. Hussein Fahim (Der.), içinde, Indigenous anthropology in non-western countries (s. xi-xxxiii). Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
• Greetz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
• Gültekin, A.K. (2010). Türkiye’de Sünni olmak. İstanbul: Berfin.
• Hann-Beller, I. ve Hann, C. (2001). Turkish region: State, market and social identities on the East Black Sea coast. Oxford: School of American Research Press.
• Harmanşah, R. ve Nahya, Z. N. (2016). Etnografik hikâyeler: Türkiye’de alan araştırmaları deneyimleri. İstanbul: Metis.
• Hayano, D. M. (1979). Auto-ethnography: Paradigms, problems, and prospects. Human Organization. 38 (1), 99-104.
• Jackson, A. (1987). Reflections on ethnography at Home and the ASA. Anthony Jackson (Der.), içinde, ASA monographs 25: Anthropology at home (s. 1-15). London: Tavistock Publications.
• James, C. ve Marcus G. E. (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. California: University of California Press.
• Kluckhohn, C. (1949). Mirror for man: The relation of anthropology to modern life. New York: Whittlesey House Inc.
• Malinowski, B. (1988 [1967]). A diary in the strict sense of the term. Britain: Cambridge University Press.
• Malkki, L. (1992). National geographic: The rooting of peoples and the territorialization of national identity among scholars and refugees. Cultural Anthropology. 7 (1), 24-44.
• Messerchmidt, D. (1981). On anthropology ‘at Home’. Donald A. Messerchmidt (Der.), içinde, Anthropologists at home in north America: Methods and issues in the study of one’s own society (s. 3-14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.
• Myerhoff B. ve Ruby, J. (1982). A crack in the mirror: Reflexive perspectives in anthropology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
• Rabinow, P. (1977). Reflections on fieldwork in Morocco. California: University of California Press.
• Saktanber, A. (2002). Living Islam: Women, religion and the politicization of culture in Turkey. London: I.B. Taurus.
• Sherif, B. (2001). The ambiguity of boundaries in the fieldwork experience: Establishing papport and negotiating insider/outsider status. Qualitative Inquirty. 7, 436-447.
• Srinivas, M.N. (1966). Some thoughts on the study of one’s own society in social change in modern India. California: University of California Press.
• Şentürk, B. (2015). Bu çamuru beraber çiğnedik: Bir gecekondu mahallesi hikâyesi. İstanbul: İletişim.
• Tierney-Ohnuki, E. (1984). ‘Native’ anthropologists. American Ethnologist. 11 (3), 584-586.
• Türker, Y. (9 Ekim 2010). Serepdipçe. Radikal.
• Wimmer, A. and Glick-Schiller, N. (2002). Methodological nationalism and beyond: Nation–state building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks. 2 (4), 301–334.