CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY LEUVEN

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN SOCIAL AND CULTURAL

ANTHROPOLOGY

Exploring the Cultural Dimension of

European Citizenship

Urban Politics through Touristic Turkish Artifacts

Promotor: Prof. Ching Lin Pang MASTER THESIS

Second reader: Prof. Steven Van Wolputte submitted to obtain the degree

of Master of Science in Social

and Cultural Anthropology by

Deniz Turkcu

academic year 2012-2013

1

Contents

Prologue 3

Introduction 5

TOURISTIC OBJECTS: MUTUAL ALTERATION

Turkish Artifacts in Changing Contexts: Turkish-Belgian diaspora in

Brussels Hata! Yer işareti tanımlanmamış.

My research: Reflexivity and Anthropological Approach Hata! Yer

işareti tanımlanmamış.

Methodology and Epistemology Hata! Yer işareti tanımlanmamış.

Chapter One Hata! Yer işareti tanımlanmamış.

MATERIALITY OF TURKISH TOURISTIC ARTIFACTS

Cultural Aesthetics and Consumption of Art-Like Objects Hata! Yer

işareti tanımlanmamış. De-fetishing Cultural Commodities Hata! Yer işareti

tanımlanmamış. Marketing the Exotic or Commercially Re-Producing Cultural

Items? Hata! Yer işareti tanımlanmamış.

Chapter Two Hata! Yer işareti tanımlanmamış.

COMMODIFICATION AT HOME AND IN THE STREETS:

CREATIVE CONSUMPTION PROCESS

Reproduction of Space with Non-Commercial Cultural

Commodities Hata! Yer işareti tanımlanmamış.

Creating the Home-Feeling Hata! Yer işareti tanımlanmamış.

2

Touristic Artifacts as Décor Hata! Yer işareti tanımlanmamış.

Chapter Three Hata! Yer işareti tanımlanmamış.

URBAN VILLAGE POLITICS: INSERTING SYMBOLIC CULTURAL

MEANINGS INTO CITY SCAPES HATA! YER İŞARETİ TANIMLANMAMIŞ.

Dominated Cultural Acculturation as a Mean for EmplacementHata!

Yer işareti tanımlanmamış.

Different ideologies for different publics: Personal Belongings as

Cultural Capital Hata! Yer işareti tanımlanmamış.

Tourist Artifacts for Insider Tourists: De-culturation Hata! Yer

işareti tanımlanmamış.

Chapter Four Hata! Yer işareti tanımlanmamış.

NEGOTIATING SOCIAL BOUNDARIES: EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP

VS. CITIZENS OF EUROPE HATA! YER İŞARETİ TANIMLANMAMIŞ. Religious Particularities of Cultural Citizenship Hata! Yer işareti

tanımlanmamış. State, Hegemony and National Artifacts as Elements of practicing

Cultural Citizenship Hata! Yer işareti tanımlanmamış.

Conclusion 7

Bibliography 12

3

Prologue

This ethnographic case study of Turkish immigrants in Brussels is to

investigate the link between European Union’s European cultural

citizenship phenomenon and dominated customer acculturation

practices. Its analysis is based on the representation of personal

belongings and commodities that are in circulation between Turkey

and Belgium, migrant homes, within the Turkish diaspora events and

in many specific locations of the streets of Brussels. Turkish people in

Brussels, as most of them came here as immigrant workers, make

material choices to identify themselves within dominant host society’s

consumer and cosmopolitan culture to find balance between culture,

politics and economics of daily life. Cultural artifacts are fertile

resources for personal expression and they carry symbolic meanings

that are constantly de-coded/re-coded by their readers, given different

meanings within distinct contexts to provide indirect communication

within people. However it is important to note that this indirect

communication comes from the relationship between humans, nature

and materials and their interaction creates the use value of an object

that alters over time and depends on the context. Accordingly, my

observations rely on the daily interactions of people with

objects/artifacts and their cultural representations among different

ethnic citizens of Brussels. I have focused on representation levels of

specific Turkish touristic artifacts that are commoditized and used in

private / public terrains. I have conducted participant observation with

Turkish housewives, kebap restoration owners as well as with their

children; in their homes, in small restorations, and on the streets of

Turkish neighborhood in Brussels. Through my research I have

explored the ways, politics and purposes behind the aesthetic cultural

re-production; territorialization of space through commodification of

personal belongings; to untangle the symbolic nature of things and

their use value.

According to my fieldwork results with this paper, I

discuss that commodification of ethnicity and culture, as often argued,

is not only the promotion of exotic East by the West for commercial

4

purposes; but it can also be analyzed anthropologically from a material

cultural perspective, as an ongoing aesthetical practice of cultural

legitimization. Creation of cultural aesthetics include many different

actors and more complex socio-economical processes, which are

linked with nature-culture divide of understanding; how recreation of

material realities are adapted and reflected and what their underlying

layered meanings are within today’s cosmopolitan urbanities. The

chapters address questions under these four general themes: (1) the

elements of aesthetic cultural reproduction and commodification of

objects, can they be seen as a thread between past, present and future

imaginaries of home feeling, (2) how the aesthetics behind the creation

of ‘home feeling’ relates to the process of home decoration and

decoration of Turkish restaurants and how are these material artifacts

used accordingly as mediums of self-visibility and invisibility with

respect to the definition and perception of European citizenship

according to the daily practices of citizens in Brussels; how does the

story of creation and representation goes from home to the streets and

vice versa, (3) how the use value of Turkish touristic objects in the

context of Brussels are in constant alteration through consumption and

production of cultural elements and how are they linked with different

ways of acculturation practices that varies according to social, cultural

and economic capital and life styles of people (4) how different actors’

nationalistic and religious sensibilities and reflections of Turkic

traditions produce and re-territorialize their daily realities and what is

the underlying complementary impact of these objects and hegemonic

power relations behind current way of representing regarding the

cultural component of European citizenship.

5

Introduction Touristic Objects: Mutual Alteration

“The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible."

- Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

The starting point of this research was ‘a lighteri’. It was

talking out loud to me right after one of the longest night shifts that I

have had in that café, where I have worked for three years, at the center

of Brussels. What I remember is that suddenly my mind started asking

a bunch of questions about it, of which I couldn’t capture the reasons

behind. It was obviously not a regular lighter to me, but I wondered if

any one of the other people surrounding me are realizing the fact that,

there is some kind of force trying to tell something, probably it wasn’t

talking to everyone. This particular lighter carry some features that

only some people can read, those were the symbolic wolf, the red color

and crescent with three stars on it. I have looked immediately to the

person carrying the lighter, he must have been a Turk because I have

immediately realized the symbols from our history books, from the

touristic shops, from the myths I have listened and from our ancestral

quotes about these symbols. He was indeed a young Turk drinking

cola past midnight with two of his friends at the center of Brussels on

a busy Friday night. That was indeed Brussels, as my colleagues

usually complained with these regular sentences ‘Why do you go out

to have soft drinks on a Friday night, we are already busy with making

hundreds of cocktails, we don’t have time for these guys’ interest in

drinking soft drinks, they occupy the table for hours and get only the

cheapest soft drinks, we need to make money here, because of these

Muslims we miss clients who want to drink cocktails because they

occupy tables for hours for only what six euros...’ I have worked in a

café-bar, at the center of Brussels (Sint Gooriksplein) for three

summer periods as a fulltime barmaid. The place is one of the immense

tourist attraction places in Brussels, and very famous hang-out place

for the locals, which allowed me to observe thousands of people over

these years all from different backgrounds and stories. I have lived just

next doors of the bar by the time I was employed and while I was

studying economics back then in 2008-2010.

6

You might wonder why I am telling you a story of a lighter,

however, knowing who is writing has as much important as who is

reading this paper, also this story is crucial to know in order to

understand how the sequence of events and observations followed

each other while constructing this fieldwork journey I have had over

two years, in order to understand material culture, symbolic

representation of culture, identity politics and in general stuff1. While

my mind was questioning why this guy was sitting at the center of

Brussels at that hour with a very Turkish lighter with two of his friends

and drinking cola at 3 in the morning; I have heard my heart telling

me to look carefully and behind the reality, back then not but now I

can name it as: the representation.

As much as I have learned about people and cultures by

living in Brussels, I could have never learned by working for a

multicultural airplane company, where I could travel from country to

country and get to know thousands of people. It is a city, however what

I really think in reality is that it is a very big and highly artistic village,

where has limitless observation and interaction opportunities with the

world publics…….

1 Daniel Miller (2010)

7

Conclusion

As Frederick Barth most importantly stresses that ‘It is not the ethnic

identity that creates borders however, on the contrary the borders

provoke identitarian experiences.’ Thus ethnic strengthening is

resulted from the mobility transitions, thoroughly cultural encounters

with the foreign, fight over resources and rights that has represented

itself in the deep imaginary of publics’ daily images and discourses

(Ditchev, 2008). Their identitarian experience starts in the streets and

takes its inspirations from home cultures and exchanges new values

and goes back to streets and keeps back and forth with social value

exchanges. Turkey’s current status, thus the socio-economic and

religious content is also a big part of creating these social meaning

exchanges thanks to the integrated structure of social media and

information technologies; that brings new visuals to the everyday

imaginaries. Recent generations of Turkish immigrants in Brussels

have resistance towards different majority groups and their previous

generation’s past ethno-religious policies as well as life styles. They

are inclined with the city identity by also holding onto Turkish

nationalistic representations, in order to have an impact on cultural

representation on the other immigrant groups (as a competition).

Creating symbolic borders and deleting the given

meanings are constant processes that are affected by the pace of

mobility and the nature of the environments. If we follow up Said’s

travelling theory hypothesis and apply it to artifacts; when a theory

travels it multiplies, extends and regenerates some competing

discourses on the base of the original idea. Said most importantly

stresses that once an idea is strong effective and gained acceptance, it

is likely that during its pilgrimage it will be reduced, codified and

institutionalized. Thus, these items are reduced, codified and

institutionalized (the ones that are not commercial commodities also).

With this paper I discussed how the cultural creativity

8

develops from the environment that we live in and get inspiration from

the home cultures' historic ethnic and national roots. Through the

analysis of objects, I have come to claim that personal belongings at

home are given new meanings by social interaction. However, the

process of meaning giving for Turkish migrants in Brussels does not

start in the streets but it starts with their social interaction at home,

their interaction with media and their relatives in their home countries.

Turks in Belgium however have two majority publics one being the

Turks in Turkey (as host) and the other one is the Belgian community

in Brussels (as host) in that case the publics have an in between

dichotomy while managing their daily interactions. Another important

point is that the previously given symbolic meanings to these artifacts

by the Turkish majority culture have a fundamental impact on their re-

fetishization and de-fetishization of certain objects with nationalistic

connotations and their use in Brussels cosmopolitan context.

Housewives and working women's houses and their home

decorations, in relation to their daily routines and social and cultural

interactions varied. I especially came to a separation point during my

research that pushed me to make a distinction between different

socialization practices of working and non-working women. I have

observed that their children and husbands are interacting with them at

home in different ways also the way they deal with the objects and

materials were different; which demonstrated gradually that there was

a constant flow of social meaning extraction and inclusion to the

ethno-touristic artifacts. Through consumption these individuals,

families and diaspora fetishize and de-fetishize these objects in order

to make meaningful sense of these objects amongst their daily social

interactions.

The majority indigenous populations have more power

over the immigrants to determine if they are insiders or outsiders.

Post- modern identity construction depends on relative ideological

compatibility between two cultures (Beyers, 2008). However, there

are counter powers as well: Creativity and aesthetics. Creative cultural

re-production is not about satisfying the market demands by

promoting the exotic; but there is a deeper nature-culture dichotomy

9

behind this, which is mobilizing aesthetics to affect desired social

outcomes. Another reason is consumption and mass production goods,

non-commercial commodification of touristic artifacts, in order to use

them as catalysts of cultural innovation and as they are occasions for

popular resistance. ‘Such items can be symbolically appreciated to

produce a cutting edge of meaning which not only reflects and repeats

what exists but also creatively transforms what exists. Both experience

and representation can further change, interact and develop through

processes of creative consumption, creative perception and re-

perception. (a small world is made controllable, controlling symbols

and cultural work, Willis, 2000:58). Most of the theories it is argued

as the West and the host society has power to determine the inclusion

and the exclusion of the new comers; however in Brussels there are

two different type of Turkish migrants; the ones who want to go back,

housewives and mostly divorced women (that I have interviewed); the

ones who consider going back but who are associated with Belgian

Brussels identity, working women, both make use of touristic artifacts;

but not with the same logics, the given meanings are different.

Nevertheless, the fact that the artifacts exist, they are in circulation

with their current use values and they constitute the physical

environment of migrants in Brussels that gives the same type of home

feeling and belonging.

The relation between public space and private space plays a

crucial role in social terrains; because their current home culture

influences the given meanings and their social coding in public spaces

affect their social standing, hence, their relationships with other

immigrants, dominant host culture and Turks in Turkey. In that sense,

the life of the objects and their social existences also influences the

constructs of public space, of which as a follow up process of private

space creation. According to the hypothesis I had, these immigrants

use more commoditized objects to decorate and these objects within

their original settings have different connotations than the way they

are used here, so they are used for a purpose to express themselves and

since these objects are originally made for touristic purposes with

having Turkish ethnic originally given symbolic meanings, I

10

constructed the cultural link through them. Accordingly, with their

cultural objects the migrants try to communicate certain messages for

the ones that can decode these meanings, and for the ones who cannot

decode they simply cannot communicate, however by not being able

to communicate they want to give another message which is their

willingness to be attached with their cultures and they want to keep

living according to that logic.

The reason behind their ethno-cultural and urban politics

through artifacts comes from the definition and their daily experiences

on citizenship and its gradual alteration logics that they experience

through changing politics, images and economies of the city.

European Citizenship concept is focused on 'European Identity

project' which does not exclude the cultural equality among citizens in

theory; however, in practice most of the dominant immigrant groups

tend to identify themselves with hybrid identities, artifacts and styles.

In the case of Brussels, European Identity and European citizenship

today has not much to do with sharing the same European history and

values but with the assertion of new and constantly changing values

(distinct economic interactions and status has a big impact) and

different migrant socialization methods to manage the politics of the

city as it is their own home-cultural space.

To conclude, I claim that their selection and appropriation

methods contain related and similar logics that are linked with the

ecologic influences to human creativity, but the socially given

meanings to these artifacts are different because of the distinct nature

of daily socioeconomic interaction. As a result, creating the home

décor, gives them the power to (1) communicate through these objects

with the ones who can read and decode the cultural and social

meanings; (2) not-communicate culturally with the ones who cannot

decode the symbolic meanings but socially communicate with them

that they don't share the same values and history, but they share the

same social space of which they are contesting; and lastly (3)

demonstrate that they are culturally associated and distant compared

to other migrant groups; and as long as they are sharing the same

public space they need to find the fitting belonging feeling, and home-

feeling of which comes by the help of objects and their given meanings

11

rather than just from the Turkish diaspora politics. Because their

symbolic cultural meanings are much binding than, the change-bound

social meanings of the artifacts; even though they will benefit from the

welcoming nature of the differences of the urban space to build

reasonable participation ideologies.

12

Bibliography

1. Ahmed, Sara with Claudia Castarieda, Anne-Marie Fortier

and Mimi Sheller (2003). Uprootings/Regroundings:

Questions of Home and Migration. Oxford: Berg

2. Akhil, Gupta & James, Ferguson (1992). Beyond "Culture":

Space, Identity, and the Politics of Difference, Cultural

Anthropology, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 6-23 (2002). Spatializing

States: Toward an Ethnography of Neoliberal

Governmentality, American Ethnologist, Vol. 29, No. 4,

981-1002

3. Amado M. Padilla & William Perez (2003) Acculturation,

Social Identity and Social Cognition: A New Perspective,

Hispanic Journal of Behavioural Sciences 25:1 (35-55)

4. Anderson, Benedict. (1983). Imagined Communities:

Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.

London and New York: Verso

5. Antonia Noussia & Michal Lyons (2009). Inhabiting Spaces

of Liminality: Migrants in Omonia, Athens, Journal of

Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35:4 (601-624)

6. Appadurai, A.

(1988). The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural

Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, ISBN-10:

0521357268, 344 pages

(1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of

Globalization, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,

1996, ISBN 0816627932, 229 pp.

(1997) Discussion: Fieldwork in the era of globalization,

Anthropology and Humanism, 22(1), pp. 115–118.

7. Bahloul, J. (1996). The Architecture of Memory: A Jewish-

Muslim Household in Colonial Algeria, 1937-1962,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

8. Beyers, Leen (2008). From Class to Culture: Immigration,

Recession and Daily Ethnic Boundaries in Belgium 1940s –

1990s, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis,

53:37-61

13

9. Birdwell-Pheasant, D. and Lawrence – Zuniga (1999).

Introduction: Houses and Families in Europe, In D. Birdwell

–Pheasant and D. Lawrence – Zuniga eds. House Life:

Space, Place and Family in Europe, Oxford: Berg

10. Blunt, Allison. (2005). Cultural Geography: Cultural

Geographies of Home, Progress in Human Geography 29, 4,

pp. 505–515

11. Bourdieu, Pierre (1984), Distinction: A Social Critique of the

Judgment of Taste, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

12. Bouhdiba, Abdelwahab. (1985). Sexuality in Islam. London:

Routledge& Kegan Paul. (Previously published in French,

1975)

13. Brubaker Rogers & Cooper Frederick (2000). Beyond

“Identity”, Theory and Society, Vol.29 (1), p.1-47,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3108478 .

14. Canclini, Nestor Garcia (2005). Hybrid Cultures: Strategies

for Entering and Leaving Modernity, Minneapolis, MN:

University of Minnesota Press, 293 pp.

15. Cant, Alanna (2012). Practicing Aesthetics: Artisanal

Production and Politics in a Woodcarving Village in Oaxaca,

Mexico, Dissertation, London School of Economics

16. Chevalier, S. (1995). Itinéraires Mobiliers Ouvriers, In N.

Gérôme eds. Archives sensibles. Images et Objets du Monde

Industriel Ouvrier, Cachan: Les éditions de l’École normale

supérieure

17. Christiane, Timmerman, and Ina Jodewickx, Johan Wets

(2009). Marriage at the Intersection Between Tradition and

Globalization Turkish Marriage Migration Between Emirdag

and Present from 1989 to Present, History of the Family,

14:232-244

18. Cieraad, Irene.

(1999). At home: An Anthropology of Domestic Space,

Syracuse University Press, ISBN 0- 8256-0562-5, 184 pp.

(2010) Homes from Home: Memories and Projections,

Home Cultures 7:1 (85-102)

14

19. Clarke, A. (1998). Window Shopping at Home: Classifieds,

Catalogues And New Consumer Skills, In D. Miller (ed.)

Material Cultures: Why Some Things Matter, Chicago:

University of Chicago Press

20. Cohen, Robin. (2010). Global Diasporas: An Introduction.

London: Routledge.

21. Collins, F. L. (2009). Connecting ‘Home’ with ‘Here’:

Personal Homepages in Everyday Transnational Lives,

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35, 839-859

22. Comaroff, John L. & Jean, (2009). Ethnicity, Inc. University

of Chicago Press Ltd. London, ISBN 13: 978-0-226-11472-

9, 234 pp.

23. D’Alisera, Joann (ed.) (2004). An Imagined Geography:

Sierra Leonean Muslims in America, University of

Pennsylvania Press, ISBN 0-8122-1874-4, 181 pp.

24. Delaney, Carol (1994). Untangling the Meanings of Hair in

Turkish Society, Anthropological Quarterly, 67:4 (159-172)

25. Delgado-Moreira, J. M. (2007). Cultural Citizenship and the

Creation of European Identity, Electronic Journal of

Sociology, ISSN: 1198 3655,

http://www.sociology.org/content/vol002.003/delgado.html

26. Ditchev, Ivalyo. (2008). Mobile Citizenship, Eurozine

Magazine, http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2008-06-27-

ditchev-en.html

27. Forty, A. (1995). Objects of Desire, London: Thames and

Hudson

28. Gell, A. (1998). Art and Agency, Oxford: Oxford University

Press

29. Gillian, Rose. (2003). Family Photographs and Domestic

Spacings: A Case Study, Transactions of the Institute of

British Geographers, New Series, 28:1(5-18)

30. Graversen, Rebecca (2001). Imagining Other Places :

Cosmopolitanism and Exotic Fantasies in Multicultural

Cities,

http://www.anthrobase.com/Txt/G/Graversen_R_01.htm

15

31. Halstead, Narmala (2002). Building ‘Perfection’: Foreign as

Self; Self as ‘Foreign-Foreign’, Journal of Material Culture

7:273-293

32. Hilje Van Der Horst & Jantine Messing. (2006) “It's Not

Dutch to Close the Curtains”: Visual Struggles on the

Threshold Between Public and Private in a Multi-Ethnic

Dutch Neighborhood, Home Cultures; March 2006, 3(1):21-

37

33. Ilczuk Dorota, (2001). Cultural Citizenship: Civil Society

and Cultural Policy in Europe, Boekmanstudies, Amsterdam,

ISBN 90-6650-070-0, 121 pp.

34. Ingold, Tim.

(2000). The Perception of the Environment: Essays on

Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill, Routledge, 465 pages

(2012). Towards an Ecology of Materials, Annual Review of

Anthopology, 41:427-42

35. J.R. Porter & R.E. Washington (1993) Minority Identity and

Self Esteem, Annual Review of Sociology, 19: 139-61 36. Kaya, Ayhan. (2010). Individualization and

Institutionalization of Islam in Europe in the age of

Securitization. Insight Turkey 12(1):47-63.

37. Keane, W. (1997). Signs of Recognition, Berkeley:

University of California Press

38. Mallett, Shelley. (2004). Understanding Home: A Critical

Review of the Literature, The Editorial Board of The

Sociological Review, Blackwell Publishing, 89 pp.

39. Mandaville, Peter.

(2001a). Transnational Muslim Politics: Reimagining the

Umma. London: Routledge

(2001b). Reimagining Islam in Diaspora: The Politics of

Mediated Community. Gazette 63(2-3): 169-186

(2003). Towards a Critical Islam: European Muslims and the

Changing Boundaries of Transnational Religious Discourse.

In Allievi, Stefano und Nielsen, Jorgen, Muslim Networks

and Transnational Communities in and across Europe.

Leiden: Brill. 127-145

16

40. Marcus, S. (1999). Apartment Stories, Berkeley: University

of California Press

41. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002), Phenomenology of Perception,

Tr. C. Smith. London and New

42. York: Routledge (Routledge Classics). (Original French

publication: 1945.)

43. Massey, Doreen. (1994). Space, Place and Gender.

Cambridge: Polity Press 1995. “Places and Their Pasts.”

History Workshop Journal 39: 182–92.

44. Michaela Benson, The Movement Beyond (Lifestyle)

Migration: Mobile Practices And The Constitution Of A

Better Way Of Life, Mobilities Vol. 6, No. 2, 221–235, May

2011

45. Miller, Daniel

(1995). Worlds Apart: Modernity Through the Prism of the

Local, Routledge, London and New York, ISBN 0-415-

10789-X, 270 pp.

(1999). Shopping Place and Identity, Routledge Publishing,

ISBN 0-415-15460-X, 214 pages

(1987). Material Culture and Mass Consumption, Basil

Blackwell, ISBN 0-631- 15605-4, 240 pp.

(ed.) (2001). Home Possession: Material Culture behind

Closed Doors, Berg: Oxford Publishers, ISBN 13-978-

18597-3585-5, 256 pp.

(2001). Dialectics of Shopping, The University of Chicago

Press, ISBN 0-226-52646-1,221 pages

(2009). The Comfort of Things, Polity Press, ISBN -13:978 -

07456-4403-5, 302 pp.

(2010). Stuff. Polity Press, ISBN -13:978 – 0- 7456-4423-3,

220 pp.

46. Miller, Toby. (2001). Cultural Citizenship, Television New

Media 2001 2: 183

47. Murphey, Rhoads. (2005). The Flight of the Falcon, History

Today, 55:2

48. Muynck, Bert. (2005). Angst & Ruimte / Fear & Space

(Paperback), Distributed Art Pub Inc. ISBN: 9056624229,

160 pp.

17

49. Noussia, Antonia & Lyon, Michal (2009). Inhabiting Spaces

of Liminality: Migrants in Omonia, Athens, Journal of

Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35:4 (601-624)

50. Olesen, Bodil Birkebaek (2010) Ethnic Objects in Domestic

Interiors : Space, Athmosphere and the Making of Home,

Home Cultures 7:1 (25-42)

51. Pakulski, Jan (1997). Cultural Citizenship, Citizenship

Studies, 1:1(73-86)

Pechurina, Anna. (2006). The National Taste of Home:

Researching Identity through Home Possessions,

http://inter-disciplinary.net/wp-

content/uploads/2011/08/pechurinampaper.pdf

52. Pedziwiatr, Konrad. (2010). The New Muslim Elites in

European Cities: Religion and Active Social Citizenship

Amongst Young Organized Muslims in Brussels and

London. Saarbrücken: Verlag Dr. Müller.

53. Putnam, T. And C. Newton eds. (1990). Household Choices,

London: Middlesex Polytechnic and Futures Publication

54. Rosaldo, M. (1984). Toward an Anthropology of Self and

Feeling, in R. Sheweder & R. Levine eds. Culture Theory:

Essays on Mind, Self and Emotion, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

55. Rosaldo, Renato.

(1988). Ideology, Place, and People without Culture,

Cultural Anthropology 3(1): 77- 87.

(2003). Cultural Citizenship, Inequality and

Multiculturalism, In Identities: Race, Class, Gender and

Nationality. Linda Martin Alcoff and Eduardo Mendieta eds.

Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

56. Sabbah, Fatna. 1984. Woman in the Muslim unconscious.

New York: Pergamon Press

57. Salazar, Noel B. (2010) Towards an Anthropology of

Cultural Mobilities. Crossings: Journal of Migration and

Culture 1:53-68

58. Sassatelli R. & Santoro M. (2009). An Interview with Paul

Willis: Commodification, Resistance and Reproduction,

European Journal of Social Theory 12(2): 265–28

18

59. Savas, Ozlem (2010) The Collective Turkish Home In

Vienna : Aesthetic Narratives of Migration and Belonging,

Home Cultures, 7:3 (313-340)

60. Sumner, C. (1999) Beyond the Silk Road – arts of Central

Asia, Powerhouse Museum, Sydney,

http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/hsc/textiles/textiles.ht

m

61. Timmerman, Chris (1995). Cultural Practices and Ethnicity:

Diversifications Among Young Turkish Women In

Rethinking Culture: Multicultural Society and the School,

Eugeen Roosens (eds), International Journal of Educational

Research 23:1 (23-32)

62. Tuba Ustuner & Douglas B. Holt (2007). Dominated

Consumer Acculturation: The Social Construction of Poor

Migrant Women’s Consumer Identity Projects in a Turkish

Squatter, Journal of Consumer Research, 34:41-56

63. Turan, Zeynep (2010) Material Objects as Fascilitating

Environments: The Palestinian Diaspora, Home Cultures, 7:1

(43-56)

64. Turner, Bryan S. 2002. “Cosmopolitan Virtue, Globalization

and Patriotism.” Theory, Culture and Society 19(1–2): 45–

63.

65. Useev, Nurdin, (2012). The Image of Women in Old Turks

Within The Meaning of the Words which Reported Women

and Passed at The Kokturk Lettered Yenisey Inscriptions,

Dil Arastirmalari, 57-66

66. Vertovec, Steven and Robin Cohen.

(1999). Migration, Diasporas and Transnationalism.

Cheltenham : Elgar.

(2001). Religion and Diaspora. Working Paper,

Transnational Communities Programme.

University of Oxford: WPTTC-01-01.

http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/Vertove

c01.PDF.

(2002). Conceiving Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context, and

Practice. Oxford : Oxford. University Press.

19

67. Willis, Paul. E.

(1978). Profane Culture, Routledge Falmer, ISBN 13-978 –

0710087896, 212 pp.

(1981). Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get

Working Class Jobs, Columbia University Press;

Morningside edition, ISBN-13: 978-0231053570, 226 pp.

(1990). Moving Culture, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation,

London. 72 pp.

(2000). The Ethnographic Imagination, Cambridge Polity

Press, ISBN 0- 7456- 0173-1, 153 pp.

68. Wu, Fulong. (2004). Transplanting cityscapes: the use of

imagined globalization in housing commodification in

Beijing, Area, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 227-234

Internet Resource http://www.artpane.com/Rugs/R1001_The_Baluch_Rugs_Weaving.h

tm

Notes

i The lighter looked like this one but in red color, I put this picture for

a better visualization. http://galeri.uludagsozluk.com/r/%C3%A7akmak-

milliyet%C3%A7isi-59799/