1. 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

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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)

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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)

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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/