When driving along a road on the Isle of Skye, Scotland, a European flag flashes by. It marks EU investment in the local infrastructure. But Europe is not always that obvious.
“The passport is the noblest part of a human being. Nor does it come into the world in such a simple way as a human being. A human being can come about anywhere, in the most irresponsible manner and with no proper reason at all, but not a passport.That’s why a passport will always be honoured, if it’s a good one, whereas a person can be as good as you like, and still no one takes notice.”
The phenomena of vivid grapevine communication, ferociously bred rumours and fake news seems to be a domain of modern times. However, these communicative inconsistencies have their historical and social continuity, recurring in times of distress and information noise. Let’s take the case of the wartime period: no internet, censored mass media, illegal information channels versus official propaganda. Who or what can be trusted?
‘As long as Scotland is here, Europe, you are always welcome!’ After having zoomed in on a woman who just made this statement, the camera expands to the view of a lighthouse. The words ScotlandIsHere appear on screen, followed by #ScotlandIsNow.
“At home, however, I only feel in the van.”* A Story about the Possibilities that a Change of Perspective Entails
„Home is where you feel secure and connected to something. That can be people, but also the landscape or mentality of a country.”*
“You are not going to agree with this, but I voted leave.” A participant in my research told me this early on in an interview. I had not shared with her my personal opinion on the EU, but from my accent (which does not sound Scottish) she discerned I was from continental Europe and decided that I probably did not agree with Brexit. During interviews I am not trying to find out how the interviewee voted in the EU referendum, but it is a difficult topic to avoid when discussing Europe. Navigating a divided field In the past six years, the Scottish people have taken part in two divisive referendums. In 2014 they were asked whether Scotland should become an independent state (55% chose to remain part of the UK) and in 2016 they were asked whether the UK should remain a member of the EU (in Scotland, 62% chose to remain part of the EU). Both referendums left a significant mark on the current political landscape in Scotland. My research focusses on the personal dimension of this: how do Scottish people, in particular supporters of Scottish independence, identify with Europe and what does the concept of Europe mean to them. To do this, it is important for me to get beyond the results of the referendums in my fieldwork, but this is not always straightforward. The problem with discussing politics in Scotland today is that opinions are immediately pigeonholed into the answers of the referendums: participants in my research often identify themselves (and others) first as yes/no or remain/leave. It is of course uncommon that reality is as binary as that: it is a messy and personal calculation of values, beliefs, influences and experiences. Participants are hardly ever completely yes or remain without a conditional but. To get a result which is valuable for my research, I aim to break through the referendum replies as early as possible in the interviews and uncover what is hidden below. Placing myself in the field At the same time as providing us with an opportunity to research beyond the suggested binaries of the referendums, ethnographic fieldwork forces the researcher to reflect on his/her own connection to the communities being researched. In my case, that reflection starts by asking and being asked where I fit on the yes/no, leave/remain spectrum. I have experimented with sharing my own opinions on these matters and keeping them to myself during fieldwork. Sharing my stance can have different effects: if it is in agreement with the participant, the interview feels more at ease, resulting in a form of ‘safe space’ which can be highly beneficial for...