Bridging the Social with What Unfolds in the Psyche: The Psychosocial in Ethnographic Research

  • Erol SaglamEmail author
Part of the Studies in the Psychosocial book series (STIP)


In this chapter, Erol Saglam approaches ethnographic research from a psychosocial perspective. He suggests that ethnography has long been associated with the analysis of social structures and abstained from paying due attention to more psychic dynamics, such as fantasies, dreams, hauntings, and other unconscious forces, which have conventionally been associated with individual(ized) processes. Drawing on his own ethnographic research in Turkey, Saglam explores the potential unlocked through the incorporation of such personal elements into social analyses. The chapter argues that ethnographically bridging the social and the psychic is possible and results in a more comprehensive outlook, helping us understand how the interplay between the social and the individual unfolds as well as how subjectivities are forged through this interplay.


  1. Abraham, N., & Torok, M. (1994). The Shell and the Kernel. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abraham, N., & Torok, M. (2005). The Wolf Man’s Magic Word. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Althusser, L. (1970). Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes Towards an Investigation. Available online at
  4. Aretxaga, B. (1997). Shattering Silence: Women, Nationalism, and Political Subjectivity in Northern Ireland. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barthes, R. (1972). Jeunes Chercheurs. Communications, 19, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benjamin, W. (1968). Theses on the Philosophy of History. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (pp. 253–264). New York: Schocken.Google Scholar
  7. Berliner, D. (2016). Anthropology as the Science of Contradictions. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 6, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biehl, J., Good, B., & Kleinman, A. (2007). Introduction: Rethinking Subjectivity. In J. Biehl, B. Good, & A. Kleinman (Eds.), Subjectivity: Ethnographic Investigations (pp. 1–23). Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blackman, L. Cromby, J., Hook, D. Papadopoulos, D., & Walkerdine, V. (2008). Creating Subjectivities. Subjectivity, 22, 1–27.Google Scholar
  10. Derrida, J. (2005). Fors: The Anglish Words of Nicolas Abraham and Maria Torok. In N. Abraham & M. Torok (Eds.), The Wolf Man’s Magic Word. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fabian, J. (1983). Time and the Other. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fink, B. (1995). The Lacanian Subject. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Foucault, M. (1982). The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frosh, S. (2012). Hauntings: Psychoanalysis and Ghostly Transmission. American Imago, 69(2), 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frosh, S. (2013). Hauntings. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Frosh, S., & Baraitser, L. (2008). Psychoanalysis and Psychosocial Studies. Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society, 13(4), 346–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frosh, S., Phoenix, A., & Pattman, R. (2003). Taking a Stand: Using Psychoanalysis to Explore the positioning of Subjects in Discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gordillo, G. (2014). Rubble. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gordon, A. F. (2008 [1997]). Ghostly Matters. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hook, D. (2011). A Critical Psychology of the Postcolonial. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Knight, D. (2017). Fossilized Futures: Topologies and Topographies of Crisis Experience in Central Greece. Social Analysis, 61(1), 26–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Layton, L. (2008). What Divides the Subject? Psychoanalytic Reflections on Subjectivity. Subjection and Resistance. Subjectivity, 22(1), 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lowry, H. (2009). The Islamization and Turkification of the City of Trabzon (Trebizond), 1461–1583. Istanbul: Isis.Google Scholar
  24. Madra, Y., & Özselçuk, C. (2010). Jouissance and Antagonism in the Forms of the Commune: A Critique of Biopolitical Subjectivity. Rethinking Marxism, 22(3), 481–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mahmud, L. (2014). The Brotherhood of Freemason Sisters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1888). Manifesto of the Communist Party. Moscow: Marxist Internet Archive.Google Scholar
  27. May, T. (2004). Reflexivity and Social Science: A Contradiction in Terms? In B. Carter & C. New (Eds.), Making Realism Work (pp. 171–188). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Moore, H. L. (2007). The Subject of Anthropology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  29. Neill, C. (2011). Lacanian Ethics and the Assumption of Subjectivity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ortayli, I. (2019, March 24). Definecilik Tarihi Afet [Treasure Hunts (Are) Historical Disasters]. Hurriyet. Available online at
  31. Ozyurek, E. (2007). Introduction: The Politics of Public Memory in Turkey. In E. Ozyurek (Ed.), The Politics of Public Memory in Turkey (pp. 1–15). New York: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Pasieka, A. (2019). Anthropology of the Far Right: What If We Like the ‘Unlikeable’ Others? Anthropology Today, 35, 3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rand, N. (1994). Editor’s Notes. In N. Abraham & M. Torok (Eds.), The Shell and the Kernel. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Read, J. (2010). The Production of Subjectivity: From Transindividuality to the Commons. New Formations: A Journal of Culture/Theory/Politics, 70, 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roberts, J. M., & Sanders, T. (2005). Before, During and After: Realism, Reflexivity and Ethnography. The Sociological Review, 53(2), 294–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. SARAT. Accessed 20 May 2019.
  37. Siegel, J. (2005). The Idea of the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Žižek, S. (1994). Is There a Cause of the Subject? In J. Copjec (Ed.), Supposing the Subject (pp. 84–105). London: Verso.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Asian, Middle Eastern and Turkish StudiesStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations