Seite - 34 - in >mcs_lab> - Mobile Culture Studies, Band 1/2020

34 Mobile Culture Studies | >mcs_lab> 1 (2020)Johanna Menhard | Entanglements on and with the street a rare capacity to set feelings and moods in action, from nostalgic memories to frustration when they refuse to obey us. Media stuff constantly produces friction.” This friction as well as the sensory, emotional dimensions are often hard to capture which is why they advise, “it is a good idea to explore one’s own experiences of such processes”.39 So what are the consequences for my ethnographic encounters and for interpreting my research material? Focusing on affect. First, affect must be considered in a methodological sense: Doing ethnography means that an understanding of one’s field of research is often gained through (self-)reflection on emotions, feelings, bodily reactions, worries, concerns, and associations during the research process. That is because doing ethnography means connecting with, being affected by and affecting others. Talking to others about their smartphone usage on my trip while mine was constantly dis-func- tional and causing troubles affects the research process and how I feel and think about other people’s relationships with their smartphones. Methodologically I can acknowledge, observe, and interpret my emotional and sensory reactions. As Thomas Stodulka writes, emotions always arise between real and imagined people, or people and objects, and mostly in relation to the social and spatial environment, and therefore have a „bestechenden epistemischen Wert“ [cap- tivating epistemic value, JM].40 A researcher’s own emotions, specific behaviour, and reactions can be seen as research material, since they give hints to cultural patterns and meanings in the field of research.41 Therefore, a researcher works with affects and not on affects, e.g. in fieldwork supervision groups42 or Deutungswerkstätten43. At least that’s what some researchers who are dedicated to the ethno-psychoanalytical tradition do.44 Second, affect in an analytical sense conceptualizes the field of research linked to Deleuze and Guattari s´ concept of rhizomatic thinking. Rhizomatic thinking can be understood as rad- ically thinking in connections and associations that are constantly expanding and in becoming. It’s a form of thinking that acknowledges being in the world, being in certain contexts, being in a specific environment accompanied by people, things, places, narratives, and discourses. Bruno Latour´ s popular Actor-Network-Theory (ANT) is greatly influenced by this thinking and urban anthropology makes frequent use of it. According to Bruno Latour, anything that 39 Billy Ehn/Orvar Löfgren/Richard R. Wilk: Exploring everyday life. Strategies for ethnography and cultural analysis. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield 2016, pp. 78-79. 40 See Thomas Stodulka: Feldforschung als Begegnung. Zur pragmatischen Dimension ethnographischer Daten. In: Sociologus 64 (2014) 2. pp. 179-205, here p. 202. 41 Almut Sülzle: Kritik des reinen Gefühls. Feldforschungssupervision als reflexive Methode zur Forschung mit und über Emotionen. In: Jochen Bonz/Katharina Eisch-Angus/Marion Hamm/Almut Sülzle (eds.): Ethnografie und Deutung. Wiesbaden: Springer 2017, pp. 111-139, here p. 118. 42 See ibid., p. 118. 43 See Maya Nadig: Einführung in eine ethnopsychoanalytische Deutungswerkstatt. Die Methode der ethnop- sychoanalytischen Deutungswerkstatt. Online available: http://ethnopsychoanalyse.org/seiten/forschung/meth- oden/deutungswerkstatt_methode.html. 44 See George Devereux: Angst und Methode in den Verhaltenswissenschaften. München: Hanser 1976. See Johannes Reichmayr: Psychoanalytische Ethnologie und Ethnopsychoanalyse. Überblick und Entwicklung 2000 bis 2015. In: Johannes Reichmayr (ed.): Ethnopsychoanalyse revisited. Gegenübertragung in transkultur- ellen und postkolonialen Kontexten. Gießen: Psychsozial-Verlag 2016, pp. 11-43. See Jochen Bonz/Katharina Eisch-Angus/Marion Hamm/Almut Sülzle (eds.): Ethnografie und Deutung. Grup- pensupervision als Methode reflexiven Forschens. Wiesbaden: Springer VS 2017.