Concentración de los servicios y equipamientos en el centro e incentivos para

This section builds on the discussion about proxemics, found in chapter four (p.62). I

consider an additional aspect of communication; specifically behaviour and dress at the youth centre.

My adult status meant that I was allowed entry into both physical and aural spaces at the centre; for example I was allowed into the staff room and given entry into ‘staff-only’

conversations. I often spontaneously fulfilled staff member’s tasks; such as helping to set up equipment, opening locked doors to allow people to enter the youth centre. Upon reflection, these actions were probably my way of ‘giving back’ to the staff, as a way to express my gratitude for allowing me to conduct the research there. As previously mentioned, I spent time with the young people, and engaged in activities and conversation with them. Perhaps due to my sex, I found it more comfortable to speak with the female young people. They were more likely to be sat down conversing rather than the males who tended to be playing pool and ping pong, and thus were less inclined to engage in conversation.

I knew there was no dress code at the youth centre and that I could wear what I wanted. However, I was sensitive to surroundings, and I was conscious of dressing ‘appropriately’ for particular settings. I dressed in casual clothing, similar to what I would have worn as a youth worker: jeans and t-shirt or jumper. When I spend time at the ‘girls group’11 sessions, I

79 dressed more conservatively and wore clothing that covered my arms and legs. This was in an attempt not to stand out from the girls and staff who were nearly all females of Pakistani heritage and followed the Sunni Muslim faith. Staff that worked at the centre wore head scarves and dressed in clothing that covered the majority of their bodies. One youth worker wore a niqab or full face veil outside of work, but removed this inside the centre as she said it was important to have full face contact with the young people. Some of the girls wore

headscarves; they also dressed in clothing that covered the majority of their bodies.

I participated in a number of activities at the youth centre, one of which was ‘Zumba’ dancing at the ‘girls group’, taught by an external dance teacher, a white British female. I had been wearing shorts and a vest earlier in the day and I changed clothing to jeans and a long sleeved top to go to the centre. The ‘Zumba’ classes had been going on for a few weeks. This was the first time I and one of the participants from this study ‘Iqra’ had tried ‘Zumba’ along with some of the girls and staff. ‘Zumba’ is a fusion dance-exercise/activity in which Latin-pop music is played (loudly). The music contained sexually explicit lyrics and the teacher was showing us some quite ‘suggestive’ dance moves. I found the music and dance moves uncomfortable, as did Iqra, judging by the look on her face. It was a particularly warm evening, which meant that we were all sweating. Commensurate with my own norms and values, I was tempted to remove my cardigan to cool down, however none of the other dancers did so, and they were wearing more clothing than I was. I felt uncomfortable and embarrassed to continue dancing and so I quietly slipped away from the class. At the end of the session, I questioned why I had found this experience so uncomfortable. I realised my discomfort related to my feelings about what it means to be a female, with two interrelated and contradictory outlooks. In the first instance, my efforts to dress ‘conservatively’ seemed to somehow be thwarted through my participation in ‘Zumba’. However, I realised that this outlook in itself was repressive as it associated ‘conservative’ clothing with ‘conservative’ behaviour. It also mirrored a protective outlook towards children and an attempt to protect their innocence (Katz, 2008).

The following accounts have been extracted and expanded from my fieldwork diary entry. They extend some of these deliberations that arose in the research, some of which I return to in the conclusion.

80 This revelation demonstrated a number of things. The ‘English only’ condition of the

interview positioned the young people’s bilingualism as provincial despite its centrality as a research topic. As I re-visit this stipulation I recognise that this decision engendered an official English speaking milieu which restricted opportunities for those who were not

proficient in English or simply preferred to speak in Czech and in fact replicated the privilege attached to the English language (Bourdieu, 1991; Heller, 2008) and moreover reflected my needs, rather than the needs of the young people. This inadvertently created a type of linguistic hierarchy as this stipulation restricted those who were not willing or confident enough to speak in English. In addition, the research itself inadvertently instigated a child to interpret for another, hence in this instance the research was a vehicle that both created the existence and regulated CLB (Rabinow, 1997).

5.2.4 - Diary Entry I-

During a joint interview with two young people, they began to speak in Czech. My initial reaction was suspicion. I suspected that they had lost interest in the topic. I also felt sense of powerlessness, based on my incapacity to understand what was being said. The transcript shows that I waited for 3 seconds (what seemed a lifetime) before I interjected and kindly reminded the young people to speak English. When that section of the audio was translated into English, I was ashamed to learn that my suspicions were amiss; the young people had not lost interest, one person had simply asked the other to clarify my question and he had done so.

81

5.2.5 - Diary Entry II-

One evening I took a break from trying to find young people to participate and initiated a game of play ping pong with a young Czech girl. As we played her friends came to sit behind me, talking and laughing with her in Czech. I tried to strike up conversations in English, referring to the fact that I hadn’t played ping pong for many years and was quickly tiring. The conversations didn’t lead anywhere and the girl continued to play ping pong with me whilst talking with her friends in Czech. I felt out of sorts as I couldn’t understand the laughter and conversation; which I assumed was related to me. After ten minutes or so of scrappy ping pong (on my part) my tiredness got the better of me. When the ball came towards me I caught it. I put the bat and ball down on the table; wiped the sweat from my brow and said: ‘I’m done’. The girl looked confused and muttered something in Czech to her friends, one of whom then said: ‘you have offended her’. With a raised voice she said it was rude of me to finish when her friend wanted to play. I expressed my apologies for finishing the game and stressed that it was because of my tiredness and poor ping pong skills. I walked away feeling tired, embarrassed and confused. The young people continued to speak in Czech even louder. I was concerned that I had genuinely upset the girl and that I hadn’t applied enough effort to the game and had not communicated my withdrawal clearly. Feeling more and more like an insecure teenager I spoke about the incident to a member of staff. The member of staff said that the young people should not speak to me like that and they should respect me; as they respect members of staff.

Although it was just a ping pong game, this incident highlighted a number of things. First I realised I had overlooked the importance of establishing my own ground rules as a researcher. I was unsure about the remits of my jurisdiction to challenge the young people; however I didn’t entirely agree with the youth worker. While respect was important, I wasn’t a member of staff. Second, it was me that initiated and stopped the ping pong game; this somewhat reflected my presence as a researcher: entering and exiting the field according to my terms. Third, I thought about why I had felt uncomfortable being excluded from the young people’s conversation. The linguistic exclusion mirrored a physical exclusion on part of my adult and non-member of staff status. I immediately associated the exclusion as a marker to signal that I was unimportant and also the subject of their conversation.

82