Logo Leibniz Universität Hannover
Logo: Cultural heritage as a resource?
Logo Leibniz Universität Hannover
Logo: Cultural heritage as a resource?
  • Zielgruppen
  • Suche

Sub-project 4

Cultural heritage in football clubs and allotment associations. An empirical study on participation in difference and diversity.

Direction: apl. Prof. Dr. Heiko Geiling, Institute for Political Science, Hannover

Assistant: Dipl.- Soz. Wiss. Raimund Lazar

As ‘arenas of everyday life’ associations constitute, on the one hand, social proximities in the local environment, in which various formations of cultural heritage in the form of everyday social practices and relationship structures present a concrete expression of identity formation. On the other hand, this uniquely and historically evolved type of social alliances establishes more or less distinctive manifestations and representations of cultural heritage. One of the objectives is to fully understand the current self-conception of the association’s members, which they inevitably bring into the context of an increasingly pluralized multicultural society. Therefore, the members must be consulted according to their specific reading of the association’s history, which might also be influenced by their understanding of the status quo.

In this sense, cultural heritage is not only understood as a conflicting debate about a past deemed to be meaningful, but above all as a mobilizable instrument of power in everyday relationships, which need to be analyzed.

From a comparative perspective, structures and practices of social cohesion are analyzed in two urban football clubs and two allotment associations. The core research is centered on status and societal functions of the cultural heritage of these still popular everyday cultures under the conditions of an increasingly multicultural society. The project is based on the hypothesis, that in contrast to institutional proximities, different or even opposed norms and habits can rather be transformed and brought together in low-threshold associations of everyday culture.

Thus, this view of a concrete field of cultural heritage in everyday communication processes allows a reference to the migration-sociological study on ‘new’ immigration in sub-project 3. It takes a concentrated view of the cultural practices of individual migrant groups, as well as the educational processes, which seem to be stronger institutionalized and controlled, but still produce perceptions and interpretations of cultural heritage in narrow social spaces (sub-project 5 and 6) into account. Also, with regard to the revaluation of presentations of the past, the question arises as to how far every day, heterogeneous cultural expressions already play or should play a role (sub-project 1 and 2).