Interested in the production of knowledge in anthropology on ethnographic grounds, Yael NavaroYashin draws theoretically from the literature on the

"affective turn of the human sciences" after the work of Gilles Deleuze and !li" Guattari# Navaro-Yashin distinguishes affect from subjective feeling# $he conceptualizes affect as emotive energies discharged in an environment# $he follows the psychoanalytical treatment of a%&ection %y 'ulia (risteva, as a feeling of horror, something thrown away from a fragile self# ) theory of affect must merge su%&ectivity and materiality# )gainst the perceived su%&ectivism, linguocentrism and social constructionism of other paradigms, Navaro-Yashin draws from the o%&ectcentred philosophy of *runo +atour a%out material non-human agency# Navaro-Yashin resorts to the centrality of ,things-# $ociety is constituted %y the assem%lage of human actors and non-human actants, including the non-human environment# Navaro-Yashin understands these and other scholarly ela%orations as mutually negating paradigms of su%&ectivism and o%&ectivism, idealism and materialism, realism and social constructionism, etc# Instead of taking an "either.or" approach to these "paradigms", she advocates a "%oth.and" position# $he merges theories of affect and su%&ectivity as well as of language and materiality# /o achieve a trans-paradigmatic ethnography, she finds inspiration in 0alter *en&amin1s writings a%out "ruination" as a metaphor for his pessimistic approach to the philosophy of history# 2e evokes the idea of an ")ngel of 2istory" who progresses through time leaving %ehind ruins of violence, loss, and mourning in space# Navaro-Yashin refers then ruination to the material remains of destruction and violation, and the su%&ectivities and residual affects that linger in the aftermath, %ut also urges anthropologists to reflect on *en&amin1s additional use of ,ruination- for a philosophy of knowledge as fragmentary# Navaro-Yashin associates this with /homas (uhn1s paradigm shifts as innovations resulting from the ruination of past approaches# 3erging these supposedly opposed theoretical turns, Navaro-Yashin4s intention is to produce an anthropological theory of affect through an ethnographic reflection on spatial and material melancholia among /urkish-5ypriots, who appropriated 6or failed to comforta%ly appropriate7 the properties and o%&ects left %ehind %y their Greek-5ypriot "enemies"# It is a conflict rooted in colonialism, the rise of nationalism, independentist struggles, inter-communal violence, retreat to enclaves, invasion and occupation, and finally, the territorial partition of 5yprus along ethnic lines in 89:;, displacing accordingly hundreds of thousands of 5ypriots northwards or southwards# Navaro-Yashin e"amines %oth the su%&ectivity and emotions of /urkish-5ypriots inha%iting e"propriated

spaces, and the affect generated %y the assumed o%&ects, dwellings, and the post-war environment# Navaro-Yashin studies the difficult relations of /urkish-5ypriots to the houses, land, and o%&ects of the displaced Greek-5ypriots# /he allocation of property %y the /urkish-5ypriot administration is seen not only as immoral %ut criminal under international law, as the international community does not recognize /urkish or e"clusive /urkish-5ypriot sovereignty over northern 5yprus# Yet the e"propriation was rationalized as necessary, for thousands of /urkish-5ypriots were also displaced from their homes in the south, fearing Greek-5ypriot reprisals against /urkish invasion# *oth communities faced the prohi%ition of visiting the other side of a patrolled %order which includes physical %arriers like walls and %ar%-wired fences# Navaro-Yashin asks /urkish-5ypriots how it feels to live with the o%&ects and within the ruins left %ehind# /hey see them as the spoils of war, a%&ect war %ooty, the product of looting# /heir former 6even sometimes friendly or familiar7 neigh%ours are now officially construed as the "enemy"# /here is the memory of a past sociality now ruined %ut still materialized in a%andoned o%&ects# /he dispossessed refugees had to assume possession of them, something that is made difficult as the phantomic presence of the escaped Greek-5ypriots lingers on their former %elongings# /hese o%&ects have the agency to trigger memories and imaginations in the /urkish-5ypriots a%out their former users# /he Greek-5ypriot community is related to as %oth a%sent and present, as the refugees appropriated the remains, sometimes during "looting hunts" 6ganimet av7 undertaken in the a%andoned spaces# Immediately after partition, actual Greek-5ypriots were only found dead in the houses and fields, killed while escaping violence# /hey show themselves as corpses, the ultimate image of a%&ection# <nder necessity, the /urkish-5ypriots even had to cloth themselves with a%andoned garments# )lthough most of the Greek wardro%e was clean when found in houses, the /urkish-5ypriots imagined it as dirty, so they washed in the rivers the a%&ect pollution and filth present in the violent appropriation of these war ruins# /he /urkish-5ypriots also invested themselves of former "Greek property", as the northern economy and political system was created and mo%ilized from the spoils of the displaced community --- a crime under international law even if encouraged %y the unrecognized /urkish =epu%lic of Northern 5yprus, isolated and cut from international networks of trade# 3any years after partition, the /urkish-5ypriots still personify and ethnicize the misappropriated o%&ects and spaces# /hey are referred as Rum mal, ,Greek property-# Rum mal fails to %ecome ,/urkish- under a self-critical morality that does not allow neutralizing the implications of the ill-%enefit#

/he triumphalist military sense of booty or trophy for the /urkish term ganimet during >ttoman rule is ruined %y the self-reprimanding sense of loot and plunder, property assumed as an act of violation# 3isappropriation undergoes a process of a%&ection, a sense of horror and filth that must %e thrown away from the self# *ut %ecause the a%&ect ruins are nevertheless assumed into the 6social7 self, Navaro-Yashin talks of a domestication of the a%&ect, through which it %ecomes incorporated into the social order and central to it# Instead of %eing a perceived e"ternal challenge to society, the a%&ect is interiority, intrinsic to and generative of the system# *en&amin wrote that culture is a ruin, that creation presupposes continued destruction, and that violence is constitutive of legal and political systems# It is an enduring condition for their emergence# =uination is at the foundation of the 6Northern7 5ypriot political system# )ffect is discharged %y the ruination of o%&ects, dwellings and spaces that have %een misappropriated# /he su%&ective ?uestion a%out how /urkish-5ypriots pro&ect feelings of melancholic interiority onto the looted o%&ects, can %e complemented with an "o%&ective" ?uestion a%out how the ruined o%&ects and spaces have the agency to produce melancholic energy# /urkish-5ypriots e"press their inner feelings through the notion of maraz# In /urkey, maraz means illness, disease, %ut in /urkish-5ypriot dialect it refers to depression, sadness, uneasiness# )s a state of confinement and suffocation, it is specifically related to the lack of resolution of the 5yprus pro%lem# Navaro-Yashin glosses the notion of maraz into @nglish as melancholia and proposes to intertwine this su%&ective interpretation with one that takes melancholy as the "mark of energy" discharged from the "non-human" environment# 3elancholy is then spatially affected as much as it is felt inside the self# It comes from the a%&ect agency of the violated and ruined %uildings, fields, olive gardens, orange groves, rusted cars, kitchenware and wardro%e, as much as from the feelings of guilt and regret of the dispossessed /urkish-5ypriots towards their displaced Greek-5ypriot "enemies"# Rum mal as ganimet triggers maraz# It is a%&ect matter domesticated and interiorized %y the assumption of the ruins# =uins produce affective spaces that in 5yprus may encompass the Deleuzian metaphors of the vertical root of memory and identity, and the horizontal rhizome of uncontrolla%le growth and e"tension# Roots are displayed in sym%ols of sovereignty 6%arricades, %ar%ed wires, flags, %ullet holes7 that remind of past violence, and the affects they discharge are those of the a%&ect# Rhizomes e"tend as dust, rust, and a%andonment, lacking the promise of creativity#

$patial melancholia is the e"tension of despair# Navaro-Yashin finds that %oth people and o%&ects produce and transmit affect relationally, not each on their own# ) ruined environment affects melancholy# /hose who inha%it it feel the ruins in their interiority# In ruins they commemorate and forget, sym%olize and e"perience melancholia# =uination is for /urkish-5ypriots the product of an impossi%ility to mourn a loss# It cannot %e grieved, %ecause the loss is not sym%olized as a loss# @thnic conflicts %orn from communal distinctions and struggles for sovereignty doom this sym%olizationA 0hat is lost is the person who is construed as an enemy, not to %e recognized, named and mourned# +oss %ecomes irredeema%le# /he lost is still present in the affective discharge and mediating materiality of melancholic o%&ects and spatial melancholia, leading to a sense of loss of moral integrity# /hus, melancholia is %oth interior and e"terior, affective and su%&ective# Navaro-Yashin concludes that the multidimensionality and relationality of Rum mal as ruined ganimet, and the feeling and discharge of maraz, confirm that the production of anthropological knowledge calls for the reconciliation of apparent antitheses %etween theories of affect and su%&ectivity, of o%&ects and sym%olization# @thnography offers the opportunity for such multi-paradigmatic approach#