Turan's piece, in what I take from the research, is essentially trying to depict objects as the building blocks to a "facilitating environment" which seems to be a socially constructed space where a "diasporic" identity is created, nurtured and acted out.

Turan also makes the point of illustrating the symbolic and physical values of objects as they are intertwined as integral parts of this created diasporic identity... essentially the function and meaning of the object become part of how the object is seen. But outside of these two main ideas, Turan seems to take a great deal of time to speak about the "collective identity" and how it is shaped by these objects. While I can most certainly agree with the idea of collective identity based on shared understanding and valuation of an object, it strikes me as odd that personal objects are at the center of this collectivism.

The idea of collective identity through a shared feeling about specific objects can only go so far as the individuals within that group chose to attribute to it. With that said, how do PERSONAL (singular) objects become a part of a COLLECTIVE (pluralistic) image and identity… unless it is publicized and there is a COLLECTIVITY in the agreement upon which the meaning of that object is founded. Take for instance  Bashar's tattoo with text speaking to the story of great struggle and plight. While this symbolizes a shared notion of Palestinian struggle strife, it is only in the symbolism of the flag that others can call on those same sentiments...not his actual tattoo. I would further argue that while I understand Turan's use of Palestinian diaspora's within the U.S. I do think it would have provided more contrast to broaden the research field, as in look to compare those sentiments with that of Palestinians living in "Palestine" and those who rightly call themselves Palestinian outside of that locale. 

Another qualm I have with this text was brought about by this statement:  "If you are Palestinian, you tend to identify as such because you have to defend it." I feel almost that this statement shows that this "collectivity" in which Turan (specifically) is referring too, is so because of struggle. Now there is absolutley nothing wrong with this, if it were stated as such, but what of others who are not from a diaspora steeped in this same need to fight for identity? This conclusion is too broad. 

“Collectivity” in so far as the feelings conjured up by the plight of being from that specific diaspora: BASED SOLELY ON THE FACT THAT THERE IS STRUGGLE ASSOCIATED WITH IT (Palestinian)

The idea of “Re-memory (as a) conceptualization of encounters with memories, stimulated through scents, sounds and textures in the everyday” seems so much more fitting to me. Tolia-Kelly seems to be able to synthesis the idea of collectivism so much better in that memory and (she does not implicitly say this) imagination are a common ground for collective thought based on those “objects” I have just quoted. It is more than a physical sighting of something that conjures up a feeling; it has to come from the mind space that has been almost conditioned into understanding something a certain way. Not to back track my argument, but Turan has one good piece of this (without probably knowing it enough to elaborate the point) where the “jidda” or Grandfather stories are told to Mariam. She must IMAGINE what her father is telling her, and as such bases those ideas on a picture her father has of him (which turns out to actually be her great grandfather). This is an example of how an object can evoke and idea, which flowers due to emotion, and imagination, which I think is what re-memory, is based on. As Tolia-Kelly writes, these “memories” are based on tradition and heritage. This is integral to the re-imagining of a place that some of these people have never even been to, for it is the imagined homeland even if it does not exist as such. These objects essentially place the individuals of the diaspora in a framed space where politics and nationality along with identity can be fully expressed within the “confines” of their new home.

  Questions:

1-We only know ourselves as related to others, this is done through comparison. This has been a thought running through my mind as I read these ideas and theories of collective identity. The question really being, if we share a collective identity and place of origin, are we sharing our personal identity or the one we have super-imposed over our “selves?”

2-How can the personal feelings we place on an object that does not necessarily represent a “people” (I.E. flag) garner similar if not the same feelings from others?