Methodological literature on ethnographies of the far-right has largely centered around the ethical and political implications of such studies. Discussions on researcher’s positionality with regard to his/her insider–outsider positioning, ethnic-racial characteristics and concomitant power relations in the field remain relatively undertheorized. What occurs, for example, when the researcher studying anti-minority, ethnic nationalist right-wing groups is from a minority ethnic community? To what extent s(he) can gain access and develop rapport with the respondents? In this article, I seek to answer these questions by providing insights from my fieldwork experiences. I reflect upon my own position as a non-White, minority ethnic, and female ethnographer who conducted extensive fieldwork among grassroot activists of “Alternative für Deutschland,” a German right-wing political party. The article demonstrates that even in face of an apparent noncongruence between an immigrant ethnographer and right-wing, pro-majority respondents, researcher’s position is not static but fluid, intersectional and deeply situational. Ethnographer’s long term sustained proximity to the respondents, exposure to the everyday contexts of their lives create zones of congruence for an apparent outsider and can at times undermine the dominant category of ethnicity as primary social signifier.

关于极右翼民族志的方法论文献主要集中在此类研究的伦理和政治影响上。关于研究人员在他/她的内部-外部定位、民族-种族特征和该领域伴随的权力关系的位置的讨论仍然相对缺乏理论。例如，当研究反少数族裔民族主义右翼团体的研究人员来自少数族裔社区时，会发生什么情况？他（他）能在多大程度上接触受访者并与受访者建立融洽的关系？在本文中，我试图通过提供我的实地工作经验的见解来回答这些问题。我反思自己作为一名非白人、少数族裔和女性民族志学者的地位，她在“德国另类选择”的草根活动家中进行了广泛的实地考察，”德国右翼政党。文章表明，即使面对移民民族志学家和右翼、支持多数派的受访者之间明显的不一致，研究人员的立场也不是静止的，而是流动的、交叉的和深刻的情境。民族志学者与受访者的长期持续接近，接触他们生活的日常环境，为明显的局外人创造了一致的区域，有时会破坏作为主要社会能指的主要种族类别。