Anthropology – the study of humanity – has
a well-argued history over the nature of the discipline. Can it be objective, when it’s the
product of an author that is to some extent subjective? Can the observed group
of people really open up to the researcher about their ways of life? To what extent do ideologies intersect
with anthropology to shape what is studied, how it is studied, and ‘when’ it
was studied? In this book, the central question is to what extent anthropology has
been swayed by nationalism, and later socialism, in its development as a
discipline.
The interplay in this book is between
western ideas of anthropology merging in with local practices of folklore,
ethnology and ethnography. It also looks at the dichotomy of local and foreign
anthropologists (and folklorists) and their impact on the nature of the
discipline in each country, all under differing conditions of nationalism,
socialism and levels of intrusion by the state.
One of the keys to understanding this text
is to have an awareness of the political climate during the period, and the
tumult that occurred. The examples range from orthodox communism as in Albania,
through to conservative militaristic rule as was the case for a while in
Greece, and via Titoism in Yugoslavia – all having periods of strict then
relaxed impositions of ideology, with some having changes in ideology too. But
the one process that they all went through was democratization, the end date of
this book.
Yet, underneath the political clouds above,
there were clashes between those who practiced the different methods of the
study of humanity – whether in the present or historically. For many, this book will read as an
emergence from the outmoded ways of the study of folklore towards the western
standard of social and cultural anthropology. Or, in other words, a move from
an inward looking study of oneself, to one where comparison with others takes
precedence. Nationalism or, more specifically, the extent to which the state
reifies the dominant nation, is evident when looking at which communities are
studied by folklorists/anthropologists.
The first example of this is Greece, where
an oscillation of direction within the folkloric/anthropological field occurred.
These have been strongly tied to the political leadership of the country,
swaying between conservative dominance harking to a more folkloric unveiling of
the past of Greek people, to the reformist Government in the late 1950s wanting
state to have a modern vision and the ‘other’ to be studied. And back again. As
the 21st century approached, the education of students in western
universities saw social anthropology being brought into Greece more
pro-actively, but still having to compete with the historic and entrenched
folklore of the past.
In Albania, the epistemological debates
were secondary to historical materialism, relying heavily on a Marxist version
of history, to draw up an ethnographic/ethnological narrative derived from
Engels. Again the narrative was used to explain how ‘ancient’ the Albanians
were by exploring folklore, yet while wanting to discover folkloric artefacts,
the ideology also wanted it banished. Strict adherence to the one party state
was obligatory, and thus no other methods of anthropology were explored.
Although under Socialism and with Marxist
thought being the favourite methodology and practice, studying communities
didn’t properly emerge in Slovenia until the late 1940s, and even then folklore and
ethnology was dominant, as it was pre World War II. This detailed material,
social and spiritual culture via a classificatory system and through collecting
artefacts. After World War II there were no paradigms or theoretical
perspectives to follow, so collection took priority over interpretation. From
the 1950s onwards, academic trips and contacts began to occur, albeit limited.
But this led individuals to move towards ethnology and the methods of
analysis of daily culture and phenomena, allowing students in the 1970s and
beyond to study and develop the variety of subjects they could discover.
Macedonia is probably one of the more
intriguing because of its history prior to 1945 being that of a contested area
by Albanians, Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbs. The forbearers to anthropology all had a ‘nationalising’
slant to their work. During
socialism, Macedonia had to contend with the 4 established nation-states around
it assessing it, claiming it, whilst looking for areas of similarity in order
to acquire it. But the authors look more at how knowledge was produced in the
work of the academics, and how politics had penetrated deeply their modes of
working. Although the paradigm shifted from socialism to ethno-nationalism
during this period, the two approaches of folklore and ethnology still worked
on creating and recreating the nationhood of Macedonians.
One key observation is that this book buys-in
to the ‘national narrative’ because the states that had a settled will of how
anthropology should be researched, always saw the limits of its own borders as
the limits of research. The investigation into the origins and development of the
nation became the task these academics were enrolled in, irrespective of the
name given to them by their methodology; social anthropologist, folklorist etc. Each state had a dominant nation, and those communities who could be
studied had to confirm and reconfirm the uniqueness of that nation,
irrespective if the political leaders were socialist or conservative. This is still
the case after democratisation.
When reading anthropological texts, one
should always place into context the time of writing and the persuasion of the
author. One can never be purely objective, whether that is when classifying
cultural or material objects, or when analysing and describing social relations
and rituals in a community. As humans, we have our own unique perspective of
the world, and base our judgments of the meaning of objects, rituals, and
relations from that perspective. Whether from the community or foreign to it,
the meanings will be different, and over time can and will change. So by accepting the subjectivity of this
social science, we can develop our own interpretation of those studied peoples,
which have themselves been re-interpreted by the social scientists in a myriad
of ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment