Introduction to forum discussion on the meaning of European Anthropology.Non peer reviewe

Green, Sarah Francesca

Laviolette, Patrick

English

Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto

https://helda.helsinki.fiForum: Rethinking Euro-Anthropology : Part 1Green, Sarah Francesca2015-05-15Green , S F & Laviolette , P 2015 , ' Forum: Rethinking Euro-Anthropology : Part 1 ' , SocialAnthropology , vol. 23 , no. 3 , pp. 330-332 .http://hdl.handle.net/10138/159339unspecifiedpublishedVersionDownloaded from Helda, University of Helsinki institutional repository.This is an electronic reprint of the original article.This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.Please cite the original version.ForumRethinkingEuro-AnthropologyThis forum opens up a debate about the diversity that is European Anthropology andthe directions in which it is travelling. To set the scene, we contacted SA/AS’s EditorialBoard and other prominent anthropologists, inviting them to write a short comment onthe topic. We suggested they might wish to discuss ‘any of the diverse anthropologicaldebates, approaches or issues that have been generated in European universities, andthat have made a contribution to your own research’. We also welcomed work/approaches that are not necessarily ‘generated in European universities’ but that havebeen, or are, handled differently or with different emphases in Europe as opposed toother parts of the anthropological world. For instance, this could include some of thethoughts about ‘sociality’ vs ‘the cultural’, or work on ‘indigeneity’, or on environ-ment, post-colonialism and so on. We added a comment about being aware that ‘thereis nothing holding this diversity together as such; our aim is to try and gain a sense ofthe range of institutionally, conceptually, socially, politically, economically – perhapseven aesthetically or morally – distinctive ways anthropology has been thought,debated, and practised from one or other European vantage point’.Appreciating that it’s not easy to say much in such a short statement of 500 to 1000words, the idea was nonetheless to generate some overall snapshot. The purview thathas resulted is therefore far from exhaustive. After approaching around 35 people,the Forum below reflects the responses we got. We’ve divided them here into two:the first nine deal, more or less, with such issues as histories, traditions and the impactsof funding, and the second ten address more specific conceptual statements regardingparticular research projects or approaches.In casting our net wide, we tried to convey an ethos for beginning a debate, ratherthan closing or directing one. The idea was simply to invite colleagues to say what wason their mind, so as to start the ball rolling for a longer and more detailed discussionover the next four years. The results, printed here virtually as they were written, are arich start to satisfying those aims. Some threads to the commentaries are brieflysummarised below. Collectively, they raise many of the key issues affecting anthro-pology today, not only in Europe, but all over the world. Yet there was alsosomething that stood out as an issue of distinctive relevance to the European region,and which to our minds may form a basis for developing the debate considerablyfurther in future issues.In discussing historical, institutional, and national/state differences in anthropolog-ical practice (Eriksen, Gregory, Papataxiarchis, Cervinkova, Kuper, Hviding), several330 Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale (2015) 23, 3 330–364. © 2015 European Association of Social Anthropologists.doi:10.1111/1469-8676.12216of the contributors made comments about what makes the European contextdistinctive, and what should be done about it. Speaking both from personal experienceand through an overview of the conditions in which anthropology is practised, asurprisingly coherent message came through here: that location matters. Even wherethe broad traditions of anthropology are similar between locations, differences aregenerated by the institutional position of anthropology; by the particular trajectoriesthe discipline took in any given country, or even university; and by the vagaries ofhistorical events.Noting this, Papataxiarchis calls for an ‘anthropological federalism’ that embracesthese differences and generates both vertical and horizontal alliances across them. Thatcontrasts with Kuper’s call for a continuation of the cosmopolitan ideals with whichEASA began. Somewhat differently from either of these, Gregory suggests thatemphasising the diversity of anthropologies practised in the European region providesan opportunity to turn the concept of ‘Eurocentrism’ upside down – to draw on asparkling array of different national and even institutional traditions to imply that‘Eurocentrism’ should stand for the opposite of singularity or homogeneity. Gregorysuggests there might yet be hope to develop a ‘truly transnational Eurocentricanthropology’, echoing the view of some others, including Pina-Cabral, that Europelong ago stopped being European, in the earlier 20th-century meaning of the word.Whether one agrees with any of these suggestions, or indeed with other suggestions,such as Corsín Jiménez’s call for recalibrating anthropology’s thinking as a ‘prototype’form, what clearly comes through from the contributions overall is the sense that whatthe European region can offer to anthropology is its diversity – linguistic, institutional,historical, intellectual, political. Yet there is also a restlessness in the tone of many of thecontributors – an impatience.Summaries of other possible issues for further debate are listed below.• The political and economic conditions in which anthropology is being practised, andthe challenges and opportunities these present (Corsín Jiménez, Gregory, Miller,Papataxiarchis, Hviding). Here, the current financial crisis, which is hitting thesouthern part of Europe hardest, is clearly presenting enormous challenges, butalso some new possibilities. As Papataxiarchis notes on his experience in Greece,while anthropology is thriving intellectually, it is severely threatened institutionallythere at the moment. At the same time, Corsín Jiménez notes that the frostyenvironment in Spanish universities has pushed some academics out into thedigital world, presenting work within Medialab/Prado, a leading ‘hacklab’.Both Miller and Gregory note the enormous effect the new European Re-search Council’s funding is having on the potential for making anthropol-ogy more visible.• Anthropology’s language regimes, which carve deep ravines between what is knownby different anthropological communities (Gregory, Kuper, Nic Craith). This issueis relevant everywhere, but several commentators pointed out that in the Europeanregion diversity of language has had a particularly fragmenting effect. Whileacknowledging the political hierarchy involved in this, Gregory suggests that thedominance of English does not necessarily prevent diversity of debate.• The shifting foci of anthropological attention, particularly as a result of technicalchange (Miller, Maguire, Ingold, Wade). Technical and biological transforma-tion leading to questions of the reclassification, or even recalibration, ofFORUM 331© 2015 European Association of Social Anthropologists.anthropology and its bits and parts. Here, there is an underlying question of theway that technologies seem to constantly slip the knot of being somewhere inparticular: indeed, they appear to have the capacity to alter locations. Wadenotes that debates about race, biology and genetics are circumscribed in differ-ent ways in Europe and the USA; the science may be the same, but what can bediscussed is not.• As might be expected, changes in the places and peoples that anthropologystudies have demanded that anthropological practice and concepts shift theirgoal posts (Pina-Cabral, Wulff, Siniscalchi, Dawson, Favero), and have alsoled to renewed reminders that anthropologists should live up to the newmoral obligations that these changes have brought about (Miller, Meyer,Hviding, Cervinkova). Thoughts about the way these shifts are, or shouldbe, affecting anthropology’s relations with other disciplines, and evenredefining the discipline itself, are also present (Wade, Corsín Jiménez,Kuper, Meyer, Okely).We look forward to publishing various responses to these thought pieces andprovocations in our second issue as editors in November.Sarah Greenemail: sarah.green@easaonline.orgPatrick Lavioletteemail: patrick.laviolette@easaonline.orgEVTHYMIOS PAPATAXIARCHISFor a European union of anthropological localitiesII am in favour of a European union of anthropological localities. I believe that it is timeto conceive the anthropology that is practised in Europe in a new way, not just in re-spect to individuals but also, not to say primarily, in terms of the places where socialanthropology is established. We should give more attention to ‘anthropologicallocalities’, i.e. the venues – social, institutional, virtual and geographical – ofanthropological production, instruction and conversation. We should foster these lociof anthropological synergy where our disciplinary identity is being built.Our anthropological localities have a ‘complex phenomenological quality’.They are products of an anthropological imagination, which is informed byvarying epistemological traditions, interpretations of the ethnographic canon andpolitical sensibilities, and traverses ‘national schools’ and ethnographic communi-ties. This diverse anthropological imagination is often inscribed in social forms –programmes of study, projects, exchanges and public discussions. The smallanthropological worlds, which many of us inhabit on the ground, provide the vitalbreathing space of our discipline. This is where we deal with the cognitivechallenges related to our research and teaching as well as sense our professionalvulnerability in difficult times.332 RETHINKING EURO-ANTHROPOLOGY© 2015 European Association of Social Anthropologists.

Forum: Rethinking Euro-Anthropology : Part 1

Introduction to forum piece about the meaning of European anthropology.Non peer reviewe

ForumRethinking Euro-anthropology:part twoInitially intended as a set of direct responses to a Forum debate on the current state ofEuropean anthropology (as published in the last issue), the text that follows has insteadbecome a follow-up, second part. The ﬁrst one opened the debate, demonstratingamply that ‘Eurocentrism’ does not mean, and perhaps never has meant, anythingcoherent or all encompassing, but is instead distinctly diverse. Inevitably, the currentharsh economic and political conditions in many parts of Europe made theirappearance in various guises in what people had to say, but that did not entirelydominate the conversation; there were also commentaries on intellectual, moral andfuture-oriented concerns. Yet, rich as the last Forum discussion was, the contributionsof this second Forum debate shows that they only scratched the surface of the themesthat are on anthropologists’ minds just now.A prominent theme in the commentaries below is the interplay between anthro-pology, ethnology and folklore that criss-crosses the European region in a variety ofdifferent ways. This is both discussed as an area of tension and division in the past,and as having the potential for new kinds of alliances in the future. Almost all thecontributions emphasise a need to widen our horizons in one way or another, whilealso ensuring that anthropologists do not lose their commitment to core principles,particularly ethnography and recognition of value in thinking otherwise. And as inthe previous Forum piece, there are also some statements that moral or politicalpositions should be taken: Besnier suggests we cannot stand by and watch Palestinianacademia be choked off while Israel enjoys the privileges of the ERC funding thatMiller mentioned in the ﬁrst Forum piece; Buchowski suggests we have a moral dutyto actively pursue a post-hegemonic anthropology; and de L’Estoile suggests weshould stop thinking exclusively in English. That last one certainly presents an intrigu-ing challenge: many anthropologists think, speak and write in several languages, but itis likely that most are committed to thinking anthropologically in the language inwhich they were trained. This points to another layer of linguistic links and separa-tions between different parts of Europe, as well as different disciplinary branches.Ethnology, folklore, anthropology: their relations differ according to the language inwhich they are written, spoken and taught.We have now collated 27 commentaries in these past two issues of SA/AS. Wewarmly invite any readers to respond to one or more of them; we will publish aselection of them in following issues. If your comment is very brief and could do withbeing aired more quickly, do feel free to post it on our Facebook page (http://tinyurl.com/nhc8qd3) or tweet it tagging our account @SocialAnthropo1. We therefore leavethe next step of this Forum in your hands for the time being.492 Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale (2015) 23, 4 492–509. © 2015 European Association of Social Anthropologists.doi:10.1111/1469-8676.12269Sarah Green & Patrick Laviolettesarah.green@easaonline.orgpatrick.laviolette@easaonline.orgMov i ng be tween an t h r opo l o g i e s i n and on Eu r o peI am writing this while on the cusp of moving between European countries, betweenanthropological traditions and institutional structures, each with their different waysof being in and conducting research in and on Europe. Trained in British SocialAnthropology at a time when reading lists only rarely contained texts about researchcarried out in Europe and when choosing Europe as a site for ﬁeldwork, for ﬁrstﬁeldwork especially, was risky, not least for securing a post in an anthropology depart-ment, my own anthropological ﬁeldwork has primarily been conducted in Europe.Today, ﬁeldwork in Europe has become unremarkable and indeed more PhD studentstrained in the UK conduct ﬁeldwork in Europe than in any other continent. Yet, as Imove to a Chair of Social Anthropology in an Institute for European Ethnology inGermany, I feel acutely aware of the different traditions and expectations of anthropo-logical work, even for research in and on Europe – and for the exciting potential fordrawing on both.Forged and constantly reiterated in a UK anthropological training, in debates andin the structure of UK anthropology departments, is a comparative perspective that in-sists on reﬂecting on how things might be otherwise through examples from elsewhere.The practices of Europe and its constituent bits, and also its theorising, are thrown intorelief by insights from other places. Sometimes these might be examples from otherparts of Europe but they are just as likely to be from further aﬁeld, sometimes indeed,in the kind of anthropology that often prevails, as distant and different as possible.In Germany, as in many other continental European traditions, a division betweenworking within or outside Europe operates, typically with different departments, anddifferent disciplinary organisations and conferences, devoted to each. Völkerkunde,Sozialanthropologie and Ethnologie are the various names of the discipline focused out-side Europe; Volkskunde, Europäische Ethnologie and Empirische Kulturwissenschaftfor that focused within. This doesn’t mean that comparativism across distant parts ofthe world doesn’t exist in Germany, but it is less ingrained and pervasive, and lesslikely, perhaps, to be a prompt for theoretical daring. In taking up a title of SocialAnthropology in an Institute for European Ethnology, I hope, together with mycolleagues who have supported this, to be able to encourage more broaching andtroubling of the inside vs outside Europe divide. Mobilising such comparativist analysismatters not least in order to examine how that division is made and remade outside aswell as inside, and in collaboration with, the academy, and how it works inside andoutside Europe, in numerous arenas and with political effects.From the German anthropological tradition of European Ethnology, I am espe-cially excited by the collectively conducted research that departments/institutes oftencarry out in particular localities, including that in which they are situated. Typically,these marshal small armies of students and researchers to collaboratively work onspeciﬁc projects, and over the years build up deep, long-term knowledge. In the caseof ‘my’ institute – I’m still getting used to saying this – that locality is Berlin itself. Along and strong tradition of Stadtforschung, urban research, conducted in and oftenFORUM 493© 2015 European Association of Social Anthropologists.

Forum: Rethinking Euro-Anthropology : Part Two

https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/10138/159339/1/Forum_Part_1_2015_Social_Anthropology_1_.pdf

Forum: Rethinking Euro-Anthropology : Part 1

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto

Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto