[1]
An editor’s summary of the thematic issue of Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review 2007/1 “Social anthropology in post-socialism”; editors: Yasar Abu Ghosh, Jakub Grygar, Marek Skovajsa
In April 2007, Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review, a bilingual Czech - English journal for sociology and related social sciences, published since 1965 by the Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences in Prague, brought out a thematic issue dedicated to “Social anthropology in post-socialism”. As the journal editor, who due to a series of rather chance developments became involved in the preparation of this issue so intensely as to become one of the actual co-editors, I am hardly qualified to pass judgment of whatever kind on the quality of what was in the end published. I will thus limit myself to presenting a summary of the issue and adding two brief concluding comments that I will make from the standpoint of someone who took part in a common publication project with a particular group of scholars who call themselves social anthropologists being not a social anthropologist himself.
[2] A brief remark is perhaps necessary here to explain why it was precisely Sociologický časopis that published this social-anthropological issue. The answer is rather simple. For various reasons, Czech social anthropology does not have its own established academic journal. As discussed in depth especially by Petr Skalník (e.g. 2002a, 2002b or 2007; for a broader view of the developments in the region see Hann, Sárkány, Skalník 2005; Sárkány 2005), social anthropology in the Czech Republic is a late-comer to the academic scene with serious consequences for its chances to achieve full academic recognition. The institutionalization of the discipline is slow, its progress hampered by many obstacles and even the most basic question what social anthropology is or can be still leads to political clashes as different academic parties have different, sometimes rather non-standard answers.
[3] Even if there is no recognized academic journal for Czech social anthropology, Czech social anthropologists certainly have a number of publication opportunities to choose from. To mention just one 2 (Note2: Some of the other Czech journals that sometimes publish articles by social anthropologists are the review Lidé města / Urban people based at the Faculty of Humanities at Charles University in Prague or Sociální studia / Social studies, the journal of the Faculty of Social Studies at Masaryk University in Brno. These journals are not, however, exclusively or predominantly oriented towards social anthropology. Such a unique focus had the now extinct journal Cargo published by students of the ethnological and anthropological programs in Prague.), the historically most significant Czech review for national ethnography 3 (Note3: Consistently with Chris Hann I am using Tamás Hofer’s term “national ethnography” to refer to the traditional Eastern European academic discipline that in local languages is called národopis, néprajz, ludoznawstwo etc. (see Hofer 1968; for both the concept and disciplines it refers to see Hann, Sárkány Skalník 2005) to avoid confusions with ethnography as a method of empirical research used by social anthropology and, less characteristically, other social sciences. Some of the contributors to our debate preferred to use the national equivalents of the term “national ethnography”. ) and ethnology, Český lid (Czech people) , existing since 1891, also publishes contributions by social or cultural anthropologists. It was in this journal where in 2004-2006 a whole debate about social anthropology versus ethnography appeared with the participation of both social anthropologists and ethnographers. The debate was triggered by an article written by two young graduates of a study program in anthropology at Charles University in Prague, who were hardly 30 at the time of the publication, and bore the ambitious title What is and what is not cultural/social anthropology?, characteristic of the uncertainties accompanying the presence of social anthropology in the Czech academic field (Nešpor, Jakoubek 2004). Even if the authors failed to provide a coherent and original answer to their question and what they wrote is rather a review of some newer trends in social anthropology with particular emphasis on historical anthropology, they had at least provoked a debate. Yet, after a few shots were fired on both sides, the discussion ended inconclusively and it did not have any effect on the actual institutional situation of social anthropology in the Czech Republic.
[4] As already indicated, the thematic issue on Social anthropology in post-socialism had been first planned to bring together original ethnographies from post-socialist societies of Central and Eastern Europe (for more specific description of the goals see the editorial - Abu Ghosh, Grygar, Skovajsa 2007). The working, and potentially flexible, understanding was that this geographical delimitation corresponded to the formerly communist part of what goes under the rather imprecise name of “Central Europe”. The texts that were eventually published are based on empirical material collected in the four Visegrád countries: Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. The editors also intended, with eventual success, to encourage an East-West cross-fertilization of academic perspectives by mixing and matching contributions from both the “native” and Western authors. In the special issue, four out of seven main articles were written by Westerners (three Americans and one British author) and the three remaining ones by local anthropologists.
[5] While the openness of the editors of Český lid to publish texts from social anthropology is beyond questioning, the main orientation of this journal still continues to be the historical-ethnographic research. Having on their mind an issue composed of anthropological texts that would address the present of post-socialist countries, rather than the past, the two original editors, Yasar Abu Ghosh ( Charles University Prague) and Jakub Grygar (Masaryk University Brno), approached Sociologický časopis in which, as is hardly surprising for a sociological journal, studies analysing the social present are published on a regular basis. Since ethnography as a method of empirical research has become quite important in sociology, too, it seemed obvious that the project of an anthropological issue had the potential to bring considerable benefits to both disciplines. Moreover, it was not going to be the first inroad of the journal into the realm of social anthropology, as in 2001 it brought out a thematic issue dedicated to the legacy of Ernest Gellner(Musil, Skalník 2001). The review’s editorial board gave green light to the project in 2004. For sure, the substantive and methodological differences between fieldwork-based social anthropology, on the one hand, and the varieties of sociology most commonly represented in the journal, on the other, were not lost either on the side of the editorial board members or the issue co-editors. In spite of such differences, the finalized issue was approved by the board composed in its vast majority of sociologists and sent to print proving that collaboration between the two disciplines is not impossible.
[6] A significant breaking point in the genesis of the thematic issue was reached when Chris Hann, one of the founding directors of the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology in Halle/Saale, accepted the proposal to contribute an introductory article and announced that what he would write would be a programmatic piece about the possible peaceful reconciliation between Western-style social anthropology and domestic national ethnographies in the former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Hann’s text became not only the issue’s lead article, but also the starting point of a debate about the discipline of social anthropology in CEE that elicited commentaries from authors based both West and East, including some valuable contributions from scholars from post-communist South-Eastern Europe. Hann’s article and the following discussion helped to clarify one thing: even if the attention of the researchers is directed towards the present, the issues of historicity loom large and have to be given their due.
[7] As a result of this briefly outlined combination of two different projects, the issue is both an example of anthropology’s engagement with the social reality and of the self-reflexive engagement of anthropology with itself, or, in other words, of an anthropology of the first, and of the second order. I will first briefly address each of the ethnographies and then turn to the debate provoked by Hann’s programmatic piece.
[8] It is certainly no coincidence that the sensitivity for long term historical processes is most clearly present in the article “Nationalism, Religion, and Multiculturalism in Southeast Poland” written by the Slovak anthropologist Juraj Buzalka, a student of Hann’s from Halle. Analyzing the role of religious ritual in managing the political conflict between ethnic groups in the Przemyśl region in South Eastern Poland, Buzalka shows that the rituals have the power to either perpetuate or bridge the deep divisions among the Roman Catholic Poles and the Greek Catholic Ukrainians. The rites can keep afresh the memories of past wrongdoings committed against one’s own ethnic group or they can serve as an instrument of reconciliation that alleviates the burden of past history which is seen as mutually divisive. On a methodological level, this ethnography shows that it is not possible to make sense of the present without detailed knowledge of at least those elements of the past that are the object of politically relevant social constructions.
[9] The persisting influence of the more recent history, this time the history of the dynamics of work teams in the communist era and during the successive stages of the transition process, is revealed in Ben Passmore’s study of the role of the old and new social capital on the shop floor in two privatized factories in Brno, Czech Republic (“Legitimacy, Engagement and the Creation of Social Capital in the Late Transition Czech Workplace”). Passmore concentrates on the discourses of honesty that are used by the management to overcome the workers’ disengagement, a trait inherited from the pre-Communist and Communist past, as the managers have to demonstrate that they act honestly in order to gain the loyalty of their employees. In parallel to what Elisabeth Dunn (2004) has shown for the baby food plant privatized by a U.S. company in Poland, old and new patterns of employee loyalties and social networks are in conflict. The success of the new management strategies demands the ability to exploit the old pre-1989 interpersonal ties, or social capital, and transform them into new ones that work in conformity with the goals of the management.
[10] The power of the recent past to shape people’s identities is shown in the study of a transnational migration network maintained by eight female friends, all of them ethnic Hungarians from Southern Slovakia (“Eight Women Migrants and Their Shared Transnational World”). The authors, Eleonóra Hamar (who is one of the members of the network, a fact that adds an interesting self-reflexive spin to the analysis) and Csaba Szaló, reveal the persistence of certain shared elements out of which the actors construe their identities even as they change their geographical locations. Wherever the individuals move to, they take with them their original life-world of the members of Hungarian minority in late socialist or early post-socialist Southern Slovakia. Using Bourdieu’s notorious concept of the habitus, the authors study the ways in which the common point of departure of all the network members’ migration histories brings an element of commonness into their biographies that are becoming increasingly divergent in an open world of the globalization era and how this commonness is maintained and reflected upon in the network itself. History is important, but so is the discursive capacity to reproduce one‘s identity over time in which the historical experience is shaped.
[11] In the two following Western ethnographies of post-socialist Prague that focus on as diverse social settings as the gay prostitution scene and anti-corruption non-governmental organizations, the post-socialist past is certainly not absent, but it is rather the contrast between domestic/post-socialist and Western/capitalist world that takes up the centre of the stage. “Forms of Transactional Sex in Prague among Young Men Who Have Sex with Men (1999–2004)”, Timothy McCajor Hall’s unique ethnography of the gay commercial sex workers in Prague is significant as one of the first takes on a serious social and health problem that has not been dealt with adequately by the Czech authorities and has largely remained at the margin of the attention of Czech social scientists. It is no less inspiring theoretically as a thoroughly documented analysis of the ways in which East and West have come into contact and conflict in an area in which these contrasts are articulated with particular sharpness. The author brings into relief the colonial aspects of this encounter that the local actors and observers frequently tend to overlook.
[12] The sometimes disquieting nature of the Westernization of the post-socialist world is grasped with much plasticity in Raymond June’s ethnography (“Paradoxes of Professionalisation among Anti-Corruption Activists in the Czech Republic”) of what appears as one of several successfully westernized layers of post-socialist society – the professional activists employed by international anti-corruption NGOs such as Transparency International. The globalised Czech knowledge professionals, of which the anti-corruption activists are just one example, might attempt as much as they can to imitate to perfection the Western models of professional conduct and problem-solving, they will, nevertheless, be confronted with a deep internal conflict that is due to the fact that the scripts they are trying to act upon are Western, and that means, not Czech. The resulting insecurity linked to the performance of particular roles may conduct to an overemphasis on the form against the substance (e.g. formal dressing) or to the decision to abandon the sphere of work that is perceived as lying too close to the tectonic rift between what still continues to be the two worlds of the West and the East.
[13] The one article-long essay included in the social-anthropological issue of Sociologický časopis (“Reflected Worlds: Marginalisation and Integration from the Perspective of the Socio-psychological Dynamics of Society”) offers an ethnographically-founded take on the haunting social problem of the exclusion of the Romany people that exists in all the countries of the region. Drawing some limited generalizations from the data from his earlier fieldwork experience in the Romany settlements in Eastern Slovakia, the Czech anthropologist Jaroslav Skupnik goes all the way back to the humanist tradition in the social sciences (e.g. Berger 1963) to explain the persisting exclusion of the Romany population as the consequence of the difficulty to obtain adequate recognition for themselves in the outer world. This denial of basic social acceptance is at the root of the frequently observed phenomenon that Romany individuals, after some first successes in establishing their social existence in the mainstream society, prefer to return to what appears to external observers as the dismal world of the Romany ghettos.
[14] This brief recapitulation of the ethnographic articles published in the thematic issue shows that the level of their engagement with history varies. They also draw on different bodies of literature, a fact that becomes clear especially if the texts by the American and by local authors are contrasted (with local authors’ inspirations being clearly more divergent among themselves). At the same time, the densely woven narratives presented in all of these studies demonstrate quite convincingly the validity of an important claim that was made many times by the leading representatives of Western anthropology of post-socialism (see e.g. Burawoy, Verdery 1999; Hann 2002). It is the claim that the ethnographies of this kind can provide some of the vital missing pieces in the puzzle of a sufficiently rich understanding of post-socialist societies. Social anthropology offers knowledge that is complementary and not reducible to the insights provided by the sciences that for various reasons occupy higher positions in the intellectual pecking order of the “transition” research: economics, political science, sociology, legal studies etc. That kind of easy, conflict-free complementarity cannot be assumed, however, when it comes to the disciplines to which, for reasons both substantive and historical, social anthropology is very close. The sensitive relationship of social anthropology to these disciplines - national ethnography, Volkskunde, néprajz, etnologia or whatever the other names for it may be – is at the centre of a lively discussion between Chris Hann and a group of ten commentators that occupies the second half of the thematic issue of Sociologický časopis 4 (Note4: Soon after the debate appeared in Czech in Sociologický časopis, an integral English version was published as a working paper of Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology in Halle that is available on-line (Hann 2007c). The page references in the following text refer both to the Czech and English versions (pages of the English variant are given in square brackets).) .
[15] The traditional departments of (national) ethnography scattered across Central and Eastern Europe changed their names to ethnology soon after 1989, some even exhibit the fashionably-sounding addendum “and of social (or cultural) anthropology”. The disciplinary field of ethnography/ethnology/social and cultural anthropology seems to be smoothly advancing on the track of modernization and creative synthesis between domestic and Western influences. The warnings and complaints of those who are involved in this process, especially on the side of social anthropology, indicate, however, that the reality is less idyllic. If disciplinary integration fails, and there are not few voices telling us that it is failing, at least in some countries, then the alternative is separation accompanied by tough competition for resources and recognition. Against this backdrop, Chris Hann’s makes a plea to persist in the effort to achieve a synthesis, in spite of all drawbacks suffered by Western-style social anthropologists in the region.
[16] Chris Hann’s article “Anthropology’s Multiple Temporalities and its Future in Central and Eastern Europe“ is about one major methodological dilemma the social anthropology of post-socialism is presently facing and about one tactical decision that Hann suggests it should take. Both the dilemma and the decision are the source of deep controversy and so is Hann’s text controversial, too. The number and tenor of replies received from various prominent anthropologists of post-socialism from both East and West are the first and most convincing proof. The dilemma is whether the classical fieldwork method of social anthropology should be complemented with an equally meticulous historical analysis. The tactical decision concerns the academic politics in Central and Eastern Europe. Hann proposes that the emerging social anthropology should be, wherever possible, integrated within a single department with the often antagonistic field of traditional national ethnography/ethnology. It is obvious that the methodological dilemma and the tactical decision are interrelated, since the option for deepened historical sensitivity makes close cooperation with ethnography appear inevitable. But, some of Hann’s opponents will argue, apparently inevitable does not, after all, mean truly inevitable.
[17] Hann is certainly not downplaying the contribution of social anthropology to an adequate and full understanding of post-socialism. What the discipline has added to the bulk of knowledge about post-socialist societies is unique. Only anthropology is able to shed light “on invisible, tacit forms of knowledge, on beliefs and practices which can never be captured in the statistics of economics or even the most sensitive surveys of sociologists” (Hann 2007a: 19 [5]). Yet, while pouring praise on the contribution of fieldwork-based social anthropology to the knowledge of post-socialist world, Hann also makes it clear that anthropology can and should do even more: „good ethnography forms only one part of social anthropology … it is time that the anthropologists working in this region begin to take up temporalities other than the postsocialist present“ (Hann 2007a: 16 [2]). If they investigate only the present, the anthropologists are, in the end, not doing a much better job than talented investigative journalists (or one could add, they might be doing even a worse job, since journalists usually do not write lengthy and complicated studies). What can make the knowledge they produce more solid and valuable is, for Hann, an insertion of their research into a long-term historical perspective and a more acute awareness of the imperative to do justice to social change. “The flux of postsocialist societies is merely a heightened form of the continuous process of change to be found in all forms of society; from this perspective the study of postsocialism highlights the need for more sophisticated models and methods for studying social change everywhere” (Hann 2007a: 21 [6]). On the methodological level, this imperative requires the anthropologist to become familiar with the temporal dimension of the society he or she studies using life-history interviews, scrutinizing collective memories and, above all, paying frequent visits to local archives.
[18] The relative blindness of social anthropology of post-socialism to questions of temporality can be, according to Hann, explained with reference to some major transformations within social anthropology as a discipline over last 100 years. Historically-minded approaches were widespread and influential as long as the school that dominated the field was evolutionism, the doctrine that Hann chooses to epitomise with the venerable figure of its leading British representative James Frazer, the famous author of The Golden Bough. Yet, as the 20th century moved towards its second third, social anthropology turned away from the speculative historical fantasies of the evolutionist authors, embracing instead synchronic fieldwork methods whose superiority was powerfully advocated by Bronisław Malinowski. The synchronistic revolution relegated the interest in history to the backstage of the anthropological research program, although Hann emphasizes that history was making a comeback though the back door in the work of lateMalinowski and was not entirely absent from the texts of many of the leading figures of the British school of social anthropology. History has never completely disappeared from the anthropological agenda, but it was very often not given its due and this becomes a serious shortcoming of much of the research on post-socialism. An anthropologist engaged in fieldwork should not shun the archives and avoid the analysis of historical documents, but she or he should rather do the exact opposite: engage with history as seriously as possible.
[19] In post-socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the discipline that approaches the field of interest of social anthropology from a decidedly historical perspective, is national ethnography/ethnology. If social anthropologists, no matter whether from the East or the West, decide to ignore the bulk of knowledge accumulated by national ethnographers, a wealth of historical knowledge would get irretrievably lost for them at a double cost they should not be ready to pay: ignoring arrogantly the work of local ethnographers, they would both undermine the foundations of their own adequate understanding of what is going on in societies in which they conduct their research, and also commit the error of imposing an external body of knowledge on a social context that has produced a level of intellectual self-understanding that needs to be seriously taken into consideration. Hann is ready to concede that as a young “card-carrying” (Hann 2007a: 25 [9]) social anthropologist conducting research in Poland and Hungary of the 1970s and 1980s he was himself not entirely immune to the self-conceited attitude of some Western scholars vis-à-vis the domestic intellectual traditions. Now he believes this attitude to be plainly wrong and even if the growing popularity of social anthropology and the progressive institutionalization of the discipline in post-socialist countries is, in itself, a positive trend (although it can also be viewed as a part and parcel of the process of Westernization in which the dominant Western institutional and cultural patterns ruthlessly overwrite the weaker local traditions), the overzealous proponents of social anthropology should be warned not to be too quick to throw the local ethnographies over board.
[20] Even if he is well aware of the deep antagonisms between traditional ethnographers and social anthropologists that exist in the countries of the region, Hann makes his controversial plea for keeping the two intellectual traditions under one hat rather than allowing for a full-fledged secession of social anthropology from national ethnography, a development that seems to be what many of the social anthropologists in the region would like to see happen: “it is generally a mistake to attempt to create a separate discipline called social anthropology, as a rival and competitor to the established intellectual communities. A genuinely comparative and cosmopolitan anthropology department would be able to integrate colleagues working on contemporary transformations with those specialized in other periods of history, and the integration should be mutually beneficial” (Hann 2007a: 16-17 [2-3]). Even under communism the national ethnographers continued to cultivate the older tradition of conducting research with a longue durée range, and while many researchers in that period carefully avoided topics which could bring them into collision with the official ideology, there were also exceptional cases of those who studied the current social change. Hann names the Hungarian ethnographer and social anthropologist Mihály Sárkány, as a paradigmatic example of a “local” scholar who managed to combine in his work ethnographic and anthropological interests and methodologies with considerable success both before and after 1989.
[21] Hann calls for “cosmopolitan” departments of anthropology “with strong local roots”, in which “clusters” or “sub-groups” with an anthropological and ethnographical orientation would work side by side and mutually enrich their understanding of social realities they investigate. The West-inspired social anthropology, open to theorizing and broader, even global comparisons will fruitfully collaborate with domestic national ethnographers whose comparative advantage lies in a profound knowledge of the country’s history. This will be a decisive step towards “a vision of anthropology as a mature synthesis of Volkskunde and Völkerkunde” (Hann 2007a: 27 [11]). The “synergies” produced by such a disciplinary partnership would make, Hann concludes, the social anthropology-cum-national ethnography in Central and Eastern Europe a uniquely robust and rich social science superior with regard to historical knowledge of the anthropologist’s own society to the social anthropology as it is taught in present-day Britain.
[22] The responses to Chris Hann’sproposal of a synthesis between social anthropology and national ethnography/ethnology in post-socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe can be roughly divided into two distinct groups: 1. responses by Western authors who have been working in Central and Eastern Europe – their polemical attention concentrates on what they believe to be errors or misplaced accents in the theoretical underpinnings of Hann’s argument, and also, to some degree, on the details of Hann’s description of the current relationship between local social anthropologists and national ethnographers in the region; 2. responses by local authors – the thrust of their polemics is that either the kind of synthesis that Hann adumbrates has already been, in part at least, achieved, or that it is impossible to achieve. It should be noted that one of the concerned parties - the national ethnographers/ethnologists – are not represented in this debate. After no response was received from one or two Czech national ethnographers who were approached with the suggestion to write a reply to Hann’s text, the search for a participant from this field ended. It is, after all, not in Chris Hann’s opening article, but in some of the replies where the national ethnographers come under heavy attacks.
[23] Since the rules of courtesy require giving priority to the guests, I will start with the Western contributors to the debate. Katherine Verdery (City University of New York ) in her contribution recalls the useful distinction made by Halpern and Hammel (1969) between the empire-building setting, typical for Western countries that were at the same time colonial powers, in which social anthropology formed, and nation-building context, characteristic of the developments in Central and Eastern Europe where national ethnography, jointly with history and occasionally one or another social science, was harnessed into the service of emancipating a nation from foreign rule and constructing a nation state. While the colonialist project of Western (or “Franglus”, as Verdery prefers to call it) anthropology encourages comparison and theory building, the program of nation-state creation in Central and Eastern Europe leads to a focus on close description of the respective nation’s specific features that make it allegedly unique and well deserving political independence. Drawing attention to an earlier edited volume (Skalník 2002a) in which failed trajectories to successful institutional establishment of social anthropology in various countries of the region are documented, Verdery makes the point that the local field of knowledge is much more divided by the struggles for academic recognition and resources than Hann’s proposal to create a single department for social anthropology and national ethnography could tolerate. Recalling further her own experiences from countries she knows best, Romania and Hungary, Verdery goes on to observe that the institutionalization of a discipline at a particular place is strongly dependent on “a chance combination of local alliances, timing, personal talents, and risk-taking” (Verdery 2007: 206 [50]) and is thus much less an outcome of a coordinated effort relatively uninfluenced by vested academic interests of the kind Hann seems to have in mind. For Verdery, in short, there is not one social anthropology, but “multiple ‘anthropologies’ in Eastern Europe, all weakly institutionalized, and shaped differently in the different countries as a function of the departments from which the new programs are emerging and the disciplines of those attempting to create them (sociology, philology, philosophy, ethnography, history, etc.)” (Verdery 2007: 207 [50]). If in this turmoil Western anthropology is sometimes the winner of the competition for institutional recognition, it is rather a result of the power struggles between local academics than because of the intrigues of power-thirsty Westerners. As Verdery courteously reminds the Eastern European reader, there is not much to be gained for Western social scientists from the domination of the Eastern European intellectual market. The ongoing struggle is likely to produce further contingent results that will represent different particular constellations of Western and Eastern influences. Such results will make an interesting object of study, but provide little certainty that Hann’s scenario will materialize.
[24] Hann’s complaint about the alleged lack of historical sensitivity in contemporary anthropology is the main target of Don Kalb’s (Central European University Budapest) polemic contribution. Kalb points towards a long tradition in anthropological writing that is marked by a deep engagement with history – as exemplified in the work ofEric Wolf and Marshall Sahlins, the Dutch anthropologist Anton Blokor in the interdisciplinary approaches en vogue since late 1970s that combined anthropology and different national historical schools such as Italian microhistory, British new social history or German everyday life history. To Hann’s proposal to build an alliance between social anthropology and national ethnography, Kalb retorts that national ethnography or folklore is not able to redress the basic shortcomings that Hann identifies in the anthropology of post-socialism and might even aggravate its anti-historical, idealistic bent: “folklore is not notoriously strong or interested in the social analysis of power, practice, and process, and tends to isolate its subjects in ‘cultural quarantine’ as old style snap-shot anthropology used to do” (Kalb 2007: 168 [24]). In a critical move directed both against Hann’s article in Sociologický časopis and his edited volume on post-socialist agrarian question (Hann et al. 2003), Kalb undertakes to show how fundamental concepts used by E.P. Thompson in his path-breaking studies of the working class in England – moral economy and customs in common – that Chris Hann takes up in his texts on post-socialist peasants, help to burst precisely that type of teleological vision of history that seems to lie behind much of the research on post-socialist transition, including possibly some of Hann’s own work. Unlike these Thompsonian concepts, folklore is unable to undermine unilinear teleological evolutionism on its own.
[25] Furthermore, Kalb argues, the alliance of social anthropologists with the traditional folklore studies in Central and Eastern Europe puts at risk their ability, increasingly important in the era of advanced neo-liberal globalization, to see local histories and case studies as chapters of wider global narratives. Kalb concludes that rather than forcing upon itself an alliance with ethnography, social anthropology should be trying to live up to the expectation to be “a peculiarly cosmopolitan human science” (Kalb 2007: 173 [28]), and if it is doing so successfully, then it does not have to fear ad hoc partnerships with the most appropriate social science at a given institution, such as sociology, cultural or media studies, depending on the local conditions. The particular challenge for post-socialist anthropologists is to overcome their localism and single-minded concentration on what they mistakenly believe is a unique post-socialist situation in favor of more cosmopolitan perspectives and shake off their fascination with the West. According to Kalb, it will also be a signal that social sciences in former Eastern bloc are moving beyond the colonial stage of their development.
[26] Several original points are made in the comments from Hann’s British compatriot Michael Stewart (University College London), who is familiar with the academic realities in Central and Eastern Europe through his research of Hungarian Romanies and lecturing at universities in Hungary and Romania. In what is only in appearance a digression from the main topic of the debate, Stewart insists on the importance of the interdisciplinary collaboration for anthropology in general and, in particular, on the necessity to pursue the path of close partnership with biological sciences, of which a good example is provided in the research on altruism in evolutionary anthropology inspired by the work of Robert Boyd and P.J. Richerson. The point Stewart seems to be driving home is that a rapprochement with history might not be at present the only and the most important interdisciplinary alliance anthropology should embrace.
[27] Turning to the theme of the need for enhanced historical sensitivity in anthropology, Stewart notes that the influence one can recognize in the intellectual background of Hann’s proposal to create a combination of social anthropology and national ethnography is that of the British anthropologist Jack Goody, who in his works links in an exemplary way deep knowledge of the local with comparative study of longue durée processes. Yet, although Stewart is convinced that the disciplinary synthesis recommended by Hann makes good theoretical sense, he disagrees that it is practically feasible. “In almost all actually existing universities in eastern Europe the competition for resources, students and limited research funding is simply too intense to expect a spirit of altruistic cooperation to break out!” (Stewart 2007: 193 [40]). After citing first the Romanian anthropologist Vintila Mihailescu as a rather unique example of an academic who is able to bridge the distance between the two research traditions, Stewart then explains why he believes that the divisions between ethnographers and anthropologists in Central and Eastern European countries are too deep and pervasive to disappear any time soon. He also insists that it is not the business of Western scholars to take positions regarding who are the most suitable academics to lead the future development of anthropological disciplines in post-socialist countries: “the job of outsiders, it seems to me, is not to take programmatic and absolute stances but to back ‘winners’ as and when they emerge and to collaborate with whomsoever is doing interesting and innovative research – without prejudice as to where their intellectual home is” (Stewart 2007: 194 [41]).
[28] In the first of the two discussion pieces written by scholars who are based in South-Eastern European post-socialist countries, the ethnologist Milena Benovska (New Bulgarian University, Sofia) reflects on the specific resonances of Hann’s project of a synthesis between anthropology and ethnography in the Bulgarian context. She notes that the type of combined methodological approach recommended by Hann (fieldwork, biographical investigation of memories of socialism, and archival research) has been used in Bulgaria since early 1990s when the study of the socialist past by ethnographers as well as other social scientists got off the ground. In part is this development attributable to the influence of the Austrian school of historical anthropology, represented by such authors as Michael Mitterauer, Karl Kaser or Gert Dressel, but another part of its dynamic is inherent to the research field itself, in which autobiographical narratives are corrected by and played out against official archival documents and further historical material, such as private archives or citizens’ complaints. The use of such combination of sources makes it possible to arrive at the historical study of everyday life as experienced by “ordinary people”.
[29] Turning to the current situation in Bulgaria, Benovska points out that the study of exotic cultures was never, unlike in the Visegrád countries and most notably in Russia, an integral part of domestic ethnographic tradition. Anthropology and national ethnography coexist side by side in the Bulgarian academia, not entirely without tensions, but with no choice to go each their own way. Since resources are limited and most scholars were trained in the old ethnographic tradition, the shift towards a more cosmopolitan approach is slow. An important factor favouring the possible future ascent of social anthropology are the students who are more interested in the Western-style anthropology than in traditional ethnography and the graduates of Western academic programs who are entering the academic sphere. For the time being, social anthropology and national ethnography in Bulgaria are likely to continue to be trapped in a marriage of necessity, a situation that does not have to be too bad, if they are able to avoid “the self-exotisation and the aesthetisation of one’s own culture“ (Benovska 2007: 153 [14]).
[30] Aleksandar Bošković’s (Institute of Social Sciences, Belgrade) appraisal of the conditions obtaining in the field of ethnography and ethnology in former Yugoslavia provides a qualified support to Hann’s main thesis. Bošković observes that the arrogant refusal of Western authors to read the works of local scholars can, when linked to their inability to speak local languages, lead to the rejection of their research by domestic academic community which might even adopt the deeply problematic view that “it takes one to know one” (see Bošković 2005, Van der Port 1999). Since, according to Bošković, ethnology in Central and Eastern Europe is characterised by a remarkable absence of any comparative ambition, it is difficult to maintain that ethnology (ethnography) and social anthropology are two branches of the same discipline. For this reason, he rejects the idea of the “blurring of the genres” (Bošković 2007: 157 [16]), while at the same time agreeing that complementarity between the two disciplines is possible and beneficial for both. To illustrate his point that the fruitful collaboration between historically oriented ethnographical research and comparative social anthropology was a possibility inherent to the development of ethnological disciplines in Yugoslavia, the author sketches out the paths taken by ethnology in Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia. Yet, his conclusion regarding Hann’s proposal for an interdisciplinary synthesis is rather cautious: “my experience of research and (more recently) work does not provide many grounds for optimism. When it comes to the countries which formed Yugoslavia, competition for resources, uncertainties about the countries’ future developments, the uncertainties of upcoming younger scholars (as the already established ones will not give up their academic positions), and internal infighting all go to make for interesting observation” (Bošković 2007: 158-9 [18]).
[31] The reply submitted by Michał Buchowski (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań) avoids carefully the topic of “hierarchies of knowledge” of Eastern and Western anthropology, the subject of an older polemical exchange in the Anthropology of East Europe Review between the author and Chris Hann (see Buchowski 2004, 2005; Hann 2005). Like, for instance, Don Kalb, Buchowski reminds Hann that the engagement with history in the recent social anthropology literature was much deeper than Hann’s exposé might suggest. Buchowski makes reference especially to the work of Marshall Sahlins. While he fully endorses Hann’s call for a “history-sensitive anthropology” of post-socialism, disagreement emerges where Hann seems to be assuming a teleological conception of post-socialist transition. A major argument developed by Buchowski makes the claim that while the British social anthropology might have been, at some points at least, as Hann suggests, largely ahistorical, this was never the case of Central European ethnology. Buchowski states that the history of Polish ethnology, both before and after WW II, demonstrates this with sufficient clarity, using as examples Stefan Czarnowski’s approach to history and Kazimierz Dobrowolski’s concept of an historical setting (“podłoże historyczne”). One of the consequences of this sharp historical awareness common among Polish ethnologists was that the reception of the synchronicist Malinowski in Poland was less enthusiastic than it could be otherwise expected. Buchowski further exposes as a myth shared by some Western scholars the belief that all ethnologists in Central and Eastern Europe were national ethnographers. In Poland, works by leading Western social anthropologists were published during the socialist period and many Polish ethnologists conducted research in non-European societies. In contrast to another myth common among Western authors, Polish ethnologists did not concentrate exclusively on the peasant communities, but urban and industrial settings were studied as well. Buchowski concludes that the synergy between social anthropologists and ethnographers for which Hann is calling has been since long a reality in Poland and some other Central and Eastern European countries where both specializations have coexisted for many decades within single departments.
[32] Juraj Podoba (Institute of Ethnology, Slovak Academy of Sciences in Bratislava) is much more skeptical than Buchowski regarding the possible emergence of a unified ethnographic-anthropological discipline. Recalling his culture shock and consternation when he first came in contact with Western-style social anthropology, Podoba describes the contrast between anthropology and ethnography – in institutional, but above all in the substantive respect – as in principle insurmountable. He observes a fundamental “confrontation between the archaic, pre-scientific, descriptive field of ethnography, with no theory or methodology of its own … , and a modern, theoretically and methodologically elaborated social science that endeavours to reflect on a broad and diverse array of fundamental issues in the sphere of social and cultural development, and to do so in literally a global comparative context” (Podoba 2007: 176 [29]). At the same time, many Western anthropologists commit the error of ignoring entirely the work done by Eastern European ethnographers and they show little or no interest in the development of these societies.
[33] Podobaadmits that after 1989 he expected that ethnography in Central and Eastern Europe would shift in the direction of Western social anthropology, but this transformation did not take place and the gulf still exists. The differences between the two disciplines run deeper and the chances for their synthesis are thus much smaller than Chris Hann assumes. Apparently in line with Hann’s argument, Podoba makes the observation that the historical perspective and study of the longue durée processes are a standard approach in the Central and Eastern European ethnography/ethnology and are necessary for a deeper understanding of post-socialist societies, but arrives at the opposite conclusion: even if history is important, this is no reason for not allowing social anthropology to be established as an independent discipline. There are some heavy-weighing reasons for such an independent institutionalization: the old-style ethnographers mostly resist all attempts at modernizing their discipline and the field of ethnology (i.e. re-named ethnography) is embroiled in an insolvable methodological chaos, a sad state of affairs that makes it desirable to train new generations of students in social anthropology with its “unambiguously, clearly and comprehensibly defined methodical and methodological framework” (Podoba 2007: 180 [32]). Chris Hann’s proposal to create unified departments of anthropology-cum-ethnography is according to Podoba ideologically motivated and utopian, since it ignores the realities of power and academic politics in Central and Eastern European countries.
[34] The three remaining contributors to the debate whose positions will be shortly summarized below are all Czech. Even if this was not originally intended, each of them represents one possible scenario of the academic career in social sciences under the communist regime in Czechoslovakia. One of them is an exiled scholar who lives permanently in the West (David Z. Scheffel), the second anthropologist returned to his home country in 1989 after more than a decade in exile (Petr Skalník) and the third scholar worked in the domestic academia both before and after 1989 (Zdeněk Uherek). The exiled authors seem to have a more critical view of the Czech situation.
[35] David Z. Scheffel declares himself sympathetic with Hann’s emphasis on the necessity of fieldwork and historical analysis, but warns that the proposed synthesis between social anthropology and ethnography is very difficult to achieve in practice. Drawing on his earlier work on the history of Czech ethnography (e.g. Scheffel, Kandert 1994), he argues that the opposition between a nativist ethnography and a more cosmopolitan and comparative ethnological science is not new at all, but goes back to the late 19th century. Since the relationship between the two currents has been ever since characterized by parallelisms rather than synergies, there are few reasons for optimism. This situation is reproduced in the present, when most representatives of Czech ethnography show little willingness to go beyond the traditional local studies and reject as illegitimate the attempts of outsiders to study “our” culture and customs.
[36] While this state of affairs is serious enough, the most pressing problem of post-socialist social sciences, according to Scheffel, is the absence of generally acknowledged rules of academic conduct. To illustrate this point, he refers to a case of alleged plagiarism of which he was himself a victim. Scheffel’s frustration was deep but it aggravated further after learning that such practices are considered as something normal: “several Czech colleagues consulted on the issue of scholarly rules and regulations confirmed that local tolerance of practices akin to plagiarism is considerably higher than what I am accustomed to in Canada” (Scheffel 2007: 185 [35]). Scheffel concludes that the contribution of Czech national ethnographers to international social sciences in general has been fairly limited, although it should certainly not be dismissed in its entirety. To make it potentially more significant, local scholars have first to undertake all the necessary efforts to improve the standards of their scientific work and enforce the rules of the discipline.
[37] The commentary received from Petr Skalník(University of Pardubice) is characterized by the same high level of skepticism with respect to ethnography that is typical of the author’s earlier writings on the topic (e.g. Skalník 2002a, b). As for the domestic ethnography or ethnology under state socialism, these were for Skalník “disciplines characterised during most of the studied period by isolation, ignorance about world trends in social anthropology, cultural anthropology and ethnology as they were practiced especially in major capitalist countries … Frankly speaking social anthropology (and for that matter cultural anthropology and ethnology) did not miss anything substantial by knowing nearly nothing about ‘socialist era anthropology’” (Skalník 2007: 187 [36]). In the post-1989 period, the chances to establish social anthropology as an academic discipline in its own right vanished quickly, since what Skalník calls the “národopis establishment“ – the old ethnographers – thwarted its development and institutionalization. Branding Hann’s proposal as absurd and utopian, Skalníkclaims that the called-for synthesis of anthropology and ethnography is „as undesirable as the return from chemistry to alchemy“ (Skalník 2007: 189 [37]).
[38] Skalník also raises the issue of East-West power gap noting that since the relationship between Western and Eastern social anthropologists continues to be characterized by persisting asymmetries, in social anthropology „two-speed Europe“ already exists. He hails as a positive development some recent initiatives within the European Association of Social Anthropologists (EASA) aimed at making the access of Eastern researchers to resources and academic recognition more equitable. In summary, Skalník considers the suggestion that anthropology and ethnography should be merged into single academic departments to be utterly unrealistic, as it overlooks what he considers an adversarial attitude and inherent conservatism of the old-style Eastern European ethnographers.
[39] A ground for disagreement with Chris Hann different from all those presented thus far is discussed by Zdeněk Uherek (Institute of Ethnology, Czech Academy of Science, Prague) in his assessment of the prospects for the unification of ethnography and social anthropology in the Czech Republic. In a more general introduction dealing with the usefulness of the concept of post-socialism, Uherek claims that the state socialist period might seem very different and exotic to the Western observers, but from the Easterners’ point of view the cultural discontinuity with the post-socialist present is not so great. For this reason, he considers the persisting popularity of the concept of post-socialism 17 years after the fall of state socialist regimes to be a signal of limited originality of domestic social scientists: “in many respects the communist period was not so culturally distinct that all subsequent epochs should be regarded as a process of transforming from socialist culture, making up for and overcoming it, or that any distinctive, characteristic features of that epoch should be sought. The continuous references to overcoming communism are more likely indicative of the low level of creativity among authors in Eastern Europe today, who are incapable of detecting contemporary meanings in current events” (Uherek 2007: 197 [43]).
[40] While it is certainly a good idea to study socialism following the recommendations made by Chris Hann, such as the use of autobiographical interviews, since direct data sources are missing or are mostly unreliable, Uherek asserts that there are not so many ethnographers of the kind demanded by Hann left in the Czech academia, and those few that could still be found live at the margins of the academic community, in regional museums and archives. This is partly a consequence of the fact that the pre-1948 Czech ethnographers had mostly anti-communist attitudes and were, as such, liquidated by the new regime soon after it came to power. The ethnographic tradition survived, but due to the isolation from international developments and ideological control, it degenerated into a descriptive discipline concentrating on minor topics and avoiding theoretical framing altogether, with the exception perhaps of elements of evolutionism, outdated at that time as it was in the West. Paradoxically, the political change in 1989 provoked another change that went again in the opposite direction to the current Western trends: while Czech authors were abandoning historical methods and embracing different varieties of synchronism, the Western anthropology was making its way towards a much deeper engagement with history. The first post-1989 generation of Czech social anthropologists is described by Uherek as strongly relativist and interpretativist, as well as fiercely and unjustly critical of the older ethnographers, while the own work of the members of this generation suffers from the neglect of thorough description and the arbitrariness resulting from it. The next generation, in turn, that was much more exposed to contacts with the Western trends, has found its way back to the historical perspective.
[41] Uherek views the traditions of Western colonial anthropology and East European national ethnography as clearly distinct in their original motivations and pursuing incompatible agendas, yet he also believes that they entered converging paths ever since anthropology at home started to be practiced and ethnography moved beyond its original research field of the folk culture. While there will soon be no Czech ethnographers in the traditional sense left, the new authors doing anthropology at home will use methods very much resembling those of the by then extinct ethnographers.
[42] Chris Hann takes the floor again at the end of the debate in a piece with eloquent subtitle: “Not a bland hybrid, but a spicy consortium” (Hann 2007b) to express agreement or disagreement with the various points made by the commentators. Lavishing praise on some insights while adopting a more cautious stance towards others, he does not back out on any of his views presented in the introductory article. In this conclusion he summarizes them once again in a re-statement which is trying to avoid possible misunderstandings. One point that he seems particularly determined to insist on opposes the view, expressed by all three Western commentators (Verdery, Kalb, Stewart), that social anthropology in Central and Eastern Europe should be left alone to enter alliances with whichever discipline it finds most suitable for a partnership in a particular location. If this is what will, in fact, be happening - Hann argues - then the methodological and theoretical core of social anthropology and its disciplinary identity will soon be seriously endangered. The more secure alternative, which he in contrast to several of the participants in the debate upholds as completely realistic, is his already familiar vision of a unified academic department of social anthropology in which ethnographers or ethnologists specializing in the history of the country are represented. He finds a number of reasons favouring this vision – substantive, practical, and also ethical: “It is ethically preferable to respect the accomplishments of existing communities of scholars and seek to build upon them, rather than to sweep them aside through the imposition of a new Western hegemony” (Hann 2007b: 219 [59]).
[43] In the way of a conclusion to the summary of a thought-provoking debate about the complicated present and the desirable future of an important social science in post-socialist Central and Eastern Europe, I am offering two remarks regarding the broader context in which social sciences in the region are situated.
[44] 1. Social anthropology in Central and Eastern Europe, no less and probably also no more than other social sciences, still faces a very different situation from the one encountered by the same disciplines in the West. The deplorable state of the infrastructure for social sciences, short supply of highly qualified scholars in all age cohorts, low levels of social recognition and financial remuneration for social science jobs, both in teaching and in research, and a lack of generous funding opportunities for truly innovative research make the evolution towards a standard Western model in any of the social sciences much more difficult than the Western observers might realize. The rather somber material situation at the vast majority of academic institutions in the region also explains much of the ruthless institutional in-fighting and deeply entrenched interdisciplinary animosities that were mentioned so often by both local and Western participants in the debate. In some countries, the plight of social sciences might be further ag gravated by the meddling of the political sphere into academic affairs. Since it is unrealistic to expect a rapid improvement of conditions in which social scientists in Central and Eastern Europe work, it will probably take one or two decades more before the vision of a balanced East-West relationship which some commentators envision in their texts becomes at least a possibility.
[45] 2. The issues raised in the course of the anthropological debate can be applied with some modifications and caveats also to other social sciences, such as sociology or political science. The following observations pertain to the Czech case; the situation in other countries might be different. The institutionalisation of Czech sociology is significantly more advanced than it is the case for social anthropology (as shown e.g. by the fact that a Czech sociological journal has published a special issue dedicated to social anthropology and not the other way round). Yet, after 1989 even within this discipline there was some sort of a clash between a communist-era empirical sociology that programmatically avoided theoretical ambitions and had a predilection for narrowly defined domestic topics, on the one hand, and the various styles of sociology inspired by the dominant Western currents, on the other. If the outcome of this conflict seems to be the exact opposite of what is happening in anthropology, it is probably because social anthropology is confronting a fully established traditional discipline (ethnography/ethnology), while the sociological conflict did not cross the disciplinary limits. In this respect, social anthropology is perhaps situated closer to political science that was also an institutional new-comer after 1989. After its establishment as an academic discipline, political science found itself almost immediately in complex relationships of partnership and competition with not just one, but several neighbouring disciplines (modern history, sociology, economics, philosophy, legal theory): a state of affairs that was conducive to several so-far mostly latent tensions, such as: the proponents of political science as a social science confront the opposition of more traditional scholars with backgrounds either in history or philosophy. The relative strength of the traditional wing explains why political scientists have not made a serious effort to enter the fields of quantitative survey analysis or mathematical modelling of political processes, a move that would lead, in all likelihood, to a confrontation with sociologists and economists. If they ever attempt to redraw the boundary lines between disciplines according to any of the existing versions of the Western model, conflict will become inevitable. Social anthropologists will perhaps feel consoled when they learn that their discipline is not the only one to be afflicted with serious inter- and intradisciplinary struggles.
Prague, January 2008
