IW03
Liminal Europe

Convenors:
Ines Prica (Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research)
Tomislav Pletenac (Faculty of Philosophy)
Bojan Zikic
Format:
Invited workshops
Location:
DID and 0.2A
Start time:
28 August, 2008 at 11:00
Session slots:
5

Short abstract:

The concept of Europe is well comprehensible through the doubtful status of "liminal" scientific traditions in the main-stream anthropology. We consider the misunderstandings and malpractices from "both sides of liminality" and from without the gloomy perspectives of the new hierarchy of knowledge.

Long abstract:

The aim of the workshop is to examine the status of "liminal" Europe in recent anthropological theory. The notion, whether tacitly or overtly, acutely or chronically referring to the limits of European identity, has been working in accord with the general theoretical enhancement, but also in favor of the unified disciplinary discourse, restrictive towards the contributions of the different types of reflections and intellectual continuities. The new priorities of the post-1989 world have made the unilateral character of main-stream anthropology palpable, as it has been faced with the multiple ethnological practices on its post-socialist terrain, unfamiliar and outlandish whereas implanted in beaten and deserted intellectual and professional traditions. Together with the alarmed plea for the integrative, and admistratively tamable anthropology, it has created a professional atmosphere of post-colonial odor, with the liminal practices never enough attuned to the core, which is announcing the lack of anthropological imagination within itself. Here, we will consider the problem in a most open manner, display the misunderstandings and malpractices from "both sides of liminality" and from without the gloomy perspectives of the new hierarchy of knowledge. How can we differentiate the experiental and purely practical aspects of the mutual (mis)apprehension, from its epistemological, intellectual and academic background? At what point are the differences harmlessly dismissive and under which conditions, however, the semi-autonomous, auto-reflexive and localized practices work more productively for the cognitive and ethical value of European anthropology?