Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

This paper locates the notion of “peripheral anthropologies” as a historically embedded concept and critically analyzes the interactions between Swiss and Turkish anthropologies in the 1930s as more than a peripheral endeavor.

Paper long abstract:

The notion of “peripheral” anthropologies assumes a central locality in assessing the state of art in anthropological theory and praxis that sprung out from West European-based hegemonic thinking. The critical revisits by various scholars that questioned the de-limitability of the concepts of center and periphery–as significant anthropological categories—mostly remained as remedial effects to challenge the power relations inherent in and beyond these categories, rather than radically transforming them. Certainly, there might be several other strategies to challenge these shortcomings. In my paper, I offer a critical discussion on the notion of “peripheral anthropologies” based on the term's historically embedded character. To support the perspective I am arguing from, I present several interactions between Swiss and Turkish anthropologies in the 1930s as more than a peripheral anthropological endeavor. As I call attention to the historicity of anthropological knowledge, I locate the notion of “periphery” as a shifting anthropological category. To prove my points, I look at the convergences and interrelations in the anthropological scene between Switzerland and Turkey in the 1930s and scrutinize the theoretical and cultural-political developments in these “peripheral” anthropological traditions which bloomed in these decades but were not tackled due to the short-sightedness of the dominant anthropological narratives. In de-centering this narrative, the dynamic interactions between and beyond Swiss and Turkish anthropological scenes can offer critical insights. As I evaluate the historical underpinnings of these anthropological traditions—rooted in epistemic groundings and cultural-political consequences— I ignite new interpretations on the notions of world, periphery, and center.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

The paper focuses on anthropologist Lloyd A. Fallers’ ethnographic fieldwork and philosophical thoughts on lived religion in Turkey and the U.S. in the 1960s.

Paper long abstract:

In the history of world anthropology, ethnographic studies on religions have always been one of the most fertile grounds in provincializing Western theories. Compared to political systems or kinship schemes, the seemingly absolute otherness among religions has either rendered the building of a general theory impossible or, at least, highlighted the biases of the center more explicitly. In principle (but not always in practice), anthropology of religion has been tolerant to other ways of knowing and to theoretical contributions from the so-called periphery since neither secularism nor Christianity could be easily promoted as universal targets like parliamentary democracy or modernity. In this paper, I will talk about anthropologist Lloyd A. Fallers’ work and thoughts on religion in the 1960s. I focus on his comparisons of lived religion in Turkey and the U.S. when both countries were going through a period of religious revivalism. Like many of his contemporaries, Fallers was fascinated by ‘Turkish Islam’, but his comparative view and field experience allowed him to criticize the traditional Orientalist accounts of the revival. Moreover, he used his articulations on Turkey, reached through his conversations with theological scholars like Hüseyin Atay, to question the liberal Protestant response to conservativism in his home country. In the end, evoking the literature of the 2000s, he called for a collaboration between anthropology and theology centered around the theme of ‘othering’.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

Analyzing interactions between space and society is important to understand power relations. Expressions via landscape and use of landscape can be analyzed through politics of (in)visibilites. This study explores minority strategies on the use of landscapes in peripheral minority towns in Bulgaria.

Paper long abstract:

As Lefevbre (1991) argues, the social (re-)production of urban space is critical to the reproduction of subordination-domination relationships, mostly in favor of the ruling class. Thus, analyzing interactions between space and society is important to understand power relations. Both dominant and subordinate groups use various and multiple symbols to mark their domination, existence, and/or memory claims. Dominant groups usually have a comparative advantage on the usage of “physical icons” to make their identities and claims more visible through landscapes. However, minorities or non-dominant groups may still produce “counter meanings” in and around landscapes (DeCerteau 1998). Minorities are building landscapes to affirm their own identities but doing so without openly challenging the majority. In other words, these minorities express their cultural identity as well as their local socio-political power without provoking a response from the majority. Expressions via landscape and use of landscape require different strategies which can be explained through politics of (in)visibilites. This study focuses on exploring minority strategies on the use of landscapes in peripheral and minority towns in Bulgaria. I investigate why, how, under what conditions and contexts people avoid conflicts in situations that the literature would lead one to expect conflict to occur in the three peripheral minority towns in Bulgaria, namely in Kardzhali, Razgrad, and Smolyan regions.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

Decades after the Trouillot’s appeal to transcend the “savage slot”, Western anthropology is still locked in its socio-political exclusiveness. From the perspective of Slovene ethnology-cum-anthropology, I will discuss sufficient and necessary conditions to build a new, non-colonial anthropology.

Paper long abstract:

The problem with anthropology is methodological, topical and epistemological. Methodologically speaking, the predominant methodological technique, participant observation, is still its standard, although the majority of ethnographic work is actually done as rapid assessment. Continental ethnographic traditions with permanent going to the field and leaving the field to the cabinet work, is generally not considered as proper “fieldwork”. Autoethnography, the most appropriate approach for the indigenous scholars, is very often not considered as ethnography itself.

Topically, the discipline, interested in understanding the phenomenon of the whole humanity, should never be confined only for the Other.

And epistemologically speaking, knowledge of humanity may not, and should never be detached from humanity, which means, epistemological is at the same time ethical and thus political.

The main argument of the presentation will be the radical use of any available methodology, topic and epistemology to resist embedded colonial designs of Western anthropology as exploitative Western scholarship.