Log in to star items.
- Convenors:
-
Marko Pišev
(University of Belgrade Faculty of Philosophy)
Katja Geisenhainer (Frobenius Institute Frankfurt)
Udo Mischek (Gerog-August-Universität Göttingen)
Send message to Convenors
- Discussant:
-
Han F. Vermeulen
(Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology)
- Formats:
- Panel
- Networks:
- Network Panel
Short Abstract
Ethnography, ethnology, and anthropology have taken on varied meanings shaped by historical, national, and academic contexts across Europe. We invite reflections on how these differences influence research priorities, meanings, and socio-cultural goals in diverse disciplinary settings.
Long Abstract
The definitions, boundaries, and roles of ethnology, ethnography, and anthropology carry multiple, sometimes conflicting meanings across various European scientific traditions. Arising from distinct historical, national, and political contexts and academic genealogies, and further shaped by the legacies of colonialism, nationalism, and their entanglements with the natural sciences and philosophy, these divergences have contributed to differing conceptualizations of the “scientific study of humankind” and “human cultures” across countries and intellectual settings. The varying interrelationships between these disparate but often complementary fields of inquiry reflect not only contrasting perspectives on their core purposes but also differing ideas about their socio-cultural roles and theoretical meanings. Today, these differences, most often rooted in political and historical processes, continue to resonate within academic institutions and research practices across Europe and beyond.
We invite colleagues to reflect with and beyond polarization on the diverse and often contested meanings of ethnography, ethnology, and anthropology within their own or other disciplinary traditions and historical contexts. Contributions may explore how these fields have been shaped by specific historical events, (trans)national contexts and networks, linguistic barriers and porosities, or the intellectual trajectories of individual scholars. We especially welcome reflections on how disciplinary boundaries and methodologies have shifted over time, and how debates on research topics, thematic focuses, methods, language and epistemic contexts of knowledge production have been reflected in these shifts. Such debates also surface in the names of the disciplines themselves, which are often shaped, and sometimes polarized, by academic and institutional structuring. Such reflections may contribute to reconsidering the place and purpose of ethnography, ethnology, and anthropology in today’s academic landscape, especially amid ongoing political, institutional, and epistemological challenges.
Accepted papers
Session 1Paper short abstract
This paper argues that the concepts of anthropology and ethnology are different in the Baltic Sea Region, where they are both polarised and interconnected with those in Europe. The research explores the polarising forces and shifting disciplinary boundaries in the Baltic region from 1885 to 1941.
Paper long abstract
The paper argues that the concepts of anthropology and ethnology differ in the Baltic Sea Region, where they are polarised and interconnected with those in Europe. Historically, Lithuanian anthropological research was linked to physical anthropology, with studies of Lithuanian history, kinship, and national origin. Medical and physical anthropology were linked to the regional history of all peoples and ethnic groups, as in Völkerkunde. This concept is connected to the tradition of general ethnology at the University of Göttingen. The ethnographic fellowship programme invited intelligentsia and motivated compatriots to develop science. In the Baltics, studies of ethnology and ethnography stood out in their search for definitions of ethnicity in language, culture, and folklore – that is, the knowledge of nations. My aim is to explore the polarising historical and political forces of anthropology and ethnology, as well as the shifting disciplinary boundaries in the Baltic region, from 1885 to 1941.
The analytical, comparative, methodological discussion will focus on the following questions: How did the concepts of anthropology and ethnology differ in the Baltics? What identifies the adopted linguistic approach in Europe since the late nineteenth century? What was the moral and political role of early ethnographers, anthropologists and ethnologists in their struggle against the persistence of racism and colonialism, and what were the effects of oppression on the people they studied in a polarised world?
Paper short abstract
At the beginning of the 1990s, traditional Estonian ethnography, which had contributed to nation-building and the strengthening of Estonian identity, was changed into a Western-style ethnology (close to anthropology), which takes a critical view of nationalism and contributes to its deconstruction.
Paper long abstract
A discipline studying peoples and their culture started in Estonia in the 19th century. At that time, Estonia was part of the Russian Empire, and local ethnography developed along Russian (but also German and Finnish) lines. From the outset, the most common name for the discipline in Estonia was "etnograafia". This remained the case in the 1920s and 1930s, when Estonia was an independent country, and also after World War II, when Estonia was part of the Soviet Union. (In Russia, it was also called "etnografiya" until the end of the Soviet period.) In the early 1990s, when Estonia regained its independence, "etnograafia" was renamed "etnoloogia". The reason for this was a desire to distance itself from the Soviet legacy, to join the West, and make itself understandable in the English-speaking world. The central object of study in earlier ethnography had been peoples and their culture (Estonians first of all, but also other Finno-Ugrians). Now, this focus began to disappear, and ethnology moved closer to cultural and social anthropology, which were also imported to Estonia. The range of topics studied expanded dramatically, but at the same time, the disciplinary identity of ethnology began to fade. The relationship between the discipline and nationalism also changed. Whereas previously, including most of the Soviet period, ethnography had contributed to the nation-building and the strengthening of Estonian identity, the new ethnology became more of a critic and de-constructor of nationalism.
Paper short abstract
This paper examines how, in the decades following 1990, ethnology, and anthropology have been rearticulated through institutional reforms, curriculum development, funding regimes, and shifting epistemic hierarchies.
Paper long abstract
Since the 1990-ies, the meanings, boundaries, and institutional locations of ethnology, and anthropology in the Romanian academic milieu have been profoundly reshaped by post-socialist transformation and by increasing engagement with transnational scholarly networks. The post 1990 period enabled the circulation of theories, methodologies, and ethical debates that had previously been marginal or inaccessible, particularly those associated with Western social and cultural anthropology. Rather than producing a linear disciplinary “transition,” these processes have generated layered and sometimes uneasy reconfigurations of existing traditions.
This paper examines how, in the decades following 1990, ethnology, and anthropology have been rearticulated through institutional reforms, curriculum development, funding regimes, and shifting epistemic hierarchies.
Drawing on institutional histories, disciplinary debates, and the trajectories of individual scholars, the paper explores how these distinctions have produced both productive encounters and new forms of polarization-particularly around questions of legitimacy, methodological authority, and the politics of knowledge production. Attention is given to how language choice, publication practices, and transnational mobility have become central to post-1990 disciplinary identity-making.
By situating the Romanian case within broader European and post-socialist contexts, the paper argues for moving beyond dichotomous framings. Instead, it proposes an understanding of ethnology and anthropology as historically entangled and potentially complementary practices, whose future relevance depends on sustained dialogue rather than disciplinary boundary-making.
Paper short abstract
In my paper, I will highlight the fuzzy disciplinary framework of Hungarian ethnology, focusing on its contentious relationship with mainstream anthropology/ethnology, especially in the last decades, following the collapse of the Soviet bloc.
Paper long abstract
Research on the history of Central and Eastern European anthropology/ethnology increasingly uncovers the diverse landscape of our discipline. I intend to contribute to historiographic narratives on this mosaic-patterned scientific landscape, focusing on the development of Hungarian ethnology. I argue that Hungarian ethnologists have frequently encountered the challenge of fully asserting their position within the fabric of European anthropology/ethnology/Völkerkunde. Although regions beyond Europe were similarly perceived as embodying alterity, distance, or the locus of “Primitive” or Oriental otherness, Hungarian scholars often found it challenging to establish their identities within the dichotomy created in metropole knowledge centers, especially in the case of Oriental alterity. Anthropology/ethnology in Hungary, focusing on Asia, was motivated by several unique factors (a common origin, the search for kinfolk, etc.), which shaped the epistemological horizon of oriental studies.
In my paper, I will highlight the fuzzy disciplinary framework of this research legacy, focusing on its contentious relationship with mainstream anthropology/ethnology, especially in the last decades, following the collapse of the Soviet bloc. This event led to three significant consequences in Hungarian ethnology:
1. Fieldwork started in Central Asia and Siberia again.
2. The Eastern origins of the Hungarians became central to national identity politics.
3. Western anthropological trends exerted a greater impact on Hungarian ethnological research.
These complex changes led to the formation of new disciplinary boundaries, institutions, and methodologies, ultimately transforming the epistemic contexts of ethnological/anthropological knowledge production in Hungary. Based on the concept of "anthropological ecumene," I propose a comprehensive perspective on these disciplinary endeavours.
Paper short abstract
Ethnology, folklore, and anthropology, practiced under distinct names today, are well established disciplines at the universities in Turkey. Yet, both their histories and historiographies reveal paradoxes and overlaps that go beyond polarization frameworks.
Paper long abstract
Ethnology, Folklore, Anthropology… They are well established disciplines at the universities in Turkey today with their own terrains. This paper examines the intertwined histories of ethnology, folklore, and (physical and social) anthropology in Turkey, disciplines formed through nation-building dynamics and academic politics, as well as through counter-narratives that emerged within the university. It traces their intertwined histories and tensions from early Republic foundations to current divides between these disciplines. Ethnology in the Turkish Republic grew out of physical anthropology and, from the 1950s onward, shifted toward US anthropological approaches and British social anthropology tradition. Folklore studies as an autonomous discipline, established in 1947 and closed in 1948, was revived under ethnology in the 1960s, established as an independent department in 1980, and finally regained autonomy in 1993, often swung between anthropological, performative, and literary tracks. Disciplinary historiographies remain uneven: anthropology is often prioritized in the national narrative (citing its 1925 establishment under Atatürk), whereas folklore and ethnology are portrayed as its subordinate. This "official" history also tends to downplay Ottoman origins, older debates, and the role of racial ideology in early Turkish anthropology, that impacted these disciplinary traditions in various different ways. Recent scholarship has begun to challenge this narrative, highlighting these legacies and the porous boundaries and tensions among ethnology, folklore, and anthropology. In tracing these intersecting trajectories, this paper highlights how Turkey’s political and intellectual history has shaped these disciplines and suggests new directions for their roles in the contemporary academy.