Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Fabiana Dimpflmeier
(Gabriele d'Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara)
Hande Birkalan-Gedik (Goethe Universität)
Send message to Convenors
- Chair:
-
John Tresch
(University of London)
- Format:
- Panel
- Sessions:
- Wednesday 8 June, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract:
The panel invites historians of anthropology, as "responsible intellectuals", to reflect on how, and when, and using which kind of approaches and methodologies is necessary and desirable today to practice histories of anthropology that are also aimed at thinking about the future of human society.
Long Abstract:
Thucydides said: "You need to know the past to understand the present and orient the future". And yet, today, scholars of the histories of anthropology - unwittingly or intentionally - still often operate in the limits of "historicist" versus "presentist" approaches as defined by George W. Stocking Jr. What if the study of past is more positively embedded in the present than we customarily think, or desire, and this dichotomy is only alleged? What if, as historians of anthropology, we offer new ways to help understanding our present while promoting different ways of practising anthropology?
Stocking's initial formulation (1965) and his numerous revisits (1982, 1995) to "historicism" and "presentism" has ushered a series of methodological debates. Taken as "complementary" (Kuklick 2009; Dimpflmeier 2014; Birkalan-Gedik 2020), in fact, both perspectives can offer creative and discursive components to guide us towards new ways of doing history of anthropology: possibly, the "historically sophisticated and anthropologically informed' history of anthropology" already envisioned by Stocking (1982, XVIII).
In this panel, more than fifty years after Stocking's proposal, inspired by Gramsci (1949), Lanternari (1974), and Said (1993), we welcome historians of anthropology, as "responsible intellectuals", to reflect on how, and when, and using which kind of approach and methodology is necessary and desirable to practice our sub-discipline today. Eventually, how existing methodologies would need to change to be able to practice an anthropology of/for the future and allow historians of anthropology to better respond to challenges inside and outside the discipline?
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Wednesday 8 June, 2022, -Paper short abstract:
In the history of Polish anthropology phenomenology and semiotics have been permanently effective methodological tools for the discipline in such different areas as economic exclusion, through research on populist nationalism, to the study of the history of anthropology itself.
Paper long abstract:
In the history of Polish ethnology/anthropology, two methodological paradigms have played a special role, whose intellectual and practical power has made them permanently effective tools for describing and understanding ethnographic material. I am referring to phenomenology, which has been developing since the 1930s, first at the ethnological centre in Vilnius, then in Warsaw, and semiotics, which since the 1970s has been a constantly developing theoretical perspective drawing inspiration from a number of theories present outside anthropology itself, but important for the social sciences and humanities. Recent works by Polish ethnologists/anthropologists show that both paradigms are extremely powerful tools for research on the present in its very different areas - from economic exclusion and impoverishment, through postsocialist nostalgia, research on populist nationalism, to the study of the history of anthropology itself. It is important that works written under the influence of these paradigms find recognition also outside the narrow circle of the discipline, are quoted by social scientists of various disciplines, are translated into foreign languages, contributing to the strengthening of the image of anthropology as an important component of science in Poland, although the labels under which they appear evoke incorrect associations with the ways in which ethnology was practised in the past.
Paper short abstract:
A view on the history and current state of the art of Polish anthropology seen in a comparative perspective is given. This case study illustrates the point that in contemporary accounts of the discipline's history not only the "objective" findings' quality but also ethical engagement is decisive.
Paper long abstract:
A view on the history and current state of the art of Polish anthropology seen in a comparative perspective is offered. This case study illustrates a point that in present-day accounts of the discipline's trajectories several factors are taken into account - research quality, intellectual affinities, conceptual meanings as well as hegemonic relationships between various traditions. It is argued that in contemporary rendition of these past interdependencies qualities such as cosmopolitan character of anthropological endeavour, universal importance of local phenomena studied and ethical commitments of anthropologists have also become prominent. Importance of these qualities is related to the significance of anthropological involvement in the modern-day politicised world-view conflicts around xenophobia, racism, exclusions and various forms of social inequalities. Historically forged professional ethics urges anthropologists to make morally justified choices. Contemporary anthropological practice and responsibility affects anthropologists' accounts of anthropology's history that thanks to this dynamic procsees becomes engaged in the present, and possibly future, affairs.