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:
-
Lauri Turpeinen
(University of Helsinki)
Konrad Kuhn (University of Innsbruck)
Hanna Snellman (University of Helsinki)
Send message to Convenors
- Formats:
- Panel Roundtable
- Stream:
- Knowledge Production
- Sessions:
- Tuesday 22 June, -
Time zone: Europe/Helsinki
Short Abstract:
The epistemic rules of nationalistic knowledge production have shaped ethnology and folklore studies since their earliest days. These epistemic rules remained influential also after 1945. We invite papers exploring this lingering dark heritage of the ethnological disciplines.
Long Abstract:
The ideologies of national romanticism are the soil from which the ethnological disciplines of Europe grew. Hence, it is unsurprising that the academic institutionalization of ethnology and folklore studies as independent disciplines fell into a historical context in which in many European countries the search for cultural origins, theories about alleged continuous cultural links reaching deep into antiquity, and the glorification of peasants as representatives of a reputedly uncorrupted national culture were hegemonic ideals.
Especially the "Wiener Schule" emerged as a transnational influence on research on such "continuities" in early ethnological thinking. Henceforth, European ethnologists and folklorists were involved in processes of knowledge production, which aimed rather at creating putative scientific validations of such beliefs than enabling their critical examination. This complicity with nationalistic ideologies found its deplorable climax in the close cooperation of ethnologists with the NS-regime during the Second World War.
The end of the war should provide an opportunity to critically reflect the epistemological "rules" underlining ethnological research. Effectively, some critical discussions occurred for example in the German and Nordic contexts, which resulted in name-changes. Still, we argue that despite such rather cosmetic measures the "rules" of nationalistic ideology and knowledge production remained influential also after 1945.
This panel presents papers on the knowledge history of the ethnological disciplines and its power asymmetries and epistemic conflicts after 1945. We invite ethnologists and folklorists of all national backgrounds to discuss the lingering dark heritage of our ideology-driven disciplines in case studies, thus illuminating their long-lasting difficult legacy.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Tuesday 22 June, 2021, -Paper short abstract:
The paper discusses the history of Croatian ethnology in the period from 1945 to 1970. The emphasis is placed on the intellectual circle of ethnologist Milovan Gavazzi and the linking of the developments within the profession with historical events in that period.
Paper long abstract:
The events that happened after the Second World War brought a series of changes in the political, social and cultural life of Croatia within the newly created socialist Yugoslavia. Following the Soviet model, the new regime sought to introduce a number of changes in education and science through legislation and through ideologization and politicization. That led to introducing the Marxist paradigm into the scientific discourse, but also to the opportunity to open up new research areas. Despite the pressures, there were no significant qualitative changes in the theoretical and methodological sense in Croatian ethnology until the early 1970s. The reason for that should certainly be sought in the political events within socialist Yugoslavia shortly after the end of the war, but also in the influence of ethnologist Milovan Gavazzi and his intellectual circle on the trends within the profession. Based on the current research data, in this paper we will focus on three research questions: 1) why were there no significant changes within the existing institutions related to ethnology after the Second World War ?, 2) what was the role of Milovan Gavazzi and his circle in the development of the profession and maintaining the status quo ?, and 3) to what extent did the scientific contacts of Croatian ethnologists with their foreign colleagues influence the emergence of new research directions within the profession in the 1970s? The answers to the posed questions will be given from the perspective of Bourdieu's field theory.
Paper short abstract:
After the 1950s, folklore in Turkey grew under the state which created a new 'public' context, whereby intellectuals rediscovered a national folk culture and presented it with polito-economic undertones. I aim to unravel the reasons why scholars guarded an indissoluble relation to state nationalism.
Paper long abstract:
The year 1948 was a breaking point in the folklore studies in Turkey. Among other impediments, the growing racial/nationalist discourses hindered the activities of the newly founded Folklore and Folk Literature department at Ankara University, causing Pertev Naili Boratav, the founder of the department, to leave Turkey and communicate his folklore scholarship from France. While Boratav's case was singled out in the history of folklore, folklore became an issue of debate between the 'nationalistic' Right-Wing and the 'revolutionary' Left, which was an ineffective way for coming to terms with the past. Very few studies aimed to understand the case of Boratav, his political thought, and his folklore scholarship.
Several national ethnological traditions in post-war Europe discussed new epistemologies and theories; and searched for new disciplinary identities. Expediently, the haunting phantoms of nationalism never demised and caused many scholars to cherish the new and abundant relationship of nationalism and folklore. After the 1950s, folklore grew under the state and became a 'public' activity among folklorists, semi-professionals, cultural elite, and bureaucrats who rediscovered a national folk culture and presented it with political-economic undertones. This paper critically asks some key epistemic questions on folklore knowledge in Turkey after the 1950s and tries to unravel the reasons why, despite the emergent forms and sites of folklore knowledge, scholars guarded an indissoluble relation to state nationalism. Furthermore, it aims to de-center epistemic myopia that ignored the national contexts at the margins of Europe.