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)
Maria Beatrice Di Brizio (Centro di Ricerca MODI - Università di Bologna)
Han F. Vermeulen (Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology)
Send message to Convenors
- Chair:
-
Daniela Salvucci
(Free University of Bolzano-Bozen)
- Format:
- Panel
Short Abstract:
This panel aims at deconstructing and unwriting academic definitions of folklore studies and ethnography as separate disciplines. We invite papers exploring the connections and changing relations between both fields of inquiry, across national frontiers, during the Long Nineteenth Century.
Long Abstract:
If Unwriting is a call to revisit accepted paradigms and “to reflect on how we have been doing things and how they can be done differently,” it is also a call to deconstruct and reframe well-known academic traditions, exploring new threads that connect actors, theories, practices, and institutions in the production of anthropological knowledge.
Today, folklore studies and ethnography are frequently envisaged as distinct fields of inquiry (e.g. in England, France, Germany). Historical cases, however, signal that this has not always been the case as these disciplines often adopted similar ways of looking at the world, both documenting sociocultural phenomena at home (within the observer’s society) and abroad (in other societies, often overseas). Thus, in London, at the Ethnological Society (1843-1871) ethnography covered exotic as well as European populations. In Italy, Lamberto Loria (1906) reframed folklore studies as Etnografia Italiana. William Thoms’ very notion of “folk-lore” (1846) would later encompass a wide domain of research, ranging from European traditional to extra-European societies (Dorson 1968).
Convergence in research priorities and overlapping scholarly networks call for a renewed exploration of the relations between folklore studies and ethnography. We propose to highlight these connecting threads in the Long Nineteenth Century, focusing on research programs, theories and terminology; observational methodologies and data recording practices; forms of knowledge production; institutions, scholarly networks, and actors involved in empirical research. We invite papers presenting critical cases that bring in perspectives on the changing relations – through time and across national frontiers – between folklore studies and ethnography.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Paper Short Abstract:
The analysis of "ethnographic" texts in late 18th- (Ljubljana) and early 19th-century (Klagenfurt) reveals two approaches: an ethnographic one, based on state science (Göttingen school), and a "folklore" approach, influenced by Herder's ideas.
Paper Abstract:
The analysis of "ethnographic" production in late 18th-century Ljubljana (Zois circle) and early 19th-century Klagenfurt (Carinthia circle) identifies key figures such as AT Linhart, B Hacquet, F Sartori, G Kumpf, and U Jarnik. Their work indicates two approaches: the first, "ethnographic", is rooted in state science (Göttingen school - Schlözer et al.), while the second, "folklore," is influenced by Herder's ideas on Slavic folk culture, informed by Karl Gottlob Anton.
The Imperial-Enlightenment tradition of F Müller and A Schlözer is reflected in Hacquet's "Abbildung und Beschreibung" (1801-1808) and Sartori's "Reise durch Steiermark, Kärnten, Krain und Küstenland" (1811), which document people's lives for governance purposes. Sartori noted, "The Empire cares little for the language spoken by its servants, as long as they serve it faithfully," highlighting a focus on administrative efficiency over cultural identity.
Linhart's descriptions of Slovenians and Kumpf's account of Carinthian cultural harmony prefigure later folklore approaches. Jarnik's "Andeutungen über Kärntens Germanisierung" (1826) examines ethnic and national cultural life, heritage, and identity formation. These works, while ethnographic, shift towards preserving ethnic cultural heritage and imperial loyalty. Early ethnographic practices employed various methodologies for imperial administration, scientific documentation, and cultural preservation, revealing the field's complex history.
Paper Short Abstract:
Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (1787-1864), widely regarded in his home country as the "father of modern Serbian language," left behind another important legacy in addition to his celebrated language reform. This legacy was linked to the field of ethnology in Serbia, which was still not institutionalized at the time, and it proposed that folklore could serve as a tool for determining national boundaries. In doing so, he paved the way for further, integrated ethnographic and folklore data gathering in Serbia which continued well into the 20th century.
Paper Abstract:
Vuk Stefanović Karadžić was an exceptional man of his times: a language reformer, a translator, a folklorist, ethnographer, a chronicler of the First and Second Serbian Uprising against Ottoman Empire, and above all, a tireless fieldworker. In his efforts to emancipate Serbian folk culture from the stigma of inferiority and backwardness, he travelled across the Western Balkans collecting oral traditions – from epic poetry, myth and fairy tales to ritual and social practices – of uneducated and illiterate Serbian peasantry. One of the major national figures of the Romanticist movement, he embraced the key ideas of the German counter-Enlightenment to accomplish his twofold mission: first, the adoption of traditional, patriarchal, peasant traditions as the foundation for a new, widely accessible national culture; and second, the utilization of this newly defined national culture to bring together all Serbs, divided between the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires, into a single nation-state. In his effort to use linguistic, ethnographic, and folklorist material for modern nation-building in the Romanticist fashion, he influenced the political - and, necessarily, theoretical - context of ethnographic and folklore research in Serbia for decades to come.
Paper Short Abstract:
While the case studies of the 1830s-1840s show that ethnographic and folkloristic interests were merged for Hungarian intellectuals in Transylvania, by the 1850s those who conceived larger collections and publications were clearly committed to collecting, recording, and publishing some specific segment of ethnography or folkloristics.
Paper Abstract:
The first comprehensive collection of Hungarian folk poetry in Transylvania was published in 1863 in Cluj (then Kolozsvár) under the title Vadrózsák (Briar Roses). The preceding period has been almost completely unexplored. Traces of an early interest in Transylvanian Hungarian ethnography/folk poetry can be found in the 1830s-1840s in periodicals and in the manuscript journals of Protestant boarding schools. My research of these sources over the past few years has clearly shown that interest in ethnography and folklore in this early period was not detached from each other and was strongly linked to travelogues originating from a more progressive approach of the Protestant boarding schools. In this period intellectuals who believed in the need for a social and economic change, and who were actively involved in bringing it about, recorded ethnographic and folkloristic phenomena alike. In my presentation, I will examine the interpretive communities of Hungarian intellectuals of Transylvania and their role in ethnographic-folkloristic collection.
Paper Short Abstract:
While Folklore Studies position similar to many European nations, in Finland the discipline achieved strong enough a position to make the country global centre of folklore research. I explore the diverging paths of Folklore Studies in the two locations.
Paper Abstract:
The metadiscourse of Folklore Studies in Europe has focused on seeing the field’s origins in Johann Gottfried von Herder’s (1744–1803) view of folklore as the expression and icon of the ‘folk,’ which led to the use of folklore in Romanticist-Nationalist nation-building projects. The concept of ‘folklore’ is therefore usually viewed as a monolithic entity in popular and scientific discourse. However, this kind of view ignores the fact that folklore, as a concept, has been discursively constructed in environments that differ in geographical and socio-historical factors.
One of the problems that entail the view of ‘monolithic folklore’ is that folklore is either seen as something that comes into being separately from its socio-historical environment and the discourses circulating in society, or it is alternatively viewed as something that has uniform roots of origin, which are then applied to completely different geographical and political areas. For example, in ‘nations without states,’ such as Finland, where the National-Romanticist currents of 19th-century Europe awakened desires to form independent nation-states, folklore was used in the building of imagined communities. At the same time, the situation was decidedly different in centers of colonial power, such as England, where folklore was seen as something that belonged to the peoples of the past who had not achieved ‘civilized’ status. I will explore these differences and examine the discourses behind the diverging paths in two environments.
Paper Short Abstract:
The paper will deal with the problem of the “Encyclopaedia for Education” (1880 and 1923) as a means of general knowledge transfer and its role in establishing the understanding of the division between ethnography, ethnology, and anthropology as branches of knowledge on Polish ground in the late 19th century.
Paper Abstract:
The paper will deal with the problem of an encyclopaedia as a means of general knowledge transfer and its role in establishing the understanding of the division between ethnography, ethnology, and anthropology as branches of knowledge on Polish ground in the late 19th century.
The “Encyclopaedia for Education” was a multi-volume work published intermittently between 1880 and 1923. The project was put into motion by Prince Jan Lubomirski, a historian and encyclopaedist, who wished to provide a work that could become a “reference book for all those who educate, teach and deal with general social issues.” It was essential in the Polish context as the country lost its independence in 1795, and the homeschooling system during the long 19th century was viewed as a pillar for patriotic and cultural education of the youth. Unlike in many modern encyclopaedias, the entries were several pages long and provided an extensive overview of the subjects. The entry about ethnology and ethnography (vol. 3, 1885, 26 pp.) was written by Izydor Kopernicki, an esteemed anthropologist. The entry about anthropology (vol. 1, 1881, 13 pp.) was written by Bolesław Lutostański, a well-respected physician. The work, however, lacks an entry about other branches of knowledge, such as folklore studies, which is also significant in this context.
Both authors proposed reliable overviews, which aimed to facilitate the understanding of the relations between anthropology, ethnography and ethnology (which was not always the case in other works). Therefore, the entries offered the self-learning readers firm and relatively vast knowledge.
Paper Short Abstract:
The paper will be deal with the establishment and creation of cultural sciences and their mutual relations in the complicated situation of 19th-century Polish science. The paper will take into account both native and foreign traditions related to the names of the branches of knowledge discussed.
Paper Abstract:
The paper will consider the early history of such sciences as ethnography, ethnology, anthropology, folklore studies, ludoznawstwo (since the 19th century) and kulturoznawstwo (since the first half of the 20th century). The overview will include selected proposals by Polish theoreticians and researchers of culture, as well as examples of academic teaching and school programs. In principle, it will be an attempt at a preliminary framework synthesis conducted not so much from the perspective of research programs (and later also teaching programs) but rather from assigning to these broadly (or only sketchily formulated) programs specific terms constituting names of branches of knowledge. In Polish science, theoretical work on defining the identity of sciences (which I call here for simplicity ‘cultural sciences’) and their mutual relations began in the early 19th century (Joachim Lelewel), when empirical research was still in its infancy. Discussions on the identity of individual sciences and their mutual relations (including the subsequent classifications of sciences) were only beginning – the growing detailed knowledge and the emergence of new branches from older sciences enforced them. As far as academic teaching is concerned, the focus of this paper will be not so much on the content of the curriculums but rather on subjects (and later, from the 20th century, also fields of study) whose names referred to specific branches of knowledge; one of the earliest examples can be indicated by the course in general ethnography (1851/1852) taught by Wincenty Pol in the geography course.
Paper Short Abstract:
This paper aims to illustrate the close connection between folklore studies and ethnography in Hungary during the early years of institutionalization, focusing on a key publication from 1890, and its author, Lajos Katona.
Paper Abstract:
Ethnography and folklore studies can be seen as distinct fields of study, but also as two closely related parts of one discipline. This paper examines a case study from Hungarian scholarship, focusing on the early years of its institutionalization. The Hungarian Ethnographic Society was founded in 1889 and Ethnographia, the society's official journal was launched in 1890. Despite the use of the word ’ethnography’, folklore studies were equally included.
Lajos Katona (1862–1910) played a key role in the processes leading to the establishment of the society and the launch of the journal. He was in contact with and maintained an extensive correspondence with leading scholars of his time (e.g. Hugo Schuchardt, Giuseppe Pitré, Friedrich S. Krauss, Kaarle Krohn). His seminal article "Ethnographia. Ethnologia. Folklore" [Ethnography. Ethnology. Folkore] was published as the opening piece in the second issue of Ethnographia, laying down the theoretical and terminological foundations of the new discipline, which remained influential for a considerable time.
The aim of my paper is to present the main arguments of Katona's study and the system he outlines, in which ethnography and folklore studies are integral parts of a single discipline. I will also provide some examples from Lajos Katona's scholarly correspondence in the preceding years to illustrate the evolution of his views.
Paper Short Abstract:
The presentation traces the development and interrelationship of ethnography and folkloristics in the territory of Estonia, part of the Russian Empire at the time. The role of different institutions, initiatives, individuals and ideologies in the evolution of the disciplines will be explored.
Paper Abstract:
In the early 1920s, separate chairs for folklore studies and ethnography were established at the newly established Estonian University of Tartu after some disputes. Ilmari Manninen, a Finnish scholar considered the founding father of modern Estonian ethnology, claimed in his programmatic speech (1924): 'Ethnography is a new science in Estonia'. Manninen defined ethnography rather narrowly as studying the material aspect of traditional peasant culture. In the Russian Geographical Society, with which some Estonian intellectuals collaborated, ethnography was defined in a much broader way in the mid-19th century as studying both peoples' spiritual and material culture, but also their physical appearance and language. What was the journey from RGO's very broad understanding of ethnography to Manninen's rather narrow definition?
The presentation traces the development and interrelationship of ethnography and folkloristics in the territory of Estonia, which was part of the Russian Empire at the time, from the late 18th to the early 20th century. What was the role of different fully or partly state-owned institutions (Academy of Sciences, RGO), private societies (Gelehrte Estnische Gesellschaft etc.), and individuals (Baltic Germans, Russians, Estonians, Finns) influenced by different ideologies in the disciplinary evolution? How was the interplay between the study of spiritual and material culture influenced by the undertakings of the Estonian national movement (folklore collection campaign, founding of the Estonian National Museum) and the major state-sponsored ethnographic exhibitions (e. g. Moscow 1867, Riga 1896)? What about influences from Finland, Germany etc.?