CHANGE OF PARADIGMS?
Comments on the crisis of ethnicity'
Hennann Bausinger ;
IZVLEČEK
V eseju Ali se pmrailii^mc spreininjajo,
zapiski o krizi etničnosti, pisec obravnava
stičišča in razhajanja med etnologijo in
folkloristiko na eni in državo na drugi strani,
problemski sklop, tesno povezan s celotno
zgodovino in mnogimi bolj sistemskimi
vprašanji naše stroke.
ABSTRACT
In the essay Change of paradigms?, com-
ments on thecrisis ofethniciti/, the author deals
ivith the issues where ethnology and folklore on
the one hand and the state on the other hand
either meet or diverge. This is an issue which is
closely connected with the entire history of our
discipline and with many of its systems issues.
For folklorists and ethnologists it is not very common to speal<; about the
state. Certainly, if funds have to be raised for folidore positions, research projects
or Festschriften, state officials are an important address. The subject of our
discipline, however, seems to be located not only below but also in deeper strata
than the state. The discovery - in a more pointed way: the invention of folk and
folklore wasan answer to modernization, an answer emphasizing the durability
and continuity of traditions and traditional ways of life; and as the elaborated
organisation of the state has been one of the crucial elements of modernization
one might even say that the interest in folklore and folklife has always implied
a departure from state.
This did not exclude, tobe sure, that states made good use of the endeavours
of folklorists and ethnologist. In the very beginning of scientific orientation in
this field during the period of enlightenment folklore was regarded a means of
administrative reconnaissance - in order to govern people effectively one had to
be aware of their ideas, attitudes and ways of life. Later on, folklore became a
vehicle of political ideologies and, by this, an essential support of states. But for
serious fo klorists this was, as a rule, only a neglectable concomitant; their
attention was focused on the inner structures of traditions seemingly untouched
by political estrangements. In a third stage political manipulation of folk
tradition was heavily criticized but even then this criticism was often foremost
a springboard to arrive at cleaner parts of folklore far from politics.
'First appeared in I'olklorerrocesseJ. In 1 lonourof Lauri 1 lonko. SluJia I'innica Folklorisca
I.Helsinki 1992.
229
Hermann Bausinger
Several key concepts of folk and folklore have been developed in opposition
to existing stately structures. In their early stage the idea of 'Volksgeist' played
an important part in the construction and extension of folklore studies. The term
was coined, following French forerunners, by Herder. In general, it is translated
as 'national spirit'; but this translation misses the characteristic distance from all
statelyconfigurations.'Volksgeist'meant the spiritof the peopleand was aiming
at the vision of a new political order in which different people would get to their
unity and to clear demarcations against other people. It is well known how
influential this idea was for the national struggles in Central and Eastern Europe
- or to put it in a less idealistic way: how precisely Herder anticipated the real
development in his theory. And it is also well known that this idea of ' Volksgeist*
became a challenge and an incentive for folklorists: they started to collect what
they looked at as popular antiquities in order to support the new organic concept
by traditions allegedly having evolved over the millenia.
By and large, this seems to be an outdated view. But this antimodem and
anti-state attitude has crept into other concepts. The term ethnicity, closely
connected with one of the most usual names of our discipline, ethnology, aims
atsociocultural units beyond or within a state. It isonly in superficial discussions
about working migrants that nationality and ethnicity are mixed up; in this
context people sometimes speak of the ethnic identity of Italians and Turks, and
they spoke even of Yugoslavians as if it were an ethnic group. In fact, ethnic
groups differ from and often oppose the political units and detailments. To an
ethnographer or folklorist it seems quite natural to assume or postulate at least
cultural autonomy for ethnic groups; for her or him, state frontiers often cutting
right through ethnic units, are just disruptive factors interfering with the free
unfolding of the innate ethnic talents and tendencies.
Ethnicity is not an unambiguous term; but generally it aims at a social unit
somehow defined by descent. It is, however, not only descent but also situation
which sometimes combines subgroups of a national population against
dominating tencencies and sometimes core values of a state. Therefore, political
scientists have coined the term regionalism: regionalistsstand up for the clearing
away of real or alleged discriminations, foremost but not only in economic
matters. The political opposition, as a rule, has its cultural implications and its
cultural symbols - and again, folklorists and ethnologists sympathize with the
centrifugal powers and their cultural manifestations.
Taken all in all, the basic attitude included in these concepts is a very
acceptable and pleasant one: Ethnologists and folklorists stand by the side of the
weaker groups; they plead for as much autonomy as possible and they oppose
the levelling out measures of the powerful - the representatives of the state. They
speak up or at least implicitly stand for the subjective dimension of culture, and
they try to guarantee every group a life in accordance with its own principles;
the word Eigen-Sinn has gained ground during the last two decades - written
with a hyphen and thus indicating a sense and will of its own.
But one can write that word Eigensinn without a hyphen, and in this case it
means stubbornness, a narrowminded insisting on one's own intentions and
measures. And it seems to me that the question should be raised whether this
other side of the coin has not been ignored too often. Or to put it in another way:
Should the concepts mentioned above notbeadapted to the structures and needs
of modern society?
230
_Change of paradigms? Comments on the crisis of ethnicity
A few years ago Alain Finkielkraut called the idea of 'Volksgeist' the most
dangerous explosive of the 19th and 20th centuries. He took the view that by
this idea people idolize themselves and avoid the court of values; what
Finkielkraut calls "the feeling for the universal" gets withered by the self-
righteous sticking to particularized nonns. This criticism is not totally new. It
reminds of an older opposition sometimes cut down to a contrast between
traditions arising from enlightenment versus traditions of romanticism. This is
not quite correct: Herder for instance represented not only an early stage of
romanticism but also important traits of enlightenment, and there was also
romantic universalism transcending and sometimes opposing the idea of
'Volksgeist'. But it is true that the mmantic coining of the ideas of folk, people,
nation, has left its mark at least on the folkloristic currency up to our days. By
concentrating on the inner nature and vigour of these 'organic' units the need
for mediation and balance between them got out of sight, and it is only now that
the scenery of world-wide conflicts originating in those 'natural' configurations
calls for new perspectives.
And it seems that a turn to smaller and closer configurations doesn't bring
about stable stilutions. At first glance the concept of ethnicity and ethnic identity
seems to evade the complacency of nations and people. But evidently this
concept has also to be called into question. The high degree of mobility in the
modem world makes the concept ambiguous. As soon as we depart from very
simple and static structures of society it is always the question who has the
power to define and control ethnic identity, and quite often ethnic identity is not
a 'natural' concept but ideologically set up. In the discussions about migrant
workers an emphatic upholding of the principles of ethnic identity seemed to
be the theoretical solution for heavy practical problems. But apart from the
pelimeli of different ethnic denominations within nationality groups the
postulate of ethnic adherence works as a bond and chain for people in transition
- the daughters and sons of guest workers are no longer and can no longer be
plain members of their original ethnic groups and do not either want to be plain
members of the society they live in but something in- between or, more correct,
on the way to a new identity influenced by both sides. In dynamic situations
ethnic identity is often only a regressive answer to the differentiated challenges
of society and the more refined needs and wants of individuals.
It is an answer which seems to present itself especially in stages and
situations of high tension. In such situations there is an inclination not to accept
people just as human beings and neighbours but to look at them as members of
an other ethnic group with a clear tendency to fencing off and demarcation. The
only way out often seems to be the homogenization of political and ethnic
frontiers. Thus, the autonomy of ethnic groups is extended from cultural to
political goals - and quite often exactly by this attempt minority groups are
exposed to grave deprivations if not deportation or war. Needless to add that
this is what's going on in several parts of Eastern Europe.
Not even regionalism is immune to unjustified group egoisms. Interestingly
enough, political scientists have found out that it is rarely very poor and
neglected areas which stand up against the monopolizing and alienating
tendencies of the central power but often relatively prosperous and well
developed regions. In states falling apart the most well-to-do regions or
substates are generally the first striving for independence - which sometimes
232
Hermann Bausinger
means also independence from solidarity with neighbouring regions.
Regionalism, to be sure, has been an unavoidable answer to diverse forms of
imperialism; setting up signals indicating that social, economic and political
problems cannot be solved by extending alienating super-structures over
enormous countries or even continents. But the ongoing destructive actions of
militant regionalism, often regardless even of greater parts of the population
within the region, make clear that the reference to home or natural habitat can
be as problematic as the reference to ethnic adherence or descent.
It is in this context in which new considerations on and new concepts of the
state are required - state meaning not only the administration and executive
power of existing nations but also international configurations committed to
justice and peace and not to doubtful collective entities defined by an alleged
spiritual unity, blood or place. This is, of course, a political statement; but it is
not without consequences for the concepts and work of ethnologists and
folklorists.
I think they should ask themselves where and when it is reasonable to hold
aloft the olf flags and where and when it is appropriate to change - well, maybe
not paradigmsbut part of their perspectives. The model according to which folk
culture or popular culture is a continuous struggle against estrangements and
infiltrations from above is highly problematic even for the past (it is not very
helpful - and comes rather close to national socialist ideologies - to look at the
diverse ways of Christianization only as colonization of life worlds). And it is
still more problematic with regard to present conditions and actual
developments. It is acceptable and even wishable that folklorists and even
ethnologists take care of the more traditional ways and items of culture, but they
should avoid the trap to look at them as totally autonomous and untouched by
elite or mass culture and they should never try to extrapolate cultural conditions
to political designs without any discussion of intervening variables.
In my opinion cultural identity and political identity should be decidedly
uncoupled. Saving or fostering cul turai heritage does not necessarily refer to the
heritage of an existing political unit, and the existence of special cultural
traditions is neither a licence nor an obligation to demand the establishment of
a political vmit around these traditions. This is the logical complement of the
expectation that every state will acknowledge and respect different cultural
manifestations and traditions within its boundaries.* These assumptions seem
to lessen the importance of cultural traditions - and I am a bit suspicious that
this is the reason for their hesitant acceptance. If vernacular culture has no
counterpart in political autonomy the word compensation is quickly at hand -
and it is often used with pejorative connotations. This is part of the delicate
discourse on authenticity. But in a world based, totally on the principle of the
division of labour one may well claim relative independence for the different
realms of human existence. And as to compensation, one could provide strong
arguments for the thesis that it is the human characteristic.
* The problem treated in this little essay is interconnected with the whole history of folklore
and many of the more systematic questions of our discipline. Thus, it could have been discussed
very lengthily upholstered by many quotations and garnished by legions of footnotes. As I
intended only a concise sketch of the main problem I have dispensed with details.
232
ALI SE PARADIGME SPREMINJAJO?
Zapiski o krizi etničnosti
Hermann Bausinger
233
Za folidoriste in etnologe ni ravno običajno, da govorijo o državi. Država je
seveda pomemben vir, kadar je treba zbrati sredstva za folklorne predstavitve,
raziskave ali izdajo častnih zbornikov. A predmet naše stroke ni samo pod
državo, ampak, tako se zdi, tudi v globljih slojih. Odkritje, ali nekoliko zbadljivo
rečeno, "izum" ljudstva in narodopisja je bil odgovor na modernizacijo.
Poudarjal je stanovitnost in kontinuiteto tradicij in tradicionalnega načina
življenja. Ker pa je bila kompleksna organiziranost države eden izmed ključnih
elementov modernizacije, bi lahko rekli, da je zanimanje za folkloro in folklorno
življenje vedno pomenilo razhajanje z državo.
Vendar to nikakor ne pomeni, da se države niso znale okoriščati s
prizadevanji folkloristov in etnologov. Že na samem začetku znanstvene
usmeritve stroke - v dobi razsvetljenstva - so narodopisje imeli za sredstvo
administrativnega izvidništva. Kdor želi učinkovito vladati, mora biti seznanjen
z mislimi, mnenji in načinom življenja svojih podložnikov. Pozneje je
narodopisje postalo nosilec političnih ideologij in je s tem bistveno podpiralo
državo. Za resne narodopisce pa je bilo to sožitje nepomembno, ker je bila
njihova pozornost osredotočena na notranje strukture tradicij, ki jih, kot je bilo
videti, politično odtujevanje ni prizadelo. V tretji fazi so strokovnjaki postali
hudo kritični do političnega manipuliranja s folklorno tradicijo, a vendar je bila
tudi ta kritika pogosto predvsem izhodišče za iskanje čistih sestavin folklore,
daleč od politike.
Nekateri ključni koncepti ljudstva in narodopisja so se razvili v opoziciji do
obstoječih državnih struktur. V zgodnji fazi tega razvoja je pomembno vlogo v
oblikovanju in širjenju narodopisnih študij odigrala ideja o "Volksgeistu". Pojem,
ki gaje po vzoru francoskih predhodnikov skoval Herder, se na splošno prevaja
kot "ljudski duh", vendar ta prevod popolnoma spregleda značilno distanco do
vseh državnih konotacij. "Volksgeist" izvirno pomeni duh naroda in označuje
vizijo novega političnega reda, v katerem bi različni narodi dosegli vsak svojo
enotnost in se jasno ločili od drugih narodov. Dobro vemo, kako močan vpliv je
imel ta koncept na nacionalna gibanja v Srednji in Vzhodni Evropi - ali, če
govorimo malo manj idealistično: kako natančno je Herder v svoji teoriji
predvideval dejanski razvoj. Prav tako nam je dobm znano, da je ideja o
"Volksgeistu" postala izziv in spodbuda za folkloriste: začeli so zbirati reči, ki so
Hermann Bausinger
jih imeli za ljudske starine, zato da bi novi organski koncept podpirali s
tradicijami, ki so se menda razvijale tisočletja.
V splošnem se nam zdi ta pogled danes zastarel. A vendar seje ta nesodobna
in protidržavna drža razširila tudi na druge koncepte. Pojem etničnost (angl.
ethnicity), ki je tesno povezan z enim izmed najbolj običajnih imen za našo stroko
- etnologijo - označuje družbenokulturne enote znotraj neke države ali prek
njenih meja. Le v površnih pogovorih o tujih delavcih se pomešata nacionalnost
(državljanstvo) in etničnost. V tem kontekstu včasih govorijo o etnični identiteti
Italijanov ali Turkov in celo o Jugoslovanih se je kdaj pa kdaj govorilo kot o
etnični skupnosti. Dejstvo pa je, da se etnične skupnosti prostorsko ne ujemajo
s političnimi enotami in z njihovo razmejitvijo ter ji pogosto nasprotujejo. Za
etnografa ali folklorista je povsem naravna predpostavka ali domneva, da
etnične skupnosti uživajo vsaj kulturno avtonomijo. Zdi se jim, da so državne
meje, ki sekajo etnične enote, razdiralni faktorji, ki ovirajo svoboden razvoj
naravnih narodovih sposobnosti in teženj.
Etničnost (angl. ethnicity) ni nedvoumen pojem, na splošno pa vendar
označuje družbeno enoto, ki jo nekako določa skupni izvor. A ne samo skupni
izvor, tudi položaj neke podskupine nacionalnega prebivalstva jo včasih združi
v odpor proti prevladujočim težnjam ali temeljnim vrednotam države. Zato so
politologi skovali pojem regionalizem. Regionalisti se bojujejo za odpravo
resnične ali domnevne diskriminacije predvsem, ne pa zgolj na gospodarskem
področju. Politično nasprotovanje ima ponavadi svoje kulturne vsebine in
simbole, folkloristi in etnologi pa simpatizirajo s sredobežnimi silami in
njihovimi kulturnimi manifestacijami.
Na splošno je temeljna drža etnologov in folkloristov v teh konceptih zelo
sprejemljiva in prijetna: so na strani šibkejšega, zagovarjajo čim večjo avtonomijo
in nasprotujejo izenačevalnim ukrepom močnejšega, ^. države. Zagovarjajo ali
se vsaj implicitno zavzemajo za subjektivno razsežnost kulture in skušajo vsaki
skupnosti zagotoviti življenje v skladu z njeno opredelitvijo. V zadnjih dveh
desetletjih se je močno uveljavila beseda Eigen-Sinn, napisana z vezajem, ki
poudarja lastni smisel in voljo.
Poznamo pa tudi besedo Eigensinn (brez vezaja), ki pomeni samovoljo ali
trmasto vztrajanje pri lastnih namenih in merilih. Zdi se mi, da se moramo
vprašati, ali nismo morda pogosto spregledali tega drugega pomena. Z drugimi
besedami: ali ne bi kazalo zgoraj omenjenih konceptov prilagoditi strukturain
in zahtevam sodobne družbe?
Pred nekaj leti je Alain Finkielkraut o "Volksgeistu" govoril kot o najbolj
eksplozivnem pojmu 19. in 20. stoletja. Po njegovem mnenju se narodi s tem
konceptom postavljajo na oltar in se izogibajo vrednostni razsodbi. To, čemur
Finkielkraut pravi "občutek za univerzalno", se izgublja zaradi pravičniškega
vztrajanja pri partikularnih nonnah. Ta kritika ni povsem nova. Spominja na
starejše nasprotje, ki mu včasih poenostavljeno pravijo nasprotje med
tradicijama razsvetljenstva in romantike. Vendar to ni točno: Herder ni bil samo
predstavnik zgodnje romantične dobe, ampak tudi pomembnih razsvetljenskih
značilnosti. Poleg tega je obstajal tudi romantični univerzalizem, ki je presegal
misel o Volksgeistu in ji včasih tudi nasprotoval. Vendar drži, da je romantično
kovanje pojmov: ljudstvo, narod in nacija pustilo sledove v jeziku, s katerimi še
dandanes manipulirajo v folkloristiki. Z osredotočenjem na notranjo naravo in
življenjsko moč teh "organskih" skupnosti je izginila potreba po posredovanju
234
Ali se paradigme spreminjajo? Zapiski o krizi etničnosti.
in ravnotežju med njimi. Šele sedanji prizori konfliktov povsem svetu, ki izvirajo
iz teh "naravnih" skupnosti, kličejo k iskanju novih perspektiv.
Kaže, da usmeritev v manjše in ožje skupnosti ne daje stabilnih rešitev. Na
prvi pogled se morda zdi, da se s konceptom etničnosti in etnične identitete
izognemo samozadovoljnosti nacij in narodov. Vendar je jasno, da moramo
dvomiti o njegovi pravilnosti. Zaradi visoke stopnje mobilnosti v sodobnem
svetu postaja nainreč dvoumen. Brž ko se oddaljimo od najbolj preprostih in
statičnih struktur družbe, se vedno zastavi vprašanje, kdo določa in preverja
etnično identiteto. Ta identiteta pa pogosto niti ni "naraven" koncept, ampak
ideološka tvorba. V razpravah o tujih delavcih se je zdelo, da je poudarjeno
ohranjanje načel etnične identitete teoretična rešitev za hude praktične
probleme. Ne glede na množico različnih etničnih nazivov znotraj nacionalnih
skupin deluje postulat etnične pripadnosti kot vez in povezava za ljudi "na
prehodu". Sinovi in hčere tujih delavcev niso in ne morejo več biti navadni
pripadniki svojih izvirnih etničnih skupin, niti ne želijo biti navadni člani
družbe, v kateri živijo, ampak nekaj vmesnega, ali bolje rečeno: na poti k novi
identiteti so pod vplivom obeh strani. V dinamičnih situacijah je etnična
pripadnost pogosto le regresiven odziv na različne izzive družbe ter bolj
rafinirane potrebe in zahteve posameznikov.
Tak odziv je najbolj očiten v zelo napetih časih in situacijah. Takrat so ljudje
nagnjeni k temu, da sosedov ne sprejemajo zgolj kot soljudi, ampak jih vidijo
kot pripadnike druge etnične skupine, in sicer z izrazito težnjo ločiti se in
ograditi od njih. Edini izhod pogosto vidijo v homogenizaciji političnih in
etničnih meja. Tako se avtonomija etničnih skupin razširja s kulturnih na
politične cilje - in prav pogosto se dogaja, da zaradi takih poskusov narodne
manjšine trpijo hudo prikrajšanje, izgon ali celo vojno. Prav to se danes dogaja
v raznih delih Vzhodne Evrope.
Pa tudi regionalizem sam ni imun za neupravičen skupinski egoizem.
Zanimiva je ugotovitev politologov, da so območja, ki se uprejo
monopolističnim in odtujevalniin težnjam osrednje oblasti, le redko revna in
zanemarjena. Ponavadi gre za razmeroina uspešna in dobro razvita območja.
Ko neka država razpada, prvi težijo k neodvisnosti tiste regije ali deli države, ki
so najbolj razviti. Neodvisnost pa jiin pogosto pomeni tudi konec solidarnosti s
sosednjimi regijami. Seveda je bil regionalizem neizogiben odziv na razne oblike
imperializma. Regionalizem je "oddajal" znamenja, da družbenih, gospodarskih
in političnih problemov ni mogoče reševati s širjenjein odtujevalnih
superstruktur čez velike države ali celo celine. Vendar nam sedanje pogubno
ravnanje militantnega regionalizma, ki pogosto ne upošteva niti večinskega
prebivalstva v regiji, jasno pove, da je sklicevanje na domači ali naravni habitat
lahko enako vprašljivo kot sklicevanje na etnično pripadnost ali izvor.
V tem kontekstu so potrebna nova razmišljanja in novi koncepti države. Z
"državo" pri tem ne mislimo samo na upravno in izvršno oblast obstoječih nacij,
ampak tudi na razne mednarodne skupnosti, zavezane pravici in miru. Ne
mislimo pa na dvomljive kolektivne skupnosti, ki temeljijo na domnevni
duhovni enotnosti, krvi ali zemlji. To je seveda politična trditev, vendar ni brez
posledic za koncepte in delo etnologov in folkloristov.
Menim, da bi se ti morali vprašati, kje in kdaj je razumno dvigati stare
zastave in kje in kdaj bi bilo bolj primerno nekaj spremeniti: morda ne
paradigem, ampak vsaj del njihovih perspektiv. Model, po katerem je ljudska
235
Hermann Bausinger
236
kultura nenehen boj proti odtujevanju in infiltraciji od zgoraj, je hudo
problematičen celo v zvezi s preteklostjo. Le malo koristi je namreč od stališča -
ki je blizu nacionalsocialističnim ideologijam - da so bili razni načini, na katere
se je širilo krščanstvo, samo kolonizacija življenjskega prostora drugih. Tako
stališče je še bolj problematično v zvezi s sedanjim stanjem in razvojem.
Sprejemljivo in celo zaželeno je, da folkloristi in tudi etnologi skrbijo za bolj
tradicionalne kulturne običaje in predmete, vendar bi se morali izogniti pasti,
da nanje gledajo kot na povsem avtonomne pojave, ki jih je elitna ali množična
kultura pustila nedotaknjene. In nikoli nebi smeli poskušati kulturnih pogojev
razširiti na politične načrte ne da bi obravnavali vse možne različice.
Po mojem bi morali kulturna in politična identiteta ostati povsem ločeni.
Gojenje in spodbujanje kulturne dediščine ni nujno povezano z dediščino neke
obstoječe politične skupnosti. Obstoj posebnih kulturnih tradicij pa ne pomeni
nujno pravice ali dolžnosti, da se zaradi njih zahteva vzpostavitev posebne
politične skupnost. To je le logično dopolnilo pričakovanj, da bo vsaka država
priznala in spoštovala različne kulturne manifestacije in tradicije znotraj svojih
meja.* Zdi se, da te predpostavke zmanjšajo pomen kulturnih tradicij, in nekako
sumim, da je prav v tem razlog, zakaj jih tako obotavljivo sprejemajo. Če ljudska
kultura nima vzporedne politične avtonomije, se zelo hitro omenja beseda
kompenzacija, ki jo pogosto uporabljajo z negativnim prizvokom. Vse to spada
v občutljive razprave o pristnosti. Vendar so v svetu, ki v celoti temelji na načelu
delitve dela, zahteve po relativni odvisnosti za različne svetove človekove
eksistence vendarle upravičene. Glede kompenzacije pa bi lahko dobili močne
argumente v prid tezi, daje to glavna človekova značilnost.
Iz angleščine prevedel Franc Smrke
AVTOR :
Hermann BausinRer, emeritus
profesor empirične znanosti o kulturi (Em-
pirische Kulturwissenschaft) na Inštitutu
Ludvviga Uhlanda na Univerzi Eberharda-
Karla v Tübingenu.
THE AUTHOR
Hermann BausinRer, Emeritus Profes-
sorofEmpirische Kulturwissenschaft at the
Ludwig-Uhland Institute, at the Eberhard-
Karls University Tübingen.
* Prolilcm, ki ga obravnavam v tem kratkem eseju, je lesno povezan s celotno zgodovino
folklore In z mnogimi bolj sistemskimi vprašanji naše stroke. Lahko bi ga obravnaval obširneje,
lahko bi utemeljeval svoje trditve s številnimi navedki in vse skupaj okrasil z množico opomb
pod črto. Ker pa sem v mislih imel le zgoščen oris glavnega problema, sem se izogibal
podrobnostim.