::;>-" ' ■ ■ rili K!
" B® ■ '
OBZORJA STROKE
Joel Halpern, Slavko Kremenšek
ETNOLOŠKO-ANTROPOLOŠKO DOPISOVANJE
ETHNOLOGICAL-ANTHROPOLOGICAL
CORRESPONDENCE"
1
Joel Ha!pern
350 Market Hill Road
Amherst, MA 01002 VSA
Slavka KremenSek Trubarjeva 61 61000 Ljubljana
May 30, 1994; December 12, 1994* Dear Slavko,
I very much enjoyed my recent trip to Ljubljana and am very grateful to you and to your young colleague, Rajko Mursic, tor your hospitality and for making the necessary arrangements ahput my lectures at your department dealing with themes connected with anthropology and ethnology. It is this topic which I would now like to explore with you. It was most enjoyable to begin our discussion while taking a walk in the woods near Lake Bohinj. You are really lucky in your small land to have such beautiful places. Slavko, you and others have brought to my attention that there is now a vigorous debate in Slovenia about the desired relationships between Social Cultural (Sociocultural) Anthropology and Ethnology, i really was surprized to learn that these closely related disciplines are being taught in three different places at your University without coordination between the various faculties and departments. It is, of course, not my interest or role to concern myself witli the internal organization of your university. rather I would like to focus on the intellectual aspects of the debate Obviously I do have a disadvantage in that 1 have neither met nor am I acquainted with the viewpoints of your other university colleagues on these inatters, But nevertheless 1 feel that we can explore some important ideas as they relate to the relationships between social-cultural anthropology and
ethnology.
^ ou explained to me that it was your strong desire to see (hat Slovene ethnology continue and that it be well supPorted, You mentioned the crucial matter of the lack of a proper museum of Slovene ethnography, w here the arts and 'he traditions of the folk-peasant history could be properly displayed. i expressed to you the thought that I was surprized l'iai now that Slovenia is for the first time an independent state, there is no such museum of rural and urban culture. It
would seem to me logical to suppose that there would now be extensive resources devoted to these aspects of Slovenian culture and history.
Such I suppose is in part the case, judging by the number of expensive books found in the stores on subjects as diverse as your famous bee hive slats, the specific Slovene hay drying racks, peasant costume, customs throughput the year etc. Expensive books to be sure, but all nicely illustrated and finely bound, suggesting that tlvey may be symbolic collector's items. Also in America we receive weekly a half hour program in English from Ljubljana (through Scola) which focoses heavily on the arts, wines, folklore, historic buildings and other aspects of Slovenian life. I also noticed in passing the Slon 1 lot el that some of the display windows were given over to "folk" craft. Also, as I recall, one of the restaurants in the Slon has what might be called a folk motif which to a certain extent is reflected in the "Slovene" specialties on the menu. 1 guess tiiat one could examine tourist brochures and Slovene public relations magazines published for distribution abroad for similar themes. "Eolkloiism" is also reflected in regional folk festivals, folk music on the radio and TV performances etc. Probably there are some published studies of this "folklorism" and they might be pertinent to cite in the context of our discussion. The institute of Ethnology and Folklore in Zagreb has done some studies of this type. Are there analogous studies in Slovenia to those of Dunja Rihtman and her associates in the Croatian Institute of Folklore'
'I'lie significance of the future {and past) role of Slovene ethnology is, of course, pertinent to the ways in which Slovene national culture has been constructed (Lofgren has several articles and a book on this topic for Swedish culture). Articles in Ethnologist Europea are perhaps of use here. Some ot Robert Minnich's writings on the nature of identity in small peasant communities on the boundaries of Slovenia are also pertinent. This brings to mind the nature of Slovene identity in communities in neighboring Italy and Austria. Here I think considering the conflict over Trieste might be useful and consideration of ihe way this issue was finally resolved. I still recall Serbian demonstrations in Belgrade in 1953 when 1 first began my fie Id work, "Zivot da mo, Trst ne da mo," they shouted. But then when it was all over Trieste claims were, of course, abandoned. The Serbs were demonstrating m an organized way for a communist political purpose and not, 1 suppose, in favor of Slovene national identity. What was the
Ker menimo, da je dopisovanje medjoetom Halj>ernoin in Slarkom Kremenškom zanimivo tako za domačo kot za tujo strokovno Javnost, objavljamo njuno dopisovanje o pogledih na razmerje med etnologijo in kulturna/socialno untrupologifo v obeh jezikih, slovenski'»/ in angleškem (op. ur.).
Because ire assume that the correspondence U'ltveett Joel Halpern and Slavko Kremeušek may i>e interesting to Slovene and foreign scholars, we publish llteir correspondence concerning the relationship betuven (Slovene) ethnology and cultural/social anthropology in both. Slovene and English version (ed. note).
The dating December 12, 199 i is referred to corrections and suj>j>le»ients by the author (ed. note).
50	GLASNIK SED 35/1995, št. 2-3

OBZORJA STROKE
attitude then in Ljubljana and Slovenia on this matter?
There is an interesting recent book by a young Englishman, Mark Thompson, who, according to the book jacket, is currently the London correspondent for Mladina Magazine. 1 have xeroxed die appropriate pages from his book and underlined them and ii may be appropriate to cite certain passages, In any case, a major point that he makes is that the role of the peasant culture in defining national identity in Slovenia is less than, in the other case he cites, Serbia. 1 think that the same would also apply for Croatia. In any case enclosed are articles by Minnich and a recent article prepared by one of the graduate assistants and myself for publication in a magazine of Austrian social history (lean send you a copy).! would also think that my introduction to the Anthropology of hast Europe lie view, special issue on the war in Yugoslavia, maybe referenced. What all oi the above seems to argue, 1 suggest, is that the position of Slovene ethnology ant I the possibility of funds for a Slovene ethnographic museum need it) be seen in a sociology of knowledge context. Also part of that problem is how the Slovenes present themselves to the world. An important point here is a consideration of the nature of Slovenian nationalism and its relationship to the diaspora communities in Austria and Italy; Here I feel that there is a strong contrasi with the Serbs and also the Croats, Is it only a matter of numbers and terilory, size alone?
But perhaps we can, for the moment, leave those political aspects and focus on the history and intellectual nature of ethnology as a discipline, in doing this 1 also wish to compare and to contrast it with social-cultural anthropology. In looking to the origins and functions of these disciplines il is clear that Slovene ethnology is lietl to national history, art and literature and linked to the historical development of national identity (Volksktiiule), while,social-cultural anthropology is above all linked to maritime exploration, theageofimperialismandthe study of the natural world (Volkerkiinde). If one looks to the origin of American and British anthropology, or French and Dutch anthropology for that matter, one becomes aware that ihe earliest descriptions that we have of native peoples derive from expeditions in which the native peoples were described along with the natural world. Thus some of the early 20lh Century publications of Canadian ethnology were published by the Geological Survey of Canada. A similar situation happened in the western exploration of the US.
Thus in the American case, the Bureau of American Fthnol-ogy, concern eel with the description of the native peoples ol North America, was founded after the US Civil Wart 1861-65) and initially linked lo US army explorations. Its initial director had been an officer in the Civil War. Captain Cook's voyages to the Northwest Coast and 1 Iawai were undertaken in his role as a naval officer for the British Royal Navy. 'lamas Holer, now director of the Ethnographic Museum in Budapest, wrote several very insightful articles comparing the approaches oi ethnology and anthropology (published about 1969 in Current Anthropology and Anlhropologica; 1 have the reprints at home and can sent! you copies if they are not in your library). I le noted that in the huge Smithsonian complex of museums in Washington, D.C., the U. S. capital, anthropology is in the Museum of Natural History along with the stuffed elephants and polar bears while the history of white America was in the Museum of American 1 listory which is located next door and fits in along with the dresses worn by the wives of presidents of the U. S.. these exhibits also include rural and working class culture as well. Also people (ethnics) are divided. Thus exhibits on such topics as Afro-American history in the rural
south and their migration to the cities ot the North is in ihe American History Museum along with topics such as Asian-Americans, in this case, specifically the imprisonment of West Coast Japanese Americans in World War II is depicted. On the other hand, the Natural History Museum recently hosted exhibits of the Eskimo (limit) and related circumpolar peoples. This was also the case of a display of the peoples of Oceania, linked to an early J9th century U. S. Navy expedition The American Indians are in the process of getting their own museum, but this is clearly an outgrowth of their changed identity in the American multicultural system. They have progressed from specimens of natural history to political actors.
In the summer the Smithsonian is host to ethnic folks fairs w hich deal with the entire variety of American ethnic groups - their crafts and folk culture. All this by way of documenting that historically anthropology has dealt with the remote and exotic, the non-European. On the other hand, European ethnology has dealt with the near and familiar, one's own folk. Involved here is as noted the Votkskunde-Volkerkunde distinction. But using the German distinction,! really misses the point since the German traditions, despite Boas' origins, Bastian. father Schmidt's cultural circles and the Vienna school are derivative traditions. Til at is, Volkerkunde was a distinctly secondary consideration for German society. For the main German historical role has been as a land based imperial power in East and Central Europe with only marginal involvements in the Americas, Oceania and Asia. The essential point here is that North American and West European anthropologists have historically done their primary investigations and based their theories essentially on tile non-Western World, Boas's methodologies were based on describing hitherto unknown or little known cultures where all aspects of culture including, especially language, had to be described from an initial point of departure. By contrast, Slovene ethnology developed along with studies of national history. national an and literature and was based on a long, literate and documented tradition Hofer describes at length how the European ethnologist is concerned with precise micro documentation of cultural data while the anthropologist is concerned with initially describing and defining hitherto "unknown" cultures. My professor Conrad Arensberg wrote in the preface to my A Serbian Village, first published in 195H. about the pioneering aspect of my research (for Americans) even t Ik nigh Serbs had been studying their own culture since the early 19th century (Vuk Karadzic, et. a!.). A lot of these seeming differences have lost much of their validity, but this is the topic I think we need to consider subsequently. I would only mention here that the world is now one. The title of a recent book of mine. The Far East Comes Near (1 had originally suggested, ihe Tar World Comes Near, and that was the title of a photo exhibit of mine on Laos and Lao-Americans) deals wiih autobiographies of students from Indochina whom I taught at the University of Massachusetts. Originally the course had dealt with the peoples of Southeast Asia. The way you Would teach a course in the 11. S. on the Native Peoples
of the Americas. But what if almost all the students were native
peoples of the Americas and just learning English In the L . S.. lis a direct consequence of the U. S. involvement in the Indochina War, since 1975 more than a million ¡ndochinese (Vietnamese, Cambodians and Lao) have come to the us and many have become citizens and all are now permanently in the U.S. When I first went to Laos in 1956 I couldn't conceive that some of the peoples of Laos, including members of the tribal groups, would be coming to America to live by the tens
66
GLASNIK SED 35/1995, št. 2'3
OBZORJA STROKE
and hundreds of thousands. This lias direct implications for American anthropology in that refugee studies are now an integral part of the discipline and need to he related to older ethnographic studies in Southeast Asia itself. By the way, in most of the maritime imperial nations of Western Europe there are now large populations from ihe Former colonies which have had a permanent impact on those countries (Slovenia is now faced with the Bosnian refuge influx). The situation is not exactly parallel, but its implications for ethnology as mentioned below are, 1 would think, important in that part of anthropology becomes like modern European ethnology or. put another way, Volkerkntide becomes Votkskmide as in the Smithsonian case. In the U. S. today then (national) ethnology and anthropology merge - the exotic becomes domestic. Tlius methodologies may, of necessity, be similar as between ethnology and cultural anthropology. But, as distinct from national ethnology, social-cultural anthropology is essentially a comparative discipline. One consequence is that now there is much concern with the process of description as affected by the relationship between the observer - participant and tile culture he/she describes. By contrast problems in ethnology are defined within a much more precise context and since the observer-investigator is almost always among his own folk the methodological problems are different. National ethnologists seem primarily concerned with highly focused problems and not general descriptions. There is thus lessened the possible situation of the field investigator in ethnology encountering the perceptual problems w hich so lie-fluently face the anthropologist. The goals remain fixed for the ethnologist as opposed to the anthropologist who has to adjust to altering political situations and unexpected social impacts in an area remote from the observer's home. I hese factors result in changing the nature of the investigation and can happen often. Such occurences are widely recorded in anthropological literature.
Eor the European ethnologists the field site is almost always, and especially in Slovenia, a short car, bus or train ride away. Maybe the investigator spends overnight in a community, but more often the researcher is there and back in the same day as opposed lo the six months to several years abroad so characteristic of anthropological investigations. One might also note that there a rent many cases of ethnologists who faced death as a direct consequence of their research. Death through accident or assault has unfortunately been the case tor some anthropologists. I refer here not so much lo unfriendly natives, although that too has been a problem, but rather to the real and continuing risk of accident and disease. ft appears lo me (hat from the perspective of the locally focused European ethnologist, the far ranging anthropologist, who has worked in a variety of cultures, can sometimes be viewed as a bit of a di let ante. Conversely, because they make many assumptions about the nature of their own culture, historically, ethnologists often tend not to focus on kinds of problems to which anthropologists have paid a great deal of attentiohj e.g. social structure as compared l< > material culture. I his makes much of the local cultural background implicit in their investigations. Since so much ethnology is published in the national language it can be assumed that the reader shares much ihe same background as the investigator. Further, levels °t linguistic competence are not an issue in localized ethnol-°Ky. but they are constantly a serious consideration in the anthropological enterprise. Nevertheless, there is a direct connection between American anthropology and the classic studies ot American communities going back lo the 1920s.
The broad ethnographic approach is here a model. If one reads the preface to Middiehnrn, the first real study of an American industrial town (in Indiana), by the I.ynds, the introduction is written by Clark Wissier, an anthropologist who was a specialist on the Plains Indians, It was considered appropriate because an aspect of anthropological methodology was very pertinent here. This is the holistic approach, looking at all aspects of the culture, li was felt that this methodology which had been applied to a study of Plains Indians could also be used to study modern American white community. I'll is city was resludied in the 1930s and again in the 1970s when film-documentaries were also made. The anthropological model was used not only for Middletown research, but also for the Yankee City series (studies of a New England coastal community) north of Boston, The organizer ot that research, Lloyd Warner, had previous experience with the Australian aborigines. This became a significant publicized incident in American culture in the 1930s. There was a novel and a broad way play I lased on this theme by the novelist John Marquand.
I Inderstandingthe causes of (lie war in ex-Yugoslavia seems to me to be a matter that requires reflection. This conflict acutely raises the significance of the lack of a comparative dimension. Clearly it was politically impossible to discuss national differences even if there had been a conceptual basis to do so. Before Ihe breakup of Yugoslavia there was, and you are belter acquainted than I am with the details, a "Yugoslav Ethnological Society" with ils own journal. There were also annual meetings focusing on particular topics. Also the "Yugoslav Atlas," based in Zagreb, was a "national" project which cut accross republic lines. But my impression was that this atlas received something less than enthusiastic cooperation from all sides, especially in Serbia, although I am not aware of tile reaction in Slovenia. Also it was a technical project concerned only with charting the distribution of a variety of material cultural elements and it was in no way comparative or analytical. The point is that there were a variety of national ethnologies, each with their own separate agendas, their particular histories, leading researchers, and specific literatures. Thus Milenko Eilipovic, Milovan Gavazzi and Vilko
Novak were colleagues, but they existed in their own separate worlds, the universes of their respective national ethnologies. In the Yugoslav context this is clearest for the Croats, Serbs and Slovenes. I may be wrong, but I don't recall that there were any significant long-term joint projects which would have involved cross publication in each other's journals. Therefore it was difficult. 1 believe, to analyze some of the key tools and concepts inherent in national ethnology to Understand multi-cultural conflict Here 1 think of the interests and methodologies of Jovan Cvtjic as contrasted with the Radic brothers. Their work had obvious direct political connections. Each national entity was very much involved in their group's politics. Thus some of Cvijics work was used specifically at the Versailles conference, and the Radic brothers were founders of the Croatian Peasant Party. I am also thinking of the use of some of the Slovene ethnological materials at the time of the Trieste dispute in the early 1950s. I would very much like to have your i hough is on I his point. In my view ethnological data and anthropological concepts can help in understanding the present conflict. This is what I attempted to do in the special issues of the Anthropology of East Europe lie-view which is devoted lo that subject and which 1 edited.
Thus I am curious as to how ethnology handles questions of cultural contact. I note, for example, in connection with my
GLASNIK SED 35/1995, št, 2-3
Al
OBZORJA STROKE
visit and lectures in Ljubljana, that I met some students who were doing stidies of Bosnians in Slovenia. How does this fit into the concept of a national ethnology and 10 what extent is ii a valid part of such a picture? Can national ethnology deal with innliiethnic problems? Another aspect has 10 do with ideas about conflict. 1'he study of conflict is very much a central part of the anthropological tradition. It was inherent almost from the beginning as many initial imperial-colonial contacts were conflictful and involved fighting and destruction. In this specific situation one thinks of Evans-Pritchard's classic study of the Nuer in the Sudan. Reading the preface to this volume one can see how his investigations were tied in with the concerns of the British colonial service in controlling Nuer hostility. Conflict can. of course, also deal with social groups within the village community, as a result of migration to towns and between social classes. Thus, ! would assume, although 1 don't remember, that your study of railroad workers dealt, at least in part, with class conflict But it seems to me that the mode in national ethnologies has to do with historical process in relatively stable societies, especially when applied to peasant cultures. Marxism, of course, has emphasized class conflict and purposeful evaluation as opposed to a steady stable peasant society. But national ethnologies do not seem to have concerned themselves with socio-cultural processes of destruction or the extinction of cultures. Your colleague's studies of concentration camps inmates is an interesting case in point, 1 do not know the details, but wonder if any of his methods are also useful in ethnology. Understanding of the processes of destruction is certainly pertinent to the conflicts in Croatia and Bosnia.
At least three questions - first, ethnology and multicultural contexts; second, the questions of conflict, its consequences and resolution or lack of resolution; and, finally, ethnology not only as a discipline forunderstahding hi.storical processes, but also conceptually and theoretically dealing with the end of a way of life. Could this be the case for aspects of peasant culture? What about the purposeful destruction of cultures as in the Holocaust and now in Bosnia ethnic cleansing?
A separate thought -1 also wonder about the values inherent in national ethnology as a discipline. What does it have to say about values, about the validity of other cultural systems? I low can national ethnology define its future? The former territory of Yugoslavia has now been transformed from a terri-lory occupied by a multinational state to one occupied by a group of national states 11 ere 1 think of some of your own views, Marxist and otherwise, and your feeling about ethnology arid nation states would be very important.
I could go on at great length but will pause here as this is to be a dialogue and I don't want to provide a complete framework,but hopefully a way in which we might interact. Look forward to hearing from you.
Best, Joe!
Dragi Slavko, 30. 5. 1994, 12. 12. 1994'
Zelo sem užival med mojim zadnjim obiskom v Ljubljani in zelo sem hvaležen tako vam kot vašemu mlajšemu kolegu Rajku Muršiču za vajino gostoljubje in za organizacijo mojih
predavanj na temo etnologije in antropologije na vašem oddelku. Prav le teme bi se sedaj rad lotil skupaj z vami. Zelo sem bil vesel, ko sva i a pogovor načela med sprehodom po gozdi i blizu Bohinjskega jezera. Veliko srečo imate v vaši deželici, da imate toliko lepih krajev. Slavko, vi in dnigi ste me opozorili na ognjevito debato v Sloveniji o odnosu med socialno-kuluirno (socio-kultiu no) antropologijo in etnologijo. Kes me je zelo presenetilo, da ti tako sorodni si vedi na vaši univerzi poučujejo na treh različnih mestih, ne da bi bile fakultete oziroma oddelki med sabo usklajeni. Seveda pa ni moja stvar, da bi se ubadal z notranjo organizacijo vaše univerze, raje bi se osredotočil na intelektualne vidike te debate. Pri tem žal nisem srečal drugih vaših univerzitetnih kolegov oziroma ne poznam njihovih stališč. Vseeno pa se mi zdi. da lahko načneva nekatere pomembne ideje, ki zadevajo odnos med socialno-kuliurno antropologijo in etnologijo.
Razložili ste mi, da si močno želite, da bi se slovenska etnologija nadaljevala in okrepila. Omenili ste pomembno dejstvo, da nimate ustreznega muzeja slovenske etnogratije, v katerem bi bili na primeren način razstavljene umetnost in tradicije ljudske-kmečke zgodovine. Povedal sem vam, da sem presenečen, da Slovenija kot nova samostojna država nima takega muzeja kmečke in urbane kulture. Logična bi se mi zdela predvidevanja, da so sedaj na voljo znatna sredstva, posvečena tem vidikom slovenske kulture in zgodovine. Zdi se mi, da delno je tako, sodeč vsaj po številu dragih knjig v trgovinah, ki so posvečene tako različnim temam, kot so vaše slovite panjske končnice, specifično slovenski kozolci, kmečka noša. letne šege in tako naprej. To so drage knjige, a vse so lepo ilustrirane in natančno vezane, kar da misliti, da so mogoče simbolični predmeti za zbiralce. Pri nas v ZDA lahko vsak leden spremljamo polurno televizijsko oddajo v angleškem jeziku (s pomočjo Sen le), ki govori pretežno u umetnosti; vinih, folklori, zgodovinskih zgradbah in drugih vidikih življenja v Sloveniji. Bežno sem tudi opazil, da je Hotel Slon namenil nekaj svojih izložbenih oken "ljudskim" obrtem. Prav tako se spominjam, tla ima ena od Slon o vili restavracij nekakšno ljudsko noto, ki se v določeni meri odraža v "slovenskih" kulinaričnih posebnostih v jedilniku. Ko človek prelistava turistične prospekte in revije, namenjene tujcem, verjetno najde v njih podobno tematiko. "FolklorizemB se prav tako kaže v pokrajinskih folklornih prireditvah, ljudski glasbi na radiu, televizijskih oddajah itd. Verjetno obstajajo kakšne objavljene študije o tovrstnem "folklorizmu" in mogoče bi jih bilo potrebno citirati v kontekstu tega najinega dvogovora. Zagrebški Institut za etnologija ijblkloiisliku je izvedel nekaj raziskav na to temo. Ali obstajajo v Sloveniji študije, sorodne tistim, ki so jih naredili Dunja Rilumanin njeni sodelavci vtem inštitutu?
Pomen vloge slovenske etnologije v prihodnosti (in v preteklosti) je seveda v skladu z načinom, kako je organizirana slovenska nacionalna kultura (Lofgren je napisal nekaj člankov in knjigo o tej problematiki v švedski kulturi). Morda bi bili v tej povezavi koristni članki iz Ethnologie Europee. Prav tako so pomembne nekatere razprave Roberta Minnicha o identiteti v majhnih kmečkih skupnostih na obrobju Slovenije, Ob tem se spomnim na značilnosti slovenske identitete v skupnostih v sosednji Italiji in v Avstriji. Zdi se mi, da bi ob tem veljalo upoštevati konflikt zaradi Trsta in način, kako so ga končno razrešili. Še veti no se spominjam srbskih
4 On lira nje 12. 12. 1994 se nanaša na ¡mprat'ke in dopolnila, kijih je artor pisma naknadno mesel r prrotni. jO. 5. 1994 napisani tekst.
66
GLASNIK SED 35/1995, št. 2'3
OBZORJA STROKE
demonstracij v Beogradu leta 1953, ko sem pričenjal svoje raziskave, in vzklikov "Život damo, Trsta ne damo!" Ko pa seje vse to končalo, so zahteve po Trstu seveda pojenjale. Srhi so organizirano demonstrirali za komunističen politični cilj, ne pa, tako se ml zdi, v podporo slovenski nacionalni identiteti. Kakšen je bil takratni odnos Ljubljane in Slovenije do tega vprašanja?
Nedavno je izšla zanimiva knjiga izpod peresa mladega Angleža Marka Thompsona, ki je, kakor piše na knjižnem ovitku, trenutno londonski dopisnik revije Mladina. Fotokopiral sem določene strani iz te kjige in podčrtal nekatere odstavke, ki bi lih bilo mogoče koristno citirati. Torej, ena od poglavitnih misli Marka Thompsona je, tla je vloga kmečke kulture pri definiranju nacionalne identitete v Sloveniji manjša kot na primer v Srbiji. Židi se mi, da bi podobno veljalo tudi za Hrvaško. Prilagam članke Minnicha in nedavno napisan članek nekega diplomiranega asistenta in mene, objavljen v reviji za avstrijsko socialno zgodovino (lahko vam pošljem kopijo), /.tli se mi, tla bi lahko omenili tudi moj uvod v posebno izdajo revije Anthropology of East Europe Rev iew, ki govori o vojni v [ugoslavijl. Zdi se mi, da vse omenjene zadeve kažejo na to, tla je potrebno pozicijo slovenske etnologije in možna sredstva za Slovenski etnografski muzej gledati v kontekstu sociologije znanja. Del te problematike je tudi, kako se Slovenci predstavljajo v svetu. V tem kontekstu je pomembno pretehtati naravo slovenskega nacionalizma in njegov odnos do skupnosti v diaspori v Avstriji in Italiji. Zdi.se mi, tia obstaja V tem pogledu močan kontrast v primerjavi s Srbi in tudi Hrvati. ]e to samo stvar številčnosti in ozemlja oziroma njunega obsega?
Morda lahko za nekaj časa pustiva pri miru politični vidik in se Osredotočiva na zgodovino in naravo etnologije kot vede. Ob tem bi jo tudi želel primerjati in postaviti nasproti socialni in kulturni antropologiji. Ko premišljujem o izvoru in funkciji teh dveh ved, je jasno, da je slovenska etnologija povezana z nacionalno zgodovino, umetnostjo in literaturo, in se navezuje na zgodovinski razvoj nacionalne identitete (Volk-sktaide), medtem ko sta socialna in kulturna antropologija predvsem povezani s pomorskimi raziskovanji, z dobo imperializma in s študijem naravnega sveta (Volkerkuude). Ce gledamo izvor ameriške in britanske antropologije ali palian-coskedli nizozemske, se zavemo, da prihajajo najstarejši opisi naravnih ljudstev od ekspedicij, v katerih so naravna ljudstva opisana skupaj z naravnim svetom. Tako je nekatere otl Zapisov o kanadski etnologiji iz začetka lega stoletja objavila Kanadska geološka družba Podobno se je zgodilo z raziskovanji ZDA, ki so jih opravili zahodnjaki.
v tem ameriškem primeru je bil tako po ameriški državljanski vojni (I86l-(i5) ustanovljen Urad za ameriško etnologijo. \ začetku je bil povezan z raziskavami ameriške vojske in se le ukvarjal z opisi naravnih ljudstev v Severni Ameriki. Njegov prvi direktor je bil častnik v državljanski vojni Kapitan Cook le potoval na ameriško severozahodno obalo in ua 11 a vaje v v|ogi pomorskega oficirja britanske Kraljeve mornarice, lamas liofer. sedanji direktor budimpeštanskega Etnografskega muzeja, je napisal nekaj izredno zanimivih člankov (ob-lavljenih okoli leta 1969 v revijah Current Anthropology in Anthropological) in v njih primerjal etnološki in antropološki pristop (doma imam ponatise teh člankov in vam jih lahko Pošljem, če jih še nimate v vaši oddelčni knjižnici), 1 lofei je opazil, ti a je v ogromnem muzejskem kompleksu ustanove Smithsonian v Washing tonu, glavnem mestu ZDA, antropologiji dodeljen prostor v Prirodoslovnem muzeju, skupaj Z nagacenimi sloni in polarnimi medvedi, medtem ko je zgo-
dovina bele Amerike prikazana v Muzeju ameriške zgodovine v sosednji zgradbi in se lepo ujema z oblekami predsedniških žena. Sem pa je vključena tudi kmečka in delavska kultura. Prav tako so razdeljeni tudi narodi (etnične skupine). Tako so razstave npr. o afro-ameriški zgodovini na podeželskem jugu in o preseljevanju Afroameričanov v mesta na severu v Ameriškem zgodovinskem muzeju, poleg nje je razstava o azij-skih Američanih oziroma v tem primeru o internaciji Japoncev ameriške Zahodne obale med drugo svetovno vojno. Po dtugl strani pa je Prirodoslovni muzej nedavno priredil razstave t) Eskimih (Inuilih) in njim sorodnih narodih polarnega kroga. Podobno je bilo v primeru razstave o narodih Oceanije, ki se je navezovala na ekspedicljo ameriške mornarice v začetku 19- stoletja. Pripravljajo poseben muzej ameriških Indijancev, ampak to je očitno posledica spremenjene identitete Indijancev v ameriškem multikulturnem sistemu. Iz prirodoslovni h primerkov so napredovali v politične akterje Poleti prireja Smithsonian etnične ljudske festivale, ki razgrinjajo celotno paleto ameriških etničnih skupin in prikazujejo njihovo obrt in ljudsko kulturo. Vse to dokazuje, da se je, zgodovinsko vzeto, antropologija ukvarjala z oddaljenimi, eksotičnimi, zuna ¡evropski m i temami. Po drugi strani pa je evropska etnologija preučevala bližnje, znane stvari, lastno ljudstvo. Tu gre, kot sem že omenil, za razliko med Volkskinule 10 Vulherkmide, Toda uporaba teh nemških izrazov v resnici zgreši svoj namen, saj je la nemška tradicija kljub Doasovim izvorom, Bastianu. kulturnim krogom patra Schmidta in dunajski šoli izpeljanka. To pomeni, tla je bila Vdtkerkundi' izrazito drugotnega pomena za nemško družbo. Glavna vloga Nemčije v zgodovini je bila namreč vloga kontinentalne imperialne velesile v vzhodni in centralni Evropi, medtem ko je bila le obrobno prisotna v obeh Amerikah, Oceaniji in Aziji, Tu želim poudariti, da so severnoameriški in zahodnoevropski antropologi v toku zgodovine opravljali na ¡obširnejše raziskave v glavnem zunaj zahodnega sveta in na tem tudi snovali svoje teorije. Boasova metodologija je slonela na opisovanju dotlej neznanih ali malo znanih kultur, v katerih je bilo potrebno vse vidike kulture. vključno z jezikom oziroma predvsem z njim. Opisati od začetkov, v nasprotju s tem pa se je slovenska etnologija razvila ob raziskavah nacionalne zgodovine, umetnosti in literature, in se je naslanjal? na dolgo pisno in dokumentirano tradicijo. 1 lofer poti robno opisuje, kako evropskega etnologa zanima točno določeno dokumentiranje podatkov o kulturi, medtem ko se antropolog ukvarja predvsem z opisom in definicijo do sedaj "neznanih" kultur. Moj profesor Conrad Arensberg je v uvodu moje knjige Srbska vas, ki je bila prvič natisnjena leta 1958, pisal o pionirskih vidikih moje raziskave (za Američane), čeprav so Srbi raziskovali svojo kulturo že od zgodnjega 19. stoletja naprej (Vuk Karadžič in drugi). Mnogo teh navideznih razlik je izgubilo precej svoje vrednosti, vendar pa je to problematika, za katero se mi zdi, tla jo morava dodatho upoštevali. Tu bi želel samo omenili, da je svet setlaj postal eno. Knjiga, ki sem jo nedavno izdal pod naslovom Daljni Vzliod sv bliža (prvotno sem predlagal naslov Daljni svet se pri bližnje-, tako pa se je imenovala tudi moja fotografI ska razstava o i.aosu in laoŠkih Američanih), govori o avto-biografijah študentov iz Indokine, ki sem jih poučeval na massachusettski univerzi. Prvotno so ta predavanja govorila o narodih jugovzhodne Azije. Na ta način bi predavanja v ZDA govorila o naravnih ljudstvih v obeh Amerikah. A kaj, ko pa so bili skoraj vsi .študentje domorodci iz obeh Amerik, ki so se šele učili angleščine. Po letu 1975 je več kot milijon Indokiiajcev (Vieinamcev, Kambodžijcev in Laožanov) prišlo
GIASN1KSED 35/1995, št. 2-3
49
OBZORJA STROKE
v /DA, kar je bita neposredna posledica ameriške vpletenosti v vojno v Indokini. Mnogi so postali ameriški državljani in so se sedaj za stalno naselili v ZDA, Kosem leta 1950 prvič prišel v Laos, si nisem mogel niti predstavljati, da bodo desetiisoči in stotisoči nekaterih laoških narodov, skupaj s pripadniki plemenskih skupin, prišli živeti v ZDA.To je neposredno vplivalo na ameriško antropologijo, saj so begunske študije sedaj integralni del stroke in jih je potrebno primerjati s starejšimi etnografskimi študijami o jugovzhodni Aziji. Mimogrede, med večino evropskih pomorskih imperialnih narodov živi sedaj veliko število prebivalcev iz nekdanjih kolonij, ki nenehno vplivajo na te narode (Slovenija se sedaj srečuje s prilivom beguncev iz Bosne). Ta situacija sicer ni čisto enaka, vendar menim, tla imajo ti vidiki pomemben vpliv na etnologijo, tako da tlel antropologije postaja lak kol moderna evropska etnologija - ali, povedano drugače, VolkerUunck'postaja Volks-knitde h\ko kot v primeru muzeja Smithsonian. V /DA se tako sedaj stapljata (nacionalna) etnologija in antropologija - eksotično postaja domače. Tako si morda metodologiji iz neke nujnosti postajata podobni prav tako kol etnologija in kulturna antropologija. Vendar pa je v nasprotju z nacionalno etnologijo socialna in kulturna antropologija predvsem komparativna disciplina. Ena izmed posledic je, da sedaj vlada veliko zanimanje za proces deskripcije, kot se kaže v odnosu med opazovalcem-udclcžencem in med kulturo, ki jo opisuje. Nasprotno pa so problemi v etnologiji definirani znotraj veliko bolj natančnega konteksta. In ker je opazovalec-raziskovalec skoraj zmeraj med svojim lastnim ljudstvom. so metodološki problemi različni, /tli se, da nacionalne etnologe zanimajo predvsem povsem določeni problemi, ne pa splošni opisi. Iitnolog na terenu se tako redkeje srečuje s problemi pet cepci je, ki tako pogosto pestijo antropologa. Cilji ostajajo za etnologa trdno določeni, medtem ko se mora antropolog prilagoditi spreminjajočim se političnim situacijam in nepričakovanim družbenim navzkrižjem v deželah, ki so daleč od opazovalčevega doma. Zaradi teli stvari, ki se lahko pogosto dogajajo, se spreminja vidik raziskave. Antropološka literatura je polna takih dogodkov.
Za evropskega etnologa, še posebej pa za slovenskega, je teren skoraj zmeraj dosegljiv le po kratki vožnji z avtom, avtobusom ali vlakom, Mogoče bo prenočil v okolju, kjer poteka raziskava, še bolj pogosto pa se raziskovalec proda tja in se vrne domov še isti dan - v nasprotju s šestimi meseci ali nekaj leti v tujini, ki so tako značilni za antropološke raziskave. Mogoče bi tu še omenili, da se etnolog ne sooča tako pogosto s smrtjo kot direktno posledico svoje raziskave. Nekateri antropologi so žal umrli zaradi nesreče ali nasilja. Tri tem tu ne mislim toliko na neprijazno domorodce, čeprav je bila tudi to težava, temveč na zelo realno in nenehno tveganje zaradi nesreč ali bolezni /tli se mi, tla iz perspektive evropskega etnologa, ki se osredoloča na svoje okolje, antropolog, ki posega v daljne kraje in je delal v različnih kulturah, izpade malce kot diletant, Seveda se zgodi, da se, zgodovinsko vzeto, etnologi, ki formulirajo številne domneve o podobi Svoje lastne kulture, cesto ne osredotočajo na tiste probleme, ki jim antropologi posvečajo dobršno mero pozornosti, takt) na primer primerjavi socialne strukture z materialno kulturo. Zaradi tega je veliko njihovega lokalnega kulturnega ozadja samoumevnega v njihovih raziskavah. Kei je tako veliko etnoloških raziskav objavljenih v nacionalnem jeziku raziskovalca, lahko predvidevamo, tla je bralčevo kuii urno ozadje zelo podobno raziskovalčcvcniu. Poleg tega stopnja jezikovne sposobnosti ne predstavlja problema v etnoloških raziskavah lokalnega značaja, je pa stalno prisotna v
antropoloških podvigih. Kljub temu obstaja neposredna povezava med ameriško antropologijo in klasičnimi študijami ameriških skupnosti iz 20. let tega stoletja. Model predstavlja tukaj širok etnografski pristop. V uvodu v Muklleioum, prvo resnično študijo ameriškega industrijskega mesta (v zvezni drŽavi Indiani), ki sta jo napisala zakonca Lynd, je predgovor napisal antropolog Clark Wissler, strokovnjak za prerijske Indijance. Ta izbira avtorja se je zdela prikladna, ker je v tem delu zelo prisoten vidik antropološke metodologije. To je hol¡stičen pristop, ki zaobjema vse vidike kulture. Zdelo seje. da bi bila ta metodologija, ki je bila uporabljena v .študiji o prerijskih Indijancih, lahko uporabna tudi za študijo o moderni ameriški belopolti skupnosti. Raziskave tega mesta so ponovili v 30. in potem še v 70, letih, ko so posneli še doku mentarec. Tega antropološkega modela niso uporabili zgolj za raziskavo Middleto\vna, ampak tudi za serijo študij o Ycin-kee Citijtt, obalni skupnosti v Novi Angliji severno od Bostona. Organizator te raziskave Lloyd Warner je pred tem raziskoval avstralske domorodce. V 30. letih je ta zadeva zelo odmevala y tisku in ameriški kulturi. Romanopisec John Mar cjuand je po tej temi napisal roman in gledališko igro, ki so jo predvajali na Broadwayu.
Zdi se mi, da razumevanje vzrokov za vojno v bivši Jugoslaviji zahteva premislek. Ta spopad očitno odseva pomembno pomanjkanje primerjalne razsežnosti. Očitno politično ni bilo mogoče razpravljati o nacionalnih razlikah, četudi bi obstajala konceptualna podlaga za to I1 red razpadom Jugoslavije je obstajalo, in vi ste s tem podrobneje seznanjeni kot jaz. "Etnološko društvo Jugoslavije" z lastnim glasilom. Prav tako so bili organizirani letni sestanki, ki so se ukvarjali z določenimi temami. Tudi delo na Etnološkem atlasu Jugoslavije, ki je imelo sedež v Zagrebu, je bilo "nacionalni" projekt, ki je segal prek republiških meja. Vendar pa sem imel občutek, da za ta projekt ni bilo posebnega navdušenja, še posebno kar zadeva Srbijo, čeprav odmeva nanj v Sloveniji ne poznani Poleg tega je bil to tehničen projekt, katerega namen je bil le vnašanje razporeditve številnih elementov materialne kulture, in nt bil niti najmanj primerjalen ali analitičen S tem želim povedati, tla je v Jugoslaviji obstajala vrsta nacionalnih etnologi j, od katerih je imela vsaka svoj obseg dela, svojo lastno zgodovino, vodilne raziskovalce in posebno literaturo. Tako so bili Milenko lalipovič, Milovan Gavazzi in Vilko Novak kolegi, vendar so živeli vsak v svojem lastnem svetu, v vesolju svoje lastne nacionalne etnologije, V jugoslovanskem kontekstu je to najbolj jasno vidno v primeru Hrvatov, Srbov in Slovencev. Morda se motim, vendar se ne spominja m kakih dolgoročnih projektov, ki bi vsebovali objavljanje enih v publikacijah driigih. Zalo se mi zdi, da je bilo težko analizirati nekatera ključna orodja in koncepte v lastni nacionalni etnologiji, da bi razumeli multikulturni konflikt. Pri tem imam v mislih interes in metodologijo Jovana Cvijiča v nasprotju z bratoma Radič. Njihova dela so vsebovala očitne politične implikacije. Vsaka nacionalna enota je bila zelo vpletena v politiko svoje skupine. Del Cvijičevih raziskav so uporabili na Versajski mirovni konferenci, brata liadič pa sta bila ustanovitelja hrvaške kmečke stranke. Prav tako imam v mislih uporabo tlela slovenskih etnoloških podatkov v času tržaškega konflikta v začetku petdesetih let. Zelo si želim vašega odmeva na to moje razmišljanje. Menim, da etnološki podatki in antropološki koncepti lahko pripomorejo k razumevanju sedanjega spopada* To sem poskušal pojasniti v posebni izdaji publikacije Antluopologv of East Hurope Ke-view, ki je posvečena tej tematiki in katere urednik sem. Zato me zanima, kako se etnologija loteva vprašanj kul-
66
GLASNIK SED 35/1995, št. 2'3
OBZORJA STROKE
v
turnih stikov. Tako sem na primer med svojimi obiski in predavanji v Ljubljani srečal študente, ki so raziskovali življenje Bosancev v Sloveniji; Kako se to vklaplja v koncept nacionalne etnologije m v kolikšni meri je to pomenil >en del le podobe? Ali se lahko nacionalna etnologija ukvarja z mulii-elničnimi problemi? Še drug vidik je povezan s prcmišljanji o konflikfd. Raziskave konfliktov so osrednji del antropološke tradicije. Prisotne so bile skoraj od samega začetka, saj so bili mnogi začetni imperialno kolonialni stiki polni konfliktov in so \ sebovali boje in uničevanje. Ob tem se človek spomni na klasično študijo Evansa-Pritcharda o plemenu Nuer v Sudanu. Če preberemo uvod v to delo. lahko vidimo, kako se se njegove raziskave navezovale na skrb britanskih kolonialnih oblasti, ki so si prizadevale nadzorovati sovražnost Nuerov. Konflikt seveda lahko nastopi tudi v družbenih skupinah znotraj vaške skupnosti kol posledica preseljevanja v mesta, ali pa med družbenimi razredi. Tako predvidevam, čeprav se tega ne spominjam, da se vaša študija o delavcih pri železnici vsaj delno ukvarja z razrednim spopadom. Zdi se. tla je la meioda v nacionalnih etnologijah povezana z zgodovinskimi procesi v relativno stabilnih družbah, posebno glede kmečke kuluue. Marksizem je seveda poudarjal razredni konflikt in koristno evolucijo v nasprotju s tRino kinečkc>daižbo. Vendar pa se zdi. tla se nacionalnim etnologijam ni potrebno ukvarjati s sociokulturnimi procesi uničevanja Lili izumiranja kultur. Študija vašega kolega o taboriščnikih je zanimiva in potrjuje 'o misel. Ne poznam podrobnosti, zanima pa me, če bi bila katera od njegovih metod koristna tudi v etnologiji. Razumevanje procesa uničevanja je gotovo nujno zli razumevanje konfliktov na Hrvaškem in v Bosni. Zastavlja se •ni vsaj troje vprašanj - etnologija in mul tukult urni kontekst, Vprašanje konflikta, njegove posledice in razrešitev Lili odsotnost le-ie. in končno vprašanje etnologije ne le kot vede, ki pomaga razumevati zgodovinske procese, ampak se tudi konceptualno in teoretično ukvarja s koncem nekega načina življenja. Hi 10 lahko bil primer za pojave kmečke kulture? K;ij Pa namerno uničevanje kultur, kot na primer iztrebljanje ¿idov in etnično čiščenje sedaj v Bosni?
Poraja se mi še misel o vrednotah, ki jih vsebuje nacionalna etnologija kot veda. Kaj lahko pove o vrednotah, o veljavnosti drugih kulturnih sistemov? Kako lahko nacionalna etnologija definira svojo prihodnost? Ozemlje bivše Jugoslavije se je sedaj spremenilo iz ozemlji na katerem je stala muli mat ionalna posvetna država, 11:1 ozemlje, ki ga zaseda skupina nacionalnih držav. Menim, da bi tu bili nekateri vaši nazori, takO marks ¡stični kot tudi drugi} in vaši pogledi na etnologijo in nacionalne države zelo pomembni.
se bi lahko nadaljeval, a bom na tem mestu prekinil svoje razmišljanje. Ker je to zamišljeno kot pogovor, ne želim sam postaviti celotnega ogrodja zanj, temveč le zarisali smernice za najin dvogovor. Veselim se vašega odgovora.
Lep pozdrav, Joel
I Prevod v slovenščino: Nives Snlič.)
GLASNIK SED 35/1995, Si. 2-3
Slavko Kremenšek Trubarjeva 61 Ljubljana
Pt -of, J ne l Ha Ipe rti 580 Market HiU Road A111 hevsi, MA 01002 Ljubljana, 3■ avgust 1994
Dragi Joel!
Toplo se Vam zahvaljujem za pismo, ki sem ga prejel pred časom. Vesel sem, tla ste ostali pri najinem dogovoru glede izmenjave pogledov na nekatera strokovna vprašanja, ki so danes v Sloveniji aktualna. Gre predvsem za razmerje med etnologijo in antropologijo. Na najinem sprehodu v Bohinju letos spomladi pa sva načela tudi vprašanje prostorov Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja in vloge oziroma mesla etnološke vede v osamosvojeni Sloveniji. O obeh vprašanjih govorite v Vašem pismu. Spričo tega se mi dozdeva, tla bo najina izmenjava mnenj najbolj plodna, če poskušam slediti loku Vašill misli.
O razmerju etnologija - antropologija bi najraje govoril ha Podlagi osebnih izkušenj, tlo katerih sem prišel predvsem v zadnjih letih. Kot veste, smo na Oddelku za etnologijo Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani 11; 1 pobudo nekaterih mojih kolegov Študiju etnologije dodali Se Študij kulturne antropologije. Tako smo Spremenili tudi ime oddelka v Oddelek za etnologijo in kulturno antropologijo. Nisem bil pobudnik omenjenih spiememb, nisem pa bil tudi njihov načelni nasprotnik. Vendar so ne teater i praktični postopki spreminjanja oziroma dopolnjevanja dela oddelka izzvali ugovore. Zalo je verjetno težko izključiti nekatere subjektivne primesi mojega izvajanja Sicer |">a je trebit reči, tla je naša razprava o razmerju etnologija - antropologija Za sedaj omejena povečini le na sodelavce našega oddelka in na študente. Ker pa, kol pišete, ne poznale razprave, o kateri teče beseda, pob liže. je prav, tla se omejiva, kol predlagale, na nekatera pomeniBna načelna vprašanja.
Najprej bi rad poudaril, da nam vsebinska 111 metodološka vprašanja kulturne in .socialne antropologije, ki bi mogla biti spodbudna za razvoj naše etnologije, tudi do uvajanja kultni ne antropologije na naš oddelek, niso bila neznana. Menim celo, da smo v šestdesetih in sedemdesetih letih, ko smo prenesli poudarek od reči in stvari na ljudi, izvedli določeno "antropologizacijo" naše etnološke vede. Tako se je kar precejšen del slovenskih etnologov, Se zlasti mlajših, usmeril med drugim v preučevanje najrazličnejši oblik d ni žl jenih odnosov, v problematiko tako imenovane socialne kulture, ki je bila na poprejšnji, "folklorisiičm" .stopnji razvoja slovenske einologije nedvomno zanemarjena. Seveda pa je tlel raziskovalcev, celo precejšen del, ostal pri bolj ali manj "klasičnih" etnoloških temah. Ni pa mogoče t rt I iti, da tudi pri njih niso bila zaznavna določena posodabljanja
Glede na mojo generično strukturalno metodološko usmeritev mi je Vaše povezovanje vloge in pomena slovenske etnologije z d ru žbenozgodovi ns ki m dogajanjem in razvojem seveda blizu. Pozornost, ki jo posvečate razlikam v razvoju antropologije in einologije, tudi nemškima V(jlkei$unde in Volkshunde, je ustrezna in zanimiva. 15i pa ob tem rad podčrtal, tla je mirno antropologije (oziroma nemške i'61-herkuude) doživela razvoj in spremembe lutli etnologija (v smislu nemške VolkskUnde). Res je. tla antropologija ni ostala
ŠT
OBZORJA STROKE
k* pri preučevanju t. i, "primitivnih" ali "naravnih" ljudstev, ampak je po zakoncih I,ynd in L, Wamer}U posegla tudi v mesto in na področje tako imenovane industrijske kulture. Seveda pa se tudi evropski etnologi že desetletja ne ukvarjajo več les kmečkimi kulturami in podeželani, ampak preučujejo tudi način življenja in kulturne pojave prebivalstva industrijskih naselij in mest. To lako za sedajnost kot za preteklost.
Povsem se strinjam z Vašim razločevanjem, tako v razvojnem kot v funkcionalnem smislu, med socio-kullurnu antropologijo (poimenovanje je Vaše!) in etnologijo. Zdi se, da temu ni kaj bistvenega dodati. Opozorili ste na to, tla se je etnologija (v smislu nemške Volkskuude) razvijala ob študiju narodne ¿godovine, umetnosti, literature. Vse to drži. Razvoj etnologije v smislu nemške Volkerkunili' ali angloameriške socio-kulturne antropologije je bil drugačen. Obe vedi sla izpolnjevali v bistvu ločene naloge. V tem smislu smo na Slovenskem vse do sredine petdesetih let ločevali med et-nografijo (na Nemškem naj bi bila to V&lkskiuide) in etnologijo (ime za nemško Volkarkii ude). Iz več razlogov, med njimi tudi idejnopolittčnih, smo tedaj cmogralijo in etnologijo združili v enotno vedo - etnologijo. Velja ugotovili, da nam omenjena spojitev tri desetletja ni delala nikakršnih težav. Prej nasprotno. Pridobljena širina je dajala več možnosti in več poleta. Ko pa so na našem oddelku, kot rečeno, nekateri kolegi začeli z Uvajanjem kulturne antropologije, so se začele Stvari postopoma zapletali Pokazalo se je, da se omenjena novost uveljavlja na škodo lega, kar smo pred desetletji označevali 7. imenom etnografija (nemško Volkskttnde). Da pa je Šlo pri etnografiji za specifično problematiko, ki jo povezuje sklop tako imenovanih nacionalnih ved, je bilo povedano. Ob morebitnem nadaljnjem uveljavljanju kulturne antropologije na škodo etnologije kol nacionalne vede par eNellencc bi bilo seveda treba sprejeti nekatere zaščitne uk repe. Dozdeva se mi, da bi bilo glede na Vaše razumevanje razlik med etnologijo in socio-kulturno antropologijo kaj takega tudi za Vas sprejemljivo. Dejstvo je pijač, da problema tika. ki smo jo pri nas nekoč uokvirjali v etnologijo, na Nemškem v Volkerdunde, postaja vse bolj predmet socio-kulturne antropologije. Ljudi, ki so se pri nas pred drugo svetovno vojno sami opredeljevali za etnologe, uvrščajo danes med antropologe. Zdi se, da je ta proces, ki ima svoj izvor v angloameriškem kulturnem območju, v zadnjem obdobju nezadržen. To pa ne pomeni, tla je treba temu loku prepustiti tudi listi tlel našega dosedanjega etnološkega zanimanja, ki smo ga v preteklosti označevali z besedo etnografija (v pomenu nemške Volkskunde). Glede na drugačne družbene pobude takt) pri nastanku kot pri nadaljnjem razvoju preučevanja le tematike je treba še nadalje ohranili zanjo posebne strokovne okvire. Pri tem gre, kot je to razvidno tudi iz Vašega pisma, prvenstveno za obravnavci lastnega ljudstva, naroda, nacije. Zanimanje za druge etične skupine, v poglavitnem za sorodne in sosednje, je potemtakem v funkciji s a mospoZnavanja. Takšna usmeritev je usklajena tudi z imenom vede: etnologija ali etnografija {v nemščini v ednin-ski obliki: Volkskunde). Antropologija že po imenu bistveno presega etnološke ambicije. Je, kol pravite, "essentiallv a comparalive discipline". Delitev dela med etnologijo (s poudarkom na "ethnosu") in antropologijo (s poudarkom na "anthroposu") je na tak način v tematskem pogledu dovolj opredeljena. To velja tudi za njune cilje. Medtem ko je meto-
dologija stvar naše svobodne izbire, se metodični postopki ravnajo po metodologiji, ciljih in še zlasti po predmetu obravnave. Sicer pa pišete o metodiki v antropologiji (tudi v primerjavi z etnologijo) detajlneje v svojem pismu.
Razumevanje etnologije kot izrazilo nacionalne discipline sle povezali z razmerami v bivši Jugoslaviji. Strinjam se z Vašo ugotovitvijo, tla so bila skupna prizadevanja etnologov iz bivših jugoslovanskih republik razmeroma skromna. Res pa je tudi, da določenih poskusov intenzivnega medsebojnega povezovanja in sodelovanja ni manjkalo. Toda posebnosti posameznih nacionalnih clnologij in njihovih okolij, temelječe na različnih tradicijah, so bile očitne. Tovrstne dispara t nosi i so lahko eden od mnogih pokazateljev, zakaj je Jugoslavija razpadla. Prepričan sem tudi, da bi bile etnološke in antropološke primerjalne Študije, ki bi se nanašale na različna območja bivše Jugoslavije, zelo koristna, čeprav bi seveda ne mogle zavreti razpadanje nečesa, kar je sililo narazen. Tako smo se slovenski in hrvaški etnologi pred poldrugim desetletjem dogovorili za redne vsakoletne Strokovne sestanke, na katerih smo razkrivali vzporednice, podobnosti in razlike med slovensko in hrvaško etnološko problematiko. Ti sestanki so bih, tako menim, zelo koristni. Če bi jih kdaj obnovili, bi jih nedvomno kazalo podpreti. Podobno je bi It) pred leti z Alpes Ohenictles, svobodno delovno skupnostjo etnologov vzhodnoalpskih dežel (Slovenija, Avstrija, Furlanija, Retija v Švici), ki je izhajala iz spoznanja o enovkosti ljudske kulture vzhodnoalpskih pokrajin ne glede na jezik in politične meje. Seveda pa so slovenski etnologi še v drugih zvezah pritegovali primerjalno gradivo, ki se je nanašalo na tuje etične skupine. Kajpak v poglavitnem s ciljem, da bi detajlneje osvetlili vprašanja, na katera so naleteli doma, Pri tem so upoštevali ali bi vsaj ne smeli zanemarjati krajevnih in časovnih opredelitev, se pravi zgodovinskih določil. Da so bili pri ugotavljanju socialnih razlik šibki, je bilo posrednt) povedano, lako so jih res manj zanimati npr. kulturni kontakti (' culi umi con tacts") nasploh ali zamisli o spopadih ( generalideasofcoujlicts") nasploh. So pa bili bolj zainteresirani za konkretne, zgodovinsko opredeljene pojave. Ne bi mogli nadalje trditi, tla etnologe zanimajo le relativno stabilne družbe ("relative stahle societles"). v strukturi etnološke topografije raziskave slovenskega etničnega ozemlja, ki jo prav gotova poznale, sla enakopravna razdelka, ki se nanašata na uvajanje novosti in na razkroj tradicionalne kulturne podobe, kar se verjetno razlikuje v temeljih od antropološkega zanimanja za procese rušenja ("processes oj de-stnictloii"). Seveda pa gre pri topografskem projektu v vsakem primeru za konkretne, zgodovinsko določene procese. Toliko o mojem mnevanju razlik med etnologijo in socio-kulturno antropologijo. Kar zadeva Slovenski etnografski muzej, o katerem sva na najinem spomladanskem sprehodu prav lakt) govorila, gre za praktično in načelno vprašanje, ki že precej časa razgibava kulturno in v določenem pogledu celo pol i lično ozračje na Slovenskem-Po osamosvojitvi Slovenije oziroma odhodu jugoslovanske vojske je namreč nasproti stavbe Narodnega muzeja ostal» prazno poslopje, ki bi bilo v obstoječih razmerah po mnenju mnogih iz več razlogov najbolj primerno za Slovenski etnografski muzej.Slovenci sicer imamo svoj etnografski muzej že sedemdeset let, vendar brez ustreznih prostorov,x katerih bi bilo mogoče urediti piepotrebno stalno razstavo.
5 'Po zadnjih načrtih se ha SUM preselil i1 kompleks izpraznjene i iajaši Učena A letelkoi i r bližin i železniške postaje. T:> naj hi bila dokončna rešiterfop. itr.J.
66
GLASNIK SED 35/1995, št. 2'3
OBZORJA STROKE
Kljub temu so sinikturne oblasti omenjeno poslopje, kol vse kaže, namenile za upravne pisarne nekaterih minislerstev. Se pravi, da ima birokracija prednost pred ustanovami lake vrste, kot je Slovenski etnografski muzej tudi v osamosvojeni Sloveniji; Nad tem sem se z ogorčenjem pritoževala najinem sprehodu, pomirjen pa seveda nisem glede tega vprašanja niti d Lines. Povedati moram, da se spričo omenjenih dejstev počutim nelagodno, ker se Vaše besede, izzvane ob vprašanju Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja, sučejo v osnovi okrog tako imenovanega "folklorizma". To zato, ker vem. da že dobrih štirideset let spremljate prizadevanja v slovenski etnologiji, čeprav v primerjavi z nekaterimi drugimi območji bivše Jugoslavije morda res nekoliko sporadično in na daleč, l'a vendar: upal bi si trdili, da ste bili med najbolje obveščenimi tujimi strokovnjaki glede jugoslovanskih etnolo-gij. To izpričuje konec koncev tudi Vaše pismo. Zato veste, da smo v zadnjih tridesetih letih močno razširili vprašanja naših raziskav in se vsaj nekateri med nami s problemi, ki bi i'li mogli označili kot folkloristične, sploh nismo nikoli ukvarjali.. Tako npr. moje razprave o Mostah prav gotovo niste dali prevesti na svoje stroške in nato razmnožili v seriji, ki sle jo Zasnovali pred leti, zaradi njenih folklornih sestavin Teh v tem delu ni, kol jih ni npr. v študiji o Zeleni jami, ki ste si jo prav tako dali prevesti in ste mislili tudi na njeno objavo Se pravi, da nas Že desetletja ne zanima več le ljudska kultura, v našem primeru pač v prvi vrsii slovenska, ampak tudi način življenja družbenih slojev, ki z. ljudsko kulturo niso imeli neposredne zveze. Le zavoljo ponazoritve položaja naj omenim, da je Irentltno v tisku diplomska naloga ene naših študentk, ki obravnava način Življenja na enem od gradov na slovenskem med svetovnima vojnama. Tema torej, ki bi morata prav tako dobili prostor na stalni ra/slavi Slovenskega etnogral-skega muzeja Sicer pa se je naša etnologija v marsičem spremenila tudi pri obravnavi ljudske tradicije, se pravi klasičnih etnoloških tem, recimo folklore. Ko ste bili lansko leto v Ljubljani, ste si, če se prav spominjam, kupili knjigo Janeza Bogataja Sto srečanj Z dediščino, Delo je v celoti namenjeno Vprašanjem, kako kaže pojmovati dediščino v našem času, se pravi na nov, posodobljen način. In tako naprej. Spričo nakazanih sprememb v pojmovanju predmeta etnološkega preučevanja lahko predpostavljamo, tla bi bila podoba stalne razstave v Slovenskem etnografskem muzeju, če bi jo imeli kani postavili, močno drugačna kol pred, recimo, tridesetimi 1'olklorizem in etnologija sta danes na Slovenskem dve bi t Vf no različni Stvari. V procesu oddaljevanja oti folktor-'stične stopnje v razvoju naše etnologije smo se v tem in onem zgledovali tudi pri socio- kult urni antropologiji. Seveda pa žalijo tega nismo postali antropologi. In sva spet pri vprašanju, o katerem je bil govor na začetku. Naj sklenem. Mislim, tla sva si edina v prepričanju, da gre pri antropologiji in etnologiji V pogledu izvira, razvoja in njunega današnjega mesta v vrsti družboslovnih in humanis-tičnih disciplin za dve stvari. Poigravanje s pomensko zvezo "etnologija in/ali antropologija", j° dandanes srečujemo pri nekaterih naših kolegih, je spričo tega vsekakor vprašljivo. Razumljivo pa je. da imate antropologi o etnologiji in imamo etnologi o antropologiji v tem in onem različne predstave, ki ne ustrezajo docela predstavam;, izoblikovanim v lastni disciplini. Ker utegne bili ta podoba tako na eni kot na drugi strani tudi do določene mere zgrešena, je prav, da si svoje predstave večkrat izmenjamo. V ^Panju, da imata najini pismi značaj in pomen takšne izmen-)ave, ju pošiljam uredništvu Glasnika SED, ki nama bo prav gotovo pokazalo svojo naklonjenost.
_ Prej»t ite moje iskrene in tople pozdrave, Slavko
58	GLASNIK SED 35/1995, št. 2-3
Slavko KremenSek Trubarjeva 6161000 Ljubljana
Prof. Joel Hat pern 580 Market Hilt Rontl
Amherst, MA 01002 Ljubljana, August 3i 1994 DearJoe I
Thank you so much for your letter which 1 received a while ago. 1 am glad you decided to follow our arrangement concerning an exchange of views on some of the professional problems which are of considerable importance ill Slovenia today. These concern the relationship between ethnology and anthropology. This spring, while walking around Boliinj, we Started to talk about the future location of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum and the role of ethnology in independent Slovenia. You deal with both of these topics in your letter; therefore 1 feel ii best if I try to follow your line of thought.
1 would prefer to speak about the relationship between ethnology and anthropology on the basis of my personal expe-i ience during these last few years. As you know, some of my collegues at the Department Of Pthnology in Ljubljana have initiated the study of cultural anthropology. Due to this fact, the name of the department was changed to the Department ol Ethnology and Cultural Anthropologic was not among the initiators of these changes, but 1 was also not, in principle, against them. Some aspects of these changes or, better put. supplementing the work of the department did provoke certain complaints. This is why ii may be difficult to avoid a certain degree of subjectivity here, ll has to be stated that our discussions concerning the relationship between ethnology and anthropology have been, for now at least, limited mostly to department staff, and to our.students. Since you have staled that you were not familiar with these discussions in detail, ii seems only right to limit our debate to, as you had put it, some important ideas.
First, 1 wish lo assert that contextual and methodological questions concerning cultural and social anthropology, which could be stimulating for the development of our ethnology, were not unknown lo our department prior if) these changes. It is even my opinion that ih the sixties and the Severn ies, when our emphasis shifted from tilings to people, there was a certain "antllropologlziation" of our ethnology. Quite a large percentage ol our ethnologists, especially younger ones, directed then attention io researching dilfercnt kinds of social relations. Their attention shifted to problems of the so-called social culture. This aspect had undoubtedly been neglected previously. This was during the period of the "folkloristic" focus in the development of Slovene ethnology. A large group of Slovene researchers continued Working on "classical" ethnological themes. But it would not be correct lo say i hai certain elements of modem scholarship were nol present in their work as well.
According to my genetic/struclural methodological orientation ii is understandable thrift I feel close to your linking the role and importance of Slovene ethnology with the evolution of current socio-historical events. The degree of attention which you devote to differences in the development of anthropology and ethnology, also to Volkerkunde and Volk-skmnle in Germany, is interesting and appropriate. 1 would like to stress, however, that aside from anthropology (namely

OBZORJA STROKE
Volkerkuride in Germany), there were certain changes and further developments in ethnology (in the sense ot Vo/h-skuncle in Germany) as well. It is true that anthropology had not persisted only in research on the so-called "primitive" or "natural* peoples, but reached also into the sphere of the so-called industrial culture with W. L. Warner and the Lynds but it is equally true that European ethnologists have ceased to limit their research solely to the fanning culture and farmers, but are also interested in the way of life and in cultural elements among the inhabitants of industrial scllleinents and cities, in the past as well as today.
1 could not agree more with your distinction - developmental as well as functional - between social-cultural anthropology (this is your term!) and ethnology. There is nothing 1 could add to it. You have stressed the fad that ethnology (in the sense of Vwkskuude in Germany) hasidevopcd alongside the study of natural history, art, and literature. All of this is correct. The development of ethnology in the sense of the German Vnlkerkuiide, or Anglo-American social-cultural an thropology, has been different, both disciplines have had essentially different goals. It was in this sense that all to mid-fifties there was the distinction between ethnography ( Volkslmnde in Germany) and ethnology ( Vo/keihunde in Germany) Due to several reasons, including ideological ones, ethnography and ethnology then emerged into a uniform discipline - ethnology. Il has to be asserted that for three decades, this merger has not presented any problems whatsoever If anything, the exact opposite was true. The breadth thus attained offered more possibilities and more impetus, but since some of my colleagues at our department started to bring in cultural anthropology, as has already been mentioned. things slowly started to become complicated. It has turned out that this innovation of anthropology has asserted itself much to the detriment of what had I >een termed ethnography < Valkskande in Germimy) decades ago, !t has already been mentioned that ethnography dealt with specific problems linked together by the complex of the so-called national sciences ("national" in the more limited sense of this term).
It would Of course be necessary to undertake some protective measures if cultural anthropology is going to further develop lo the detriment of ethnology as the national science par excellence. It seems to me that, since you understand the differences between ethnology and social cultural anthropology, this would be acceptable for you as well. The fact is that themes which had once been the scope of ethnology and of Volki'ihit)idcare becoming more and more the subject of social-cultural anthropology. People who thought of them selves as ethnologists are nowadays labelled anthropologists. I i seems that this process, the source of which is in the Anglo-American cultural area, lately became irrevocable. This does not denote, however, that the part of our ethnological research which was termed ethnography (in the sense ol German Volkskunde) in the past should be yielded lot his current. This concerns, as is clearly evident from your letter as well, above all the research of one's own people, one's own nation. Interest in other ethnic groups, mainly in those similar to ours, OF in our neighbours, is thus a developing of "sclf'-knowl-edge." Such orientation is also in accordance with the name of the discipline: ethnology or ethnography (it is singular in German: Volkskunde). Even in its name, anthropology fundamentally exceeds the ambitions of ethnology. Il is, as you say. essentially a comparative discipline. Division between cthnpjogy (with the stress on "ethnos") and anthropology (with the stress on "anlluopos") is thus lliemalitally clearly
defined. The same holds true for their goals as well. While methodology is a matter of our own free choice, methodical processes depend upon methodology, goals and, above all, on the subject of research. Moreover, you write about methods in anthropology (compared to ethnology) in detail in your letter.
You have linked your understanding of ethnology as a distinctive national discipline with the circumstances in ex-Yugoslavia. 1 agree with your statement that joint endevours of ethnologists from ex-Yugoslav republics were somewhat modest. But il is also true that there were certain attempts at intensive mutual association and cooperation. Peculiarities of individual national ethnologies and their surroundings, based on different traditions, were, however, obvious. Such discrepancies can be one ot many indicators explaining the disintegration of Yugoslavia. I am also of the opinion that comparative ethnological and anthropological studies of different areas of ex-Yugoslavia would have been extremely useful; but they could not, of course, prevent the disintegration of what had already come apart. A decade and a half ago Slovene and Croatian colleagues arranged for regular professional meetings ihe topics of which were parallels, similarities and differences between Slovene and Croalian ethnologies, I feel that these meetings were extremely useful. Should they be organized again, we should support such an initiative. A similar situation occured some years ago with Alpes Orientates, an independent, noninstitutionalized organization ot ethnologists from East Alpine countries (Slovenia, Austria, Fri-uii and Kaetia in Switzerland) which was based on the recognition Of the uniformity of folk culture in East Alpine regions, regardless of language and political boarders. Slovene ethnologists have, of course, made use of comparative data on foreign ethnic groups elsewhere as well. Tile main goal ot this was, to be sure, to analyze in detail those problems which occured al home. In doing this ihey have considered, or at least they should have, locai and temporal definitions or, to put it differently, historical definitions. It has already, although indirectly, been staled that social differentiation was not exactly their strong point. They were also not very;merest ed in cultural contacts, as you have stated, in general, for example, or in, according lo your own terms, general ideas of conflict. They were just more interested in concrete, historically defined phenomena. 11 would also not be possible to maintain that ethnologists are interested solely in, as you suggest, relatively slable societies. Within the structure ot ethnological topographic research of Slovene ethnic territory, with which you arc undoubtedly familiar, there are two equal
sections dealing with the introduction of innovations and with
the destruction of traditional culture This is probably not basically dissimilar from anthropological interest in what you term the processes of cultural destruction This topographic research project has. of course, consistently dealt with concrete, historically defined processes.
This concludes my comments about mv understanding ot differences between ethnology and social-cultural anthropology. As far as the Slovene Ethnographic Museum is con' ccrncd. which we discussed during our spring walk, this is a practical as well as a fundamental question. This matter has Stirred up the cultural and, lo some extent, the political climate in Slovenia for quite some time. After Slovenia gained its in dependence and following the departure of Yugoslav sol diers, there remained an empty building across from the National Museum in downtown Ljubljana; in these circumstances, and for several reasons, this would be the most suit-
66
GLASNIK SED 35/1995, št. 2'3
OBZORJA STROKE
HHHHHMHMi■BBBPRBHBBMHBMMPBmKW
Si; 7	^5 SLS'.!,'r:!!	'ir-VifJ i'l": ^
able location fortheSlovene Ethnographic Museum " It is true dial we Slovenes have had our own ethnographic museum for the last seventy years, but without a suitable building which would house a much-needed permanent exhibit. Despite this, it seems that our authorities have allocated this building for the offices of several ministeries. This means that the bureaucracy has an advantage over such institutions as the Slovene Ethnographic Museum - even in independent Slovenia 1 have already complained bitterly over this fact dm ing our walk, and am still not at ease today.
I do have to say that due to these facts 1 feel some unease because your references to the problems of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum are basically centered on the influence ot the so-called "folklorism." This is because 1 know that for about four decades you have been following Slovene ethnology. although maybe a bit sporadically and from a distance compared to some other areas of ex-Yugoslavia. And yet: I would dare to state that you were one of the best informed foreign professionals with regard lo Yugoslav ethnologies. The proof of this is in your letter. You are therefore aware that we expanded considerably the scope of our research in the last thirty years, and at least some of us have never even dealt with problems which could be termed Iblklorislic, For example, 1 inn sure tliat you did not have my treatise on Moste translated and published in your University's East European series because of its folklorisiic elements. This monograph does not contain any such elements. The same is true for my publication on /.dona jama which you also had translated and intended to publish. This means that for some decades We have not been interested solely in folk culture in Slovenia, hut also in the way ot life of social strata which were not directly connected with folk culture. Let me just mention an illustration. At present we are printing a diploma thesis ot one °toui students on the way of life in one of the Slovene castles between the two World Wars. This is a theme which should find some space in the permanent exhibit of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum. Furthermore, our ethnology has also experienced many changes in dealing with folk tradition, as
with classical ethnological themes such as folklore. If 1 recall rightly you bought a book by Janez Bogataj entitled Slo srecanj z dediscino (One Hundred Encounters with Our Heritage) when vou were in Slovenia last year. This entire book is dedicated to questions of comprehending our heritage at the present moment, meaning in a new, modern way. Due to these changes in our view of ethnology we envisage that a permanent exhibit in the Slovene Ethnographic Museum, were there any space for it, would be very different from one of, say. thirty years ago. Folklorism and ethnology in Slovenia are today two essentially different tilings. In the process of distancing ourselves from the folklorisiic Stage in the development of our ethnology we have occasionally taken an example from social-cultural anthropology. Of course this did not make us anthropologists. I'll us we have come back to tile question raised at the beginning of this letter.
Let me conclude. 1 feel that we agree that regarding their origins, development and present status among other humanities and the social sciences, ethnology and anthropology are two different fields Playing with the syntagma "ethnology and/or anthropology" which is in use by some of our colleagues at present, is thus highly douhful. It is understandable however, that anthropologists as well as ethnologists some-nines have different notions regarding ethnology and anthropology respectively, which do not wholly correspond to those formed within one's own discipline. Since these notions might be distorted to a certain degree, it is only right to clarify them among ourselves. In the hope that our letters do posess the character and meaning of such an exchange, 1 will send i hem lo the editors of Glasnik SED (Bulletin of the Slovene Ethnological Society) who will, hopefully, demonstrate their benevolence.
With warmest regards, Sfavko
(Trans la led from Slovene by Nivcs Sulic.)
ihc latest ¡>iansfor Sloeoie Ethnograj>hic Museum a re to more it int< > (he complex of empty Ixirrack near the railway station on Metelkova street. It should he tjiefinal solution fed note).
I 6	GLASNIK SED 35/1 995, Št. 2-3