RAZGLABLJANJA posebnosti- Tudi v metodološkem pogledu ne vidimo razlik med etnologijo in zgodovinopisjem. Cilji so vsem zgodovinskim Vedam skupini. "Pomožni značaj!.! etnologije glede n:i njeno t i "tcrenskost" smo že zdavnaj zavrnili. 1'onovno pa naj podčrtamo dejstvo, tla so se etnologi v vsej zgodovini etnološki: misli, čeprav zgodovinsko usmerjeni. v daleč uatvečji meri ukvarjali z recenLnimi novejšimi pojavi. Spričo tega Utegne hiti deta jI irana obravnava načina življenja sedanjega in polpreteklega obdobja vendarle naša. se pravi etnološka posebnost, ki jo bomo vnašali v bodoče interdisciplinarne sin leze Retrogradni metodični pristop nam je lahko pri tem pomembno, če ne že odločujoče pomagalo Slavko Kremenšek THE RETROGRADE POINT OF VIEW -A NEGLECTED METHODOLOGICAL ASPECT IN ETHNOLOGY?1 The problem presented in Mils paper does tiot concern con temporary ethnology in all its entirety. It does however, concern its originally authentic pan, namely the discipline of ethnology w hich has been viewed as a historical scientific discipline, and which has viewed itself as such as well This denotes that, according 10 its methodological orientation ii belonged to one or other, methodological orientation which had a historical character. For the psychologically or biologically oriented branches of ethnology this question mav be meaningless. I lisiorical treatises are usually written in chronological progression. in a stereotypical manner, lacking the corresponding rejection. Chronology has been a weak part ot ethnological methodology for a longtime. Searching for the reasons lor this situation is a risky but interesting endeavour As recently as a few decades ago, folk culture or folk life w ere, at least in part it not entirely, outside history - speaking in terms of'the historical sciences, of cour.sc. Their adherence to tradition and community could not be outside the temporal dimension, of course, bin their more or less .statistically understood historical situation did not .stimulate any exact temporal definition. This situation remained unchanged even aitcrthecataclysm through w hich the "old wodd" had lo pass in the form of industrialisation, urbanisation and other phenomena of modern limes. As if the temporal component were not as important for the living ami the (.lying of folk culture as a relatively independent cultural structure in the historical process ol development as for all other historical phenomena' kaiko l.ozat maintained that ethnography is a historical discipline, methodically and theoretically linked to historical methodology, Lozar rejects the idea that ethnography is a di.s cipline researching the present, since its main task is . . tcjjeseurch the past, for this discipline tries to learn about the culture which Used to he better preserved than it is today, and is vanishing now." (Ip&ir 194i: 1(>) This .statement is followed by a sentence which is of special interest to us: 11 it proceeds from the existing situation in spite of this, this is hut a matter of its method and not its goal." (Ibid;) The researchei must gather and research contemporary ma-teriaf in order to learn about "the real face of folk culture", its "true", "genuine", and "original" aspect, which was "be- yond any shadow of a doubt "more perfect as we proceed funher into the past" (Ložar 1944: IK). According to Ložar, the "existing situation" and "contemporary material arc thus the starting point of research work, a method which, H seems, could be labelled a typically ethnographic methodological aspect. The goal and the direction ol the ethnographic research as understood by Ložar are clear from the present to the past. A retrogressive viewpoint, consequently. In bJ-Sfi Vilko Novak objected to Ložars stressing the research of the past, i le maintained that ... ethnogr.ipln does not proceed from the present only because of its method, but M,rives to explain thepitseut. tiiv present social tonus, objects and phenomena m the vpheiv ol"spiritual culture corretlK. regardless of wliethra the) originated centuries ago, decade*, ago. i >r ¡ust iei entl\ vak did not negate the present as a starting point ol ethnological orethnographk research either, he only stressed the research ol the present "per sc" II has already been stressed elsewhere that throughout the history of ethnology most researchers have been interested in recent, that is to say contemporary phenomena It is of course another matter how their research results were used, Some, for instance A, 'I', l.inhait. proceeded from their period ot time and drew conclusions foi the time period a thousand or more years before that. Romanticists gathered material among their contemporaries in order to explain dit- mythical soul of the nation, the least tarnished far in the past, with remnants of national material". Some saw the specific aspect of ethnology and the way it differed from historiography m the lati that it proceeds from the present, drawing conclusions about life past. This was held lobe objectively necessary since other suitable data was unavailable Fritz Grainier, for instance. maintained thai because of this, ethnological research of historical development is directed from the present towards the past, The slatting point is thus necessarily the present, the present cultural situation. which is usually composed of originally different components (cf Kremenšek 1973: 63-64) Justifying the present as a starting point for ethnological research was thus linked to the lack of availability of sources Bill there could be other aspects. Novak's opinion was thus thai the label and the slogan ethnography of thé present" 1 7tfëpapei' Will U-published in the wixduny Hihm.h^ai! ConUictS, Vol. i am! 7 did. note.) TÔ ' " -- 26 GLASNIK SED 36/1996, št. d RAZGLABLJANJA ((k'}>etinmisvolkskmich) and tin.* "discipline about the prest. ii! ((nit'iirtsu'ismtalidfl) are logical and nietlvidokigi-eallj indispensable protests against rile one-sided and erroneous notion thai ethnography is only a pan ol history Novak feels [hat ail contemporary research conduded in fuiopc pr the reseaich ot the present as well Several years ago Bogo ( irafenauer, for instance, wrote the following in connection with the defini tiun of the basit notions about history: As a child learns to talk only through combining certain \v(irds with certain objects and nmions heencounters in everyday I it i'. li historian must learn belore delving into llse past ylxuit those categories and notions in everyday life which are necessary lo gain I lie knowledge alxmt the i (■ 3 ■ nirful diversity (it life. \\ huever (.Iocs not know about the Iik- and work on a ¡arm will not lie able lo understand agrarian his-ii in . and will lie even less capable ol researching it; iliesaine goes tor political lite i struggles; \\ ars... and, finally, for the intimate sides nl historical development, down io ihe it'lahiinsliips between people between husbands and \\ ives VI ilhtiUt the experience which enables ihe historian to gain the corresponding basic notkins, lie \\ ill noi be able 1< i analvsc tlffi paM at all. 11 is t tear, ol course, that at first iie miisi findoLU how the forms oft he se notions in the past differ iViiirt those he experiences in ¡he presem. but ii is rlearlv e\ kleni that u is method« alb imperatiietli.il lite research ot i he pas! invoh es as intensive an interest in conteiiijiorary life as |>i*ssible (Grafenauer 1976: xxxi) h is (.litfii nil to say to what degree Sk >vene historians systematically fulfil the above-mentioned "methodical conditions". In an\ ease, this is an aspect which is just as important for el I iik ill jgisis as well. This introduces a llurd pr< lot in conilet" tion w uh ihe heed for a special relationship toward the present file present should ilius he the starting point of our research, the < >bjei 11 if our special i < incern. and an area winch is mirrored before proceeding with the research of the past; reasons enough u < accord ii our primary concern In view i if ihis. lei us now take a look ai our research practice Here I do n<>l wish to analyse individual elements and their complexes with the character of folk culture Tins hasalreadv been mentioned, at least indirectly We are. however, interested in studies which deal with the w ay of life, be it as a w hole (>r iinly in its individual elements. After three decades ot mi )ie ol- lrss planned research ot this kind, Slovenia has produced a number ot' research w in Slovene ethnology has lastly been mentioned in connection with tile ethnological research of Ljubljana (Kremensek 19n< »logical order Difficulties connected wilh the ethnological use of the al« ive-mcntioned method were best defined by ihe authoress ol the book on G'ctljci'ica, Even though there were enough Hates ol tile pre-war make-shift sel I lenient and pre-war suburbs" even L11 the.time of her research, the authoress maintains that Geltingtoknowtheoldei period.s oftiméis possible only with ihe help of sparse w ritten sources and narratives by the settlement's inhabitants, as well lis those who had already left tile seiilemcill Uiavnik I'Kil 2) Aside from iiitici¡uenl written sources, there are thus only recent "narratives" and "stories"'II le method of recognising etll no logically elor give ihe right directii>n to the search" In view of this, the research of the contemporary way of life should thus be a different and more demanding task" than the research ol the same ihctiie lor a time period decades ago (Ravnik 19S1: S) rkany (if reasons to pause and refleci upon the sensibility ol immediately lestiAgand methodically proving the research pal h from the present to tlie past as soon as possible from the research of the "present situations" when it is possi ble lo reacii tile ethnological botK mi. l< > the ret onstruction ol "each situation" in ihe past, for wliicli in most cases (hut not exclusively) onh recent material is available. Wit¡1 in the course.entitled Research of nifferent Ways of Life we spoke in tile 1990/91 school year of an interesi in this topic in Slovene historiography We have discovered lhat the research c if I he w ay of life oreverytlay lile has started io become m< ne a nt i iik >rc popular among Sk ivene historians. The com parison between iiistoriographie and ethnological researt:h projects dealing with older periods of time revealed certain differences hlhnologisls. for instance mostly deal! wuh thi research of the w ay ol life in periods ft >r which at least a certain amount of < iral ink miration was available. If (lie < ibjetls of tiieir research were oldei periods of lime, ethnologists most h depended on histofk »graphic or similar literature. But again we staled lhat this fact does not lead loany fundamental c<' (narisal S. Jenčič, ZVSKD Maribor). 12 GLASNIK SED 36/1996, št. 4