Search results

This article addresses anthropological involvement in a political sphere constituted by the politicization of "difference" in European modernity projects, and in this context, especially conflicts related to gender, sexuality, race, nationality/ethnicity, or religious beliefs, which result in visions of antagonized, political Others. The author refers to the autoethnographic perspective and discusses her own disciplinary practices from the mid-nineties to today, pointing to the positive and negative sides of those practices. She first discusses the idea of critical anthropology as an element of academic activist debates within gender and queer studies. Then she looks at a more academic position, which makes critical anthropology into an instrument for creating images of a better future. Ultimately, she advocates a vision of critical anthropology that focuses on affective agency, thanks to which conflicting factions may perceive shared experiences and feelings. She does not assume that this kind of critical engagement is capable of bringing about broader social or political change, but believes it could make a contribution to acceptance of the Other on the micro-scale.

Discusses the relationship between modernity & anthropology in the context of posttotalitarian Eastern European countries. Modernity is defined as a Western ideological attitude, implies progression & a notion of preconceived temporality, & requires the appropriation of social elements from foreign civilizations. In the context of anthropology, modernity is an object, manner, or method of study as conceived by an individual anthropologist in his or her own society. Since anthropological studies were inaccessible to European societies under totalitarian rule, classical ethnography is prevalent in posttotalitarian scholarship, & the introduction of anthropology is perceived as a process of modernization. Anthropological studies in posttotalitarian nations have strengthened scientific approaches to social & cultural studies & helped develop cultural & psychological identities, focusing on the center-periphery relationship. Anthropology's importance to the contemporary world is discussed in conclusion. 22 References. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract.
This paper embarks on the epistemological debate on native anthropology and examines the complexities inherent in the process of production of ethnographic knowledge in the post-accession Europe. The author first addresses the questions of reflexivity in anthropology. In relation to this, the paper discusses the interdisciplinary theoretical perspectives on researcher's positionality in the field of the study and situatedness of knowledge claims. Subsequently, the author demonstrates how their own status as a native anthropologist was played out in their ethnographic fieldwork among Polish migrants in Belfast. To this end, the author examines their positionality in the field, pointing to intricacies of the insider/outsider status. Next, the paper focuses on the dialectics at work in carrying out an ethnographic study among the members of the same ethnic group, but away from home. It indicates potential disadvantages and advantages deriving from such a situation.

An Anthropology of the European Union: Building, Imagining and Experiencing the New Europe. Irène Bellier and Thomas M. Wilson. eds. New York: NYU Press, 2000. 224 pp.

Dutch anthropology is a rich field of studies of culture and society in Europe and beyond, with hundreds of participants, today and for the past two centuries.1 It is the result of a complex interaction between scholarly interests in distant peoples, several centuries of colonialism and international trade, and political decisions on the structuring of higher education and research in the Netherlands and its former colonies.2 To a large extent, this historical background has shaped the way research is organised and funded nowadays.