Suchergebnisse

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.

This article argues that historical anthropology provides approaches for the exploration of previously neglected problems of the history of Southeastern Europe. Historical anthropology is not seen as a fixed set of methodologies and theories but rather as a perspective which directs attention to the questions of how societies have worked in the past and "ordinary" people made sense of their lives. Furthermore, historical anthropology tends to be comparative. In the past, Southeastern European historians concentrated on political history and ethnographers on the "traditional" culture of their nation, with little interaction between the two disciplines. After the fall of the communist system in 1989/1991, however, historians and ethnologists borrowed approaches from each other. The potential of historical anthropology is shown in particular with respect to the study of the social fabric of socialism—a topic until now shunned by historians while anthropologists have provided exemplary studies on this issue. The article ends with a discussion of the limits oPf historical anthropology and warns not to leave the state and economic structures out of historical analysis.