Anthropology of Eastern Europe

Halpern, and J M; Kideckel, David A.

doi:10.1146/annurev.an.12.100183.002113

Cited by 26 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When such reviews state that ‘anthropology is still a comparative newcomer’ to the study of this region (Rogers : 2), anthropology is understood as largely comprised by the US, British and French schools. Local scholarship is footnoted (Rogers ) or acknowledged as a historical influence in such classic fields as peasant studies (Halpern and Kideckel ) and evolutionary theory (Gellner ). Katherine Verdery's substantial engagement with East European thought in her theorisation of state socialism (Verdery , ) is a notable exception that however proves the rule, as it is an engagement with economic sociology and political philosophy, rather than ethnology.…”

Section: In Memory Of Alexei Nikishenkovmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reassembling history and anthropology in Russian anthropology: part I

Ссорин-Чайков

2019

Soc Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This two‐part overview of contemporary Russian anthropology focuses in detail on the work of several scholars and situates it in the changing landscape of Russian academia. The main issue I address is debates about an academic identity of Russian anthropology as ‘historical science’. Given that in Western anthropology, history has become one of the leading modes of anthropological analysis and that the turn to history marked a radical repositioning of anthropology's very subject, it is important to explore how such configurations of history and anthropology work in other anthropological traditions and what the reasons are for turning to history or, conversely, avoiding it, for specific national, continental and transnational anthropological schools. In this article, I explore these questions by focusing on anthropology in Russia with an aim of reassembling the relationship between anthropology and history from the point of view of the anthropology of time. I ask what temporal frameworks underscore the relationship between anthropology and history. I explore these understandings ethnographically, that is, through ethnographic interviews with Russian scholars in addition to close readings of their works.

show abstract

Section: In Memory Of Alexei Nikishenkovmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reassembling history and anthropology in Russian anthropology: part I

Ссорин-Чайков

2019

Soc Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although a limited number of anthropologists from the anthropological centres were allowed to work in the region in the late 1970s and 1980s (for an overview cf. Halpern and Kideckel 1983) these studies did not explore, largely for the sensitiveness of the topic, the domain of religious practice and vernacular cosmologies (some exceptions are Tone Bringa, Ger Duijzings and Cornellia Sorabji). It is then hardly surprising to read in Bringa's Bosnian ethnography (1995: xv) how in the 1980s she avoided mentioning ethnicity or Islam in her research proposal to gain permits for her fieldwork (also cf.…”

Section: Recasting Attention or Where To Go?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recasting Anthropological Perspectives on Vernacular Islam in Southeast Europe

Henig

Bielenin-Lenczowska

2013

Anthropological Journal of European Cultures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When Tone Bringa published Being Muslim the Bosnian Way in 1995, the book soon became the hallmark of anthropological studies of Islam in Southeast Europe. In the wake of the tragic events in Bosnia-Herzegovina ensuing from the breakdown of Yugoslavia, it provided much needed intimate insights into the complex entanglement of religion, politico-religious symbolism and identitarian politics in the wartorn country. Furthermore, it complicated the immediate proliferation of the ‘quick solution’ paradigms – clash of civilisations, or ‘old’ ethnic hatred – that had been adopted with ease by many international and local politicians, as well as by scholars working in the region, and that soon became the mainstream of academic discourse during and especially in the years after the war.

show abstract

“…In the 1980s and 1990s, communist studies were further transformed by a new cohort of cultural historians and anthropologists who conducted fieldwork in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe (on field research in communist societies and its implications, see Halpern and Kideckel 1983;Turner and Hadley 1989;Suny and Kennedy 1999). Equipped with innovative theories and methods, cultural historians and anthropologists promoted a new interdisciplinary research agenda centered on the overarching concept of culture and focusing on, among other themes, the study of ideology and its impact on social, gender, and political relations, and on education, urbanization, the rise of nationalism, and the articulation of dissident visions of national identity (Kligman 1981(Kligman , 1988Verdery 1991;Fitzpatrick, Rabinowitch, and Stites 1991;Fitzpatrick 1992Fitzpatrick , 1994Kotkin 1995; for a comprehensive presentation of this wave of culturalist scholarship in Russian/Soviet studies in the first postcommunist "decade of breakthrough," with a focus on Stalinism, see Fitzpatrick 2000).…”

Section: Comparative Communist Studies and Ideal-type Models Of Totalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction

Iordachi¹,

Apor

2013

East Cent Eur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The downfall of the communist system and the end of the Cold War, the liberalization of historical discourses in Central and Eastern Europe, the opening up of new archival collections for scientific research, the intensification of academic exchange and interaction between local and foreign scholars, and the increasing globalization of the world have challenged scholars to experiment with new transnational approaches to the study of communist regimes, such as shared/entangled history, history of transfers, and histoire croisée. Against this background, the current thematic issue aims to evaluate the potential impact of transnational approaches on the field of communist studies, within the broader frameworks of European and world history. In this introduction, we provide a reappraisal of the history, legacy, and prospects of comparative communist studies, highlighting the potential heuristic advantages posed by the applications of new approaches to the "cross-history" of communist regimes. We argue that transnational research perspectives can fertilize communist studies, leading not only to novel insights but to the transformation of the field itself, by setting it on new foundations. By employing transnational perspectives, scholars are able to challenge the traditional understanding of communist regimes as quasi-isolated national entities, highlighting instead the long-term impact of cross-border linkages and transfers on sociopolitical developments within the Soviet camp. It is our conviction that the entangled history of communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe can function as a laboratory for experimenting with new transnational perspectives, leading to innovative interdisciplinary approaches in a joint effort of scholars from various disciplines and historiographical traditions.

show abstract

Anthropology of Eastern Europe

Cited by 26 publications

References 88 publications

Reassembling history and anthropology in Russian anthropology: part I

Reassembling history and anthropology in Russian anthropology: part I

Recasting Anthropological Perspectives on Vernacular Islam in Southeast Europe

Introduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About