The paper aims at arguing that despite the differences in the development
of the social sciences clearly visible in the national disciplinary histories
almost from their inception, the common tendencies toward reshaping the internal
boundaries within the field of the social sciences are recently easily seen
especially in Europe.
This claim will be substantiated in the context of the shaping up of social
anthropology in Poland perceived as a gradual redefinition of ethnology as its
disciplinary predecessor and eradication of the historical divisions between
ethnography/ethnology and sociology. The similar, emerging tendency toward changing
boundaries of social anthropology and its neighboring disciplines can be also
attributed to the other ECE national traditions. This is why having my analyses
grounded in the Polish context my intention is also to look at the processes
of dwindling the traditional divisions ethnography vs. anthropology, and ethnography
vs. sociology in a wider perspective of de-localization of East-European scholarship
which especially since 1989 has been responsive to the world-wide intellectual
trends.
The paper aims at arguing that despite the differences in the development of
the social sciences conceived as creative fields rather than as a sort of solid
structures or constructions it is clearly visible now that there are the common
tendencies toward reshaping the internal boundaries previously dividing in a
clear-cut way ethnography (ethnology), sociology and social (cultural) anthropology.
The diversity of factors responsible for the shaping of these various areas
of intellectual practice that we get used to objectivize as the scientific disciplines
imposes considerable restraints on such an effort of redrawing these more or
less arbitrary boundaries.
That is why, within the confines of this presentation I am able only to cursorily
exemplify the current flexibility of boundaries drawn around particular disciplinary
fields in order to reveal to what extent they are culturally specific, historically
determined, socially generated, but also philosophically defined. As such an
illustration will serve an overview of the quarrelsome relationships between
Polish ethnography (or ethnology) and sociology with a special reference to
recent emergence of a separate field of socio-cultural anthropological discourse
(cf. Buchowski 1995a).
First of all, in the Polish context a glimpse on roots of these nowadays separate
but gradually converging disciplinary discourses is needed. As it goes without
surprise, during the formation period of Polish ethnography the ideological
factors had the upper hand over any purely cognitive or theoretical incentives.
These brought out the so-called ludoznawstwo (the term first used by a 19th
century writer R.W. Berwinski as early as 1854) being not so much a forerunner
of the future social/cultural anthropology but a 'nation-building' enterprise,
which had its equivalents in other countries in Europe at that time (e.g. likewise
well-known German Volkskunde, folklore study in England, narodopis in Slovakia,
or narodovedenie in Russia). What is worthwhile to mention, the same applies
to the early Polish sociology involved from its very beginnings in lively arguments
on the 'nation' as a basic kind of cultural entity. One can even go further
and claim that it used to be the issue of national and cultural identity, which
constituted a distinctive, common mark of the 19th century Polish social sciences
(a couple of names is worthwhile to be mentioned - Zygmunt Balicki, Feliks Koneczny,
Stanis_aw and W_adys_aw Grabski, Jan Karol Kochanowski or Feliks M_ynarski).
Needless to say, it was as much a cognitive urge as a politically-motivated
function to serve the nation without its own state that pushed then Polish intellectuals
to study 'the people' in the pursuit of cultural integrity of the nation. The
strong stress laid on the idea of the 'nation' (national culture) was linked
with interest in folklore (folk songs, legends, folk literature and customs).
It resulted in apologetic attitudes towards folk culture by virtue of which
- according to the lovers of 'the people' [in Polish - ludoluby] - the nation
as a whole becomes a patriotic force able to regain independence for Poland.
Hence, it provides explanation for the concern for folk culture disclosed by
that 19th century Polish ethnographers. In a word, the peasantry was described
as a 'vital element' rich in occult wisdom, pristine virtues, etc. It is doubtful
if such an image of the folk culture has something to do with the ethnographic
data revealing rather some salient features of literary forms that prevailed
at that time. That is why some accusations has appeared that Polish Romanticism
was anti-ethnographic and created only a mythology reflecting a common sense
imaginings typical of Polish intellectuals (cf. Burszta 1973; see also S. W_glarz
1994).
The same is true for the interwar period when Polish ethnology (then made up
already of two types of activity: etnografia and antropologia; cf. Jasiewicz
& Slatery 1995) played a vital role in the process of nation-building in
which the study of 'culture' was treated as a practical task rather then as
a pure intellectual challenge. This task to integrate the folk cultures and
to reduce existing in the aftermath of the long partition period cultural diversity
served as a self-justification for a further development of the discipline (see
more on this topic in Jasiewicz & Slatery 1995) .
***
The post-war ethnography evidently should be regarded as a continuation of
the pre-war tradition of 'folk-studies'. Nevertheless, a truly radical change
of political and cultural situation in Poland after the World War II, which
became the undemocratic but ethnically homogenous society, brought about the
final regress of Polish ethnology to a historical and quasi-descriptive sort
of ethnography. That also could explain why the ethnology took shape as the
science of a particular culture, which definitely parted then its company with
anthropology understood as the general study of man.
After all, it had an institutionalized dimension, which took shape of the reform
of ethnographic university structures and studies (in the year 1950 the ethnography
programs were renamed as Studies of History of Material Culture) and resulted
in reorientation of research topics and areas of study. In this sense, in the
late 40s social and cultural anthropology left the realm of Polish ethnology
and virtually disappeared. Consequently, not earlier than in the middle of 70s,
the term 'anthropology' re-emerged, previously in the titles of publications
(Andrzej Waligórski's book Antropologiczna koncepcja cz_owieka, published
1973 especially deserves to be mentioned as the first anthropological handbook
in Polish). However, it is only quite recently that in the wake of post-1989
democratization (also of the academia) the names of different scientific institutions
traditionally called 'ethographic' have started to be ‘adorn’ (supplemented)
with the term 'anthropology' (with the adjectives - cultural or social). In
what follows, I will dwell on this elective affinity between Polish ethnology-cum-anthropology’s
disbanding and rebuilding and political transformation in Poland. To my mind,
it is likely that such ties might be traced out also as far as the other national
anthropologies in Eastern and Central Europe are concerned.
This is why, in the rest of my paper I intent to look at the recent developments
within anthropology and tendencies toward reshaping the disciplinary boundaries
of the social sciences in Poland as deeply rooted in the past. As I see it,
what we are facing here is the necessity to compare the challenge that the social
sciences in Poland are to cope with now – that of the demands imposed by
the system transformation - with the situation on the turn of the 50s strikingly
dissimilar but at that time involving a similar assignment - to react when the
liberation of pressures connected with entering the communist 'garden of Eden'
opened up some space for the refiguration of the disciplinary fields. In the
both cases what is at stake is the scientific status of anthropology as a certain
type of a general discourse on the mankind and the social science discipline.
***
As argued above a peculiarity of the Polish case (and perhaps its affinities
with the other Eastern and Central European anthropologies) could be explained
by means of combining the factor of 'nation-building' strategy with the impact
of the state ideological pressure on the shape of discipline until recently
directed in the opposite way in comparison with the Western anthropology. In
the period of the late 40s and 50s, under new political circumstances, Communist
ideology made use of the folk studies in order to raise the self-esteem of the
Polish folk, especially that the masses were claimed to be the governor of the
new 'Peoples Republic of Poland'. In other words, instead of working towards
a straight-forward description for instance of peasant culture ethnography functioned
in the realm of ideological dogmas. According to them, the ideologically guaranteed
leading role of workers and peasants, as progressive, ruling social classes,
had to reflected in the cultural reality.
Consequently, the costs of accommodation of ethnology while entering this ‘new
promised land’ were unexceptionally high. At that time, regardless of theoretical
or methodological controversies as questions of aims and methods of ethnographic
research, the problem of social utility of ethnological scholarship was decisive.
While the former found rather traditional answers, the latter ensued in postulating
the necessity of combining the research endeavors with some practical tasks
as "fulfilling the demands of socialism construction" which "can
provide a ground for better planning and organization of social life" (cf.
O. Gajkowa 1952; quoted after Pi_tkowski 1985: 55).
This influenced a particular understanding of ethnography as a historical discipline
based on histmat dogmas, which was to study particular ethnic groups seen in
the perspective of historical processes . During the Stalinist period, the term
etnografia was the single obligatory name adopted for all of the anthropological
activities (extra-European studies including). As a matter of fact, there was
a serious contradiction between the claim that ethnography deals with folk culture
as a historical category and the role ascribed to this discipline by the state
ideology.
In this context it is important to mention some scientific events, which determined
the direction of the future development of anthropology in Poland. Two important
conferences marked out this period. The first held in 1951 brought about an
evaluation of the state of the pre-war ethnography "from the point of view
of modern and progressive ideas" and put forward an idea of identifying
of ethnography with "a dialectical process of struggle between old and
new tendencies striving for linking the science with a real life and founding
all scientific actions on the basis of historical and dialectical Marxism"
(quoted after Burszta & Kopczy_ska-Jaworska 1982: 53).
The second conference held in Cracow in 1956 decided about expansion of ethnographic
studies hitherto confined to folk cultures in order to grasp working-class culture
during the different epochs and in its various milieus. Also in this situation
the impact of 'progressive' ideology was apparent. At the same time, in the
more liberal political spirit after Stalin's death and especially after Polish
October (1956) the important changes occurred in scientific life. Translations
of numerous classics, first personal contacts, a lively exchange of publications
etc. enabled the Polish would-be-anthropologists to learn more about the foreign
developments. However, at the end of the 50s processes of the socio-cultural
transformation (so-called Polish road to socialism) imposed on ethnography new
obligations and decisively forced ethnographers to broaden the scope of their
studies, which had still a clear ideological function. These phenomena were
accompanied by a feeling of 'a crisis in ethnography' (cf. Burszta 1965).
As Józef Burszta put it, the substance of the controversy had been constituted
by the matter of the model of ethnography, or rather by a new way of its performing
in the opposition to the ‘traditional ethnography’ (Burszta 1965:
95). Traditional ethnography in his opinion should be blamed for functioning
as the negative stereotype of ethnography as an exiguous discipline, dealing
only with what is rural, and coping with traditional culture of a rural community.
What is even more important from the point of view of my argument, this understanding
represented the attempt to “detach ethnography from the contemporary phenomena,
[…] to hinder it from the connections with sociology” (1965: 95; emphasis
added).
It had significant consequences: “[such] ethnography – as claimed
professor Burszta – deals with folk culture as a historical category which
doesn’t have anything to do with actual socio-cultural diagnostics”
(1965: 95-96) There is no space to analyze the methodological dimension of this
controversy even in a brief way. Probably there is no point either, because
the discussions on the category of ‘folk culture’ as a ‘right’
subject-matter of ethnographic investigations were the concern in almost each
generation of Polish ethnographers.
Moreover, in the article published in the mid-eighties Krzysztof Pi_tkowski
claimed that “the present condition of the main current in ethnography
was shaped in the mid-fifties” (1985:50). In a sense, the origins of such
an approach could be traced back to the nineteenth century beginnings. As Anna
Kutrzeba-Pojnarowa (1977: 17-18) holds, the Polish school of ethnography is
characterized by "vivid emotional involvement, quick responding to hot
political and social problems [...], empiricism, and a collective nature of
doing field-work. This is a main [...] source of its inspiration, which raises
questions concerning the cultural reality of the country and its historical
determinants being studied and transformed according the answers obtained".
Seen from this angle, one fundamental thing, which has been ascertained by examining
the controversies over the model of ethnography shaped then, is the phenomenon
of inertia or resistance of the intellectual milieu in the times of crisis.
Therefore, when, in face of vanishing of traditional subject of the ethnographic
investigations, not much has been changed, this long-lasting process of inertia
finally brought about a strong reaction of opposition. Józef Burszta
and Bronis_awa Kopczynska – Jaworska (1982) mention even about so-called
‘new ethnography’ (cf. also Pi_tkowski 1985). There is nothing surprising
under those circumstances that the next generation entering the academia in
the 70s radically rejected the existing disciplinary tradition. At the same
time, the 'new Polish ethnography', which could be described as young adherents
of structuralism, semiotic, or phenomenological approaches to the study of cultures,
hardly united something more than a great aversion toward "down-grading"
of their activities to the level of practical uses of anthropological knowledge.
In fact, the description of the theoretical-methodological identity of this
current is a difficult task. However, what is easily noticeable was an inclination
of its representatives towards avoiding its degradation up to the level of practical
applications through referring to the most sophisticated paradigms of the current
humanistics as well as a deep disinclination towards ‘old Polish ethnography’.
The unhidden aversion towards Kazimierz Dobrowolski’s ‘historical
sociologism’, which the method became something stirring repulsion of ‘youngsters’,
until nowadays has been a cause for which many of them cut off the ethnographic
tradition in which they were brought up. In addition, this cast some additional
light on the source of the ethnographers’ reserve towards sociology, which
is blamed for the long lasting period of domination in Polish ethnography of
a current considered by Dobrowolski as a sociological current , are becoming
clear.
***
I believe what I have said so far provides some reasons why representatives
of the Polish ethnographic milieu (especially among the ethnographers entering
the scientific arena in the 60s and 70s) even now make public their inclination
towards describing the relations with the representatives of another social
science disciplines (especially with sociologists) by using Sumnerian juxtaposition
of “we-group” vs. “others-group” (cf. Sumner 1906). Why
a particular role of such an “others-group” is attributed to sociology
can be easily explained by recalling one of the Sumner’s statements: “the
closer the neighborhood, and the stronger they are, the intenser is the warfare”
(Sumner 1906: par.14). Of course, the categories introduced by Sumner can be
applied here only in the metaphorical sense, but they raise certain important
questions. First of all, why the interaction of Polish ethnography with sociology,
still perceived as an encounter with “the other”, is not regulated
by the rules, which has been formulated by anthropology as a science about “otherness”
in order to fulfill its cognitive function, and at the same time as a sort of
cultural mission?
As it has been expressed by Claude Lévi-Strauss, the purpose of anthropology
is “to indulge in the somebody else’s glee, to identify oneself with
the others and to preserve otherness at the same time” (Lévi-Strauss,
1943:53). Hence, the question arises: why are in the Polish context the relationships
between ethnography and sociology still regulated by a particular kind of ethnocentrism
understood as a state of affairs in which a group constitutes the center of
everything and why instead of being regulated by the desire of “to indulge
oneself in the somebody else’s glee” (Sumner 1906: par.15) are all
the out-groups evaluated and classified in terms of we-group?
I will try to gain an answer to the question formulated in this way by referring
to the transformations taking place in the internal, intellectual history of
Polish ethnography in order to reveal its basic influence on perceiving (both
in terms of affirmation or negation) ‘family resemblances’ and construction
of identity of the discipline itself by the factors belonging to the historical,
ideological, institutional, and pragmatic context.
As I have tried to reveal, the case of Polish ethnography clearly proves, how
the basic criteria, which are used to differentiate the disciplines – those
institutional as well as those substantial (e.g. the differences in the specific
issues discussed, their conceptual apparatus, the scientific methods applied)
– are deeply grounded in some particular, characterized by localness, cultural
schemes.
This is why, to take some self-evident examples, for Durkheim and his followers
anthropology (ethnology) was inseparably blended with sociology, while in the
case of the American anthropology its social character was regarded as something
purely accidental. This was also expressed, for instance, in its juxtaposition
as cultural anthropology of British tradition of social anthropology. It seems
that anthropology likewise sociology, which is described by Zygmunt Bauman (1991:
69, 70) as “discourse without formation”, in a sense of a discipline
sans frontiers, which lacks its own autonomic logic. This means that also anthropology
constitutes a kind of discourse that is unable to authoritatively set its own
boundaries. Even more – this kind of discourse turns out to acquire its
identity from the very fact of its cultural genesis and positioning. Therefore,
the following questions come to the fore: are the boundaries of these disciplines
socially generated; or do those who perform the given type of scientific activity
as well as those from “outside world” play a part in it?
All these questions are especially pertinent when dealing with the issue signaled
in the very title of my paper - endings and beginnings of the intellectual currents.
While talking about the end of ethnography, one can simply mean a tendency (acknowledged
above) to replace or rather supplement this word by the description – ‘ethnography-cum-cultural
anthropology’ in the terminology of academic institutions engaged in ethnographic
researches and training new ‘cadres’ of ethnographers. At the same
time, this currently increasingly noticeable trend sends back to already historical
controversies, which can be already well portrayed by the title of Burszta’s
article - “Is there a crisis in ethnography?”
In general, these two ways of situating “the end of ethnography” in
Poland reflect two different viewpoints, two different ways of looking at the
position of ethnography in connection with the social grounding of ideas. However,
the question arises – what is the actual link between that crisis of the
60s and the currently observable tendency. In my opinion, despite the compulsive
intuition that we confront here the different phenomena (in the first case with
the collapse of a paradigm, a local autarkical subdiscipline, in the second
with the attempt of institutionalized satisfying of intellectual absorption
of trends in the discipline shaping the world center – cf. Stocking 1982)
- they both have the same background.
What I mean is, that both these ‘crisis’ moments were clearly linked
to the issue of social function of ethnography. These kinds of investigations
do not fit in to the area of Polish ethnography only. The problem of the relationship
between anthropology and sociology comes out time and again in the statements
made by representatives of social/cultural anthropology and sociology. While
the sociologists, like Anthony Giddens (1987:38), seem to be certain that “if
there ever was an intellectual case for separating sociology from anthropology,
it has surely today disappeared”, at the same time anthropologists (cf.
Tim Ingold 1992 or Keith Hart 1990) formulate a clear-cut thesis that the future
of anthropology should not be associated with the area of social science.
Undoubtedly, it is a total rejection of sociology that shapes the rationale
of this negation. This rejection might stem from its simplified (in the sense
of monopragmatic thinking founded on more less agreed complex of cognitive methods,
thematic schemes, theoretical categories, etc.) model embroiled in conflicts
with the cognitive ideals of the science of anthropology. These cognitive standards
provide a basis for anthropology understood as a peculiar anti-discipline because
of its openness for the whole core of human and biological sciences and a limited
response to the social sciences’ appeal (it is worthwhile to recall in
this context the classical formulations from Antropology textbook by Kroeber
(1948)).
In other words, we have touched upon the basic dilemma of anthropology. As often
reiterated, its history may be regarded as a continuous (and complex), oscillating
movement from universalism of anthropos to the incompatible nature of ethnos.
The fundamental nature of this incessant dilemma of anthropology is how to match
human rationality and biological unity of human species with vast variability
of cultural forms.
This irremovable epistemological tension, as Stocking (1990) describes it, is
connected to the privileged position of anthropology as a peculiar social science
placed across traditional juxtaposition of social and natural science introduced
by Dilthey.
However, from the remarks made by Hart and Ingold, who claim that anthropology
could only benefit from its divorce with the social sciences as an uncompleted
project doomed to failure, it becomes clear that despite the fact of socio-cultural
determinants of anthropological knowledge many of its representatives think
about it as a Science (with the capital S), which primarily is supposed to provide
a positive knowledge. For those who prefer to treat anthropology as a social
science it means that it must at the same time fulfill all the cognitive interests
specified by Juergen Habermas, that is: the mastering of the objectified surrounding
world, the communicative understanding of the other subjects, and the critical
emancipatory self reflection. In brief, anthropology should then be able to
fulfill the aims of the empirical-analytical sciences as well as of the hermeneutical
ones (cf. more Kempny1990, ch.2).
One can argue that this whole problem with the “end of ethnography”
in Poland derives from the aspiration to realize both types of these aims at
the same time. On the one hand, some scholars try to underline the ethnographic
rootedness of the anthropology as a science, which appears as if positioned
on the disciplinary borderline and which is to apply a peculiar method of anthropological
interpretation. On the other hand, some put forward the idea of anthropologization
of ethnography in the sense of replacing “the descriptive form of studying
the folk culture” with an approach, which by embracing various theoretical
orientations, would allow to free ethnology from ethnographic exiguity.
This issue has been revealed in the recent context during the seminar “The
social change in theoretical perspective” taking place in Warsaw at the
Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of Polish Academy of Sciences in 1995.
It is worthwhile to refer to the statement made then by Zbigniew Bendyktowicz,
a key representative of the mentioned-above new Polish ethnography. On the one
hand, he pointed out the tendency of the world anthropology to go back to the
term ‘ethnography’, which – according to him - reflects the claim
that “[anthropology] is not the science, which would create theories”.
In his opinion, ethnography “creates some fictions - literary or scientific”.
On the other hand, the high-theorizing ambition reappears in his statement,
in which he negates a kind of self-limitation to investigate the “culture
in its concrete form”. This investigation is done in a form of giving the
ethnographers cum anthropologists a task to get a hold of a comprehensive cognition
of world, by the way of analyzing the texts of culture. This cognition is archaic
and contemporary at the same time as constituted by the experience, which is
graspable only by the anthropologist, placed in the world of myth (cf. Benedyktowicz
1995: 42ff.).
I think that it would be a mistake to consider this opinion only in the context
of diffusion of intellectual contents of more or less recent fashionable anthropological
thoughts or fads. As Micha_ Buchowski has commented on this: “the shift
from the scientific approach towards the interpretative one has caused that
a theory of change is insignificant for many anthropologists. The question is
whether the fact that it is meaningless for the group of people identifying
themselves as anthropologists also means that this problematic is meaningless
as well for the societies undergoing the violent transformations. Maybe I will
forejudge it if I ask straightforwardly whether society exists for anthropology
or does anthropology exist for society. Since there is no answer for the question
what anthropology can offer the other social sciences (…), and this is
the way one can understand some statements made during the discussion, then
maybe it would be better to recall the not so far obsolete experiences of Polish
ethnography”(Buchowski 1995:63; emphasis added).
This quote clearly expresses the same problem to explication of which I am heading
from the very beginning. That is, anthropology, like every science that deals
with ‘human reality’, has to reflect the changeability of this reality
and consequently itself is a subject to change. Anthropology (or Polish ethnography)
reacts to this ‘new reality’ (either referred to as post modernity
or post communism) in many different ways. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to
bear in mind that the controversies and transformations we presently have to
deal with in the area of social/cultural anthropology demonstrate some common
traits with the crisis of Polish ethnography in the fifties. It is especially
clear as far as the task of coping with ‘sociological’ problems of
social dynamics and change by Polish ethnographers-cum-anthropologists is concerned.
***
What kind of conclusions could be derived from this case? First of all, at
the very general level, continuity or changeability (or finally the end) of
certain ways of investigating the social reality very rarely (if at any times)
finds its explanation in some immanent logic of development of ideas. Secondly,
especially in some local schemes the borderlines between disciplines (or their
closeness or distance) are determined not exactly by the changes of wider intellectual
context. They are rather established by ‘mythologies’ deriving from
historical past, the ‘legends’ about the common ancestors or fierce
hostility shrouded in the darkness of oblivion that cover a genuine reason of
the enmities.
This is why, we are forced somehow to abandon vain hope for the ‘total’
communion with ‘the others’, against which Lévi-Strauss warns
us, as it brings a threat to “the originality of his/her and mine creativity”
(1993:54). Moreover, we should keep an eye on the commonalities emerging from
immersing our scientific practice in the social reality. At this reality we
look not only with the eyes of ethnographers, anthropologists, or sociologists,
but we co-originate it as citizens, supporters of certain projects of social/cultural
organization, etc. A switch to anthropology observable till now mainly in the
institutional settings of academia in Poland could be seen nowadays as a reaction
to this quandary and a promise for a refiguration of the former disciplinary
divisions.
Benedyktowicz, Z. 1995 “Antropologia wobec zmiany.” [“Anthropology
facing the change”], in: Zmiana spo_eczna w perspektywie teoretycznej
[“Social change in theoretical perspective”]. Warsaw: Polish Academy
of Sciences, the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology.
Buchowski, M. 1995 “Zmiana w antropologii” [The change in anthropology”],
in: E. Tarkowska (ed.), Zmiana spo_eczna w perspektywie teoretycznej [“Social
change in theoretical perspective”]. Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sciences,
the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology.
Buchowski, M. 1995a, “Fratrie i klany nowo-plemenia antropologów
w Polsce,” in: A. Posern-Zieli_ski (ed.), Etnologia polska mi_dzy ludoznawstwem
a antropologi_ [Polish Ethnology. Between the Study of Folklore and anthropology],
Pozna_: Drawa Publ.
Burszta J., 1965, “Czy kryzys w etnografii?” [Is there a crisis in
ethnography?], Studia Metodologiczne No.1, 94-100.
---, 1973, “O_wiecenie i Romantyzm a s_owia_ska etnografia i folkorystyka”
[Enlightenment and Romanticism and Slavonic ethnography and folklore studies],
Lud, Vol. 57.
Burszta J. & Kopczy_ska-Jaworska B., 1982, “Polish ethnography after
World War II”, Ethnos, Vol. 47, No. 1-2; 50-63.
Damrosz J., 1988, Rozwój poj__ podstawowych w polskiej nauce o kulturze
ludowej do 1939 roku [Development of Basic Concepts in the Polish Science
of Folk Culture to 1939]. Wroc_aw: Ossolineum.
Giddens A., 1987, Social Theory and Modern Society, Cambridge: Polity.
Hart K., 1990, “Swimming into the Human Current”, Cambridge Anthropology,
Vol. 14, No. 3, 3-10.
Ingold T., 1992, “Editorial”, Man, Vol. 27, 693-696.
Jasiewicz Z. & Slattery D., 1995, “Ethnography and anthropology: the
case of Polish ethnology,” in: Fieldwork and Footnotes, ed. by Han
F. Vermeulen & Arturo A. Roldan, London: Routledge.
Kempny M., 1994, Antropologia bez dogmatów [Anthropology without
Dogmas], Warszawa: IFIS Publishers.
Kroeber, A.L. 1948 Anthropology. New York: Harcourt & Brace, 1948
Kutrzeba-Pojnarowa A., 1977, Kultura ludowa i jej badanie. Mit i rzeczywisto__
[Folk Culture and its Research. Myth and Reality]. Ludowa Spó_dzielnia
Wydawnicza: Warszawa.
Lévi Strauss, C. 1983 Le regard éloigné Paris: Librairie
Plon.
Pi_tkowski K., 1985, “Problemy teoretyczne w powojennej etnologii polskiej”
[Theoretical problems of post-war Polish ethnography], Lud, Vol. 69,
35-61.
Stocking G.W., 1982, “Afterword: A View from the Center”, Ethnos,
Vol. 47, No. 1-2; 50-63.
Stocking, G.W. “Paradigamtic traditions in the history of anthropology”
in: R.C. Olby et al. (eds) Companion to the history of Modern Science.
London: Routledge, 1990.
Sumner, W.G. 1906 Folkways. Boston: Ginn & Co.
W_glarz S., 1993, “Ch_opi jako ‘obcy'. Prolegomena” [Peasants
as “strangers”. Prolegomena], in: Po_egnanie paradygmatu? Etnologia
wobec wspó_czesno_ci, (eds) W.J. Burszta, J. Damrosz, Warszawa: Instytut
Kultury.