Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
261
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
262
Ethnology of the Proximate
263
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
264
Ethnology of the Proximate
265
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
266
Ethnology of the Proximate
267
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
268
Ethnology of the Proximate
269
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
270
Ethnology of the Proximate
271
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
272
Ethnology of the Proximate
273
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
tribes' hunting ground: "I’m not sure I can tell the truth... I can only tell
what I know" (Clifford 1986a:8). In accordance with the paradigm, the
result of such insistence on fragments, on a lesser degree of authori-
tativeness and on polyphony is experimenting with ethnographic
texts, which, according to one opinion, "changed the face of Croatian
ethnographic writing" (Čale Feldman 1995:81). The subjectivist, po-
sitioned, committed perspective and experimenting with textual re-
presentation strategies are an invaluable contribution of ethno-
graphy of war to the contemporary Croatian ethnology. What makes
this contribution specific is the fact that ethnography of war emerged
in extraordinary socio-political circumstances.
In this volume similar issues are discussed within the framework
of a scholarly practice which studies the peacetime everyday life of
what is proximate. The discussion is extended to include a methodo-
logical and epistemological examination of the research procedure:
we study how our contemporary fields are constructed in relation to
the researched locality and the researcher's home, in relation to in-
siderness as a basic methodological procedure of empirical fieldwork
and in relation to our informants – the subjects of our research and
the readers of our work. In the methodological discussions that
follow we examine the research procedure, both generally (in rela-
tion to fieldwork in ethnology and cultural anthropology) and parti-
cularly (in relation to the selected subject and a particular fieldwork).
274
Ethnology of the Proximate
275
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
276
Ethnology of the Proximate
277
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
278
Ethnology of the Proximate
279
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
280
Ethnology of the Proximate
281
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
282
Ethnology of the Proximate
283
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
284
Ethnology of the Proximate
285
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
286
Ethnology of the Proximate
from the everyday, a change from the daily routine and facing some-
thing new (see Pleše, this volume). Some works eliminate all dislo-
cation and are literally created at home, which means that from the
researcher's perspective the field is construed out of "continuing per-
sonal engagement in certain types of social aggregations, activities and
relationships" (Dyck 2000:48, emphasis added). This engagement
was usually there before fieldwork was formally started, and re-
mains after it was concluded. Since there is no boundary between the
home and the field, being in the field is constant (Hannerz 2003:35),
and insiderness as a methodological procedure can no longer be de-
fined as physical movement but as cognitive realization, "auto-cultu-
ral defamiliarization" (Gulin Zrnić, this volume). Thus, ethnology of
the proximate is radically practiced where both the space and the
time of the field and the home coincide (Gulin Zrnić, Pleše, Puljar
D'Alessio, this volume). This coincidence goes beyond the mere
overlap between otherwise separate locations: it refers to inter-
weaving personal and professional life, roles, time and social activi-
ties, with strong mutual influence and shaping, and the field is inevi-
tably located "between autobiography and anthropology" (Hastrup
1992:119). In such a field the conditions and circumstances of the re-
searcher's life all converge into a research project, which means that
the research topic is simultaneously the topic of the researcher's pri-
vate and everyday life: on the one hand it would be a violation to re-
move the researcher as a participant (Pleše, this volume), and on the
other hand it is difficult for the researcher to detach herself/himself
and step away from the field (Gulin Zrnić, Šantek, this volume). In
cases where the researcher is practically, cognitively and emotionally
living with the field, the research is a continual blend of personal ex-
perience and the creation of anthropological knowledge; the re-
searcher becomes an informant because s/he possesses some know-
ledge about the topic, acquired through her/his personal experience,
but independently of the research (Gulin Zrnić, Pleše, Puljar
D'Alessio, Šantek, all this volume; Okely 1996; Dyck 2000; Pink
2000).
All these elements illustrate that research at home (i.e. research
into one's own culture) clearly incorporates the autobiographical ele-
287
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
288
Ethnology of the Proximate
289
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
290
Ethnology of the Proximate
291
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
292
Ethnology of the Proximate
293
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
294
Ethnology of the Proximate
295
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
296
Ethnology of the Proximate
297
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
298
Ethnology of the Proximate
intimacy and are not normally open to public scrutiny. Such a po-
sition of the ethnologist requires an awareness of the social and poli-
tical implications of her/his work (both research and writing), and
calls for sensitivity to possible readerships. The problem is not so
much doing research here as writing here, i.e. writing and publishing in
a language that ethnologists share with their fellow citizens, espe-
cially if they want to write a critical socially committed cultural ana-
lysis. This issue did not arise in older Croatian ethnology, which fo-
cused on collecting information about old peasant types of culture in
a positivist manner. It became relevant during the latest war in
Croatia, when the ethnological scope of interest was expanded and
ethnology started to deal with various delicate matters that con-
cerned living people, and when the concept of culture was changed
and a new awareness of the ethnologist about the potential social re-
levance of her/his analysis was built.
Concluding remarks
There are numerous elements of ethnology of the proximate that
have been discussed in the previous pages. Ethnology of the proxi-
mate presupposes studying contemporary topics, in which the re-
searcher does not participate only by sharing a certain corpus of general
knowledge with the researched; the researcher may, in some cases,
participate by way of her/his personal life. Ethnology is characterized
by an evident reflexivity of the researcher about the procedure in all
phases of the research project. In this case, the standard reflexivity of
the discipline is reinforced by auto-reflexivity, i.e. the researcher's
thinking about the personal, which was brought about by the re-
search itself. These topics are in no way new: they have been under
discussion in Croatia for some thirty years now, inspired by the
changes in the paradigm during the 1970s, by the postmodern criti-
cism of the 1980s and by ethnography of war during the 1990s. All
these issues are reconsidered based on discussions of our recent and
particular fieldworks. Additionally, in contrast to a principal focus
299
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
300
Ethnology of the Proximate
301
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
302
Ethnology of the Proximate
303
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
304
Ethnology of the Proximate
305
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
306
Ethnology of the Proximate
Notes
1
Actually, he advocated a combination of the emic and the etic approach,
because the folk collectors of cultural forms worked according to Radić's
template – a questionnaire called Osnova za sabiranje i proučavanje građe o
narodnom životu [The basis for collecting and studying material about folk life;
1897], which provides guidelines for cataloging the ethnologically rele-
vant material.
2
"The Basis..." refers to The basis for collecting and studying material about folk
life.
3
This signalizes a lack of professionalization of ethnology, as diagnosed by
Lydia Sklevicky (1991).
4
The Glas Radne zajednice za Etnološki atlas [The Voice of the Working
Community of the Ethnological Atlas; 1962:5-6] mentions two types of
collaborators collecting data: the so-called explorers or professional re-
searchers, "who must at least have basic ethnological education" and
non-professional local correspondents. While the former "use que-
stionnaires to examine" a certain number of villages and settlements, lo-
cal correspondents "collect materials for the atlas only in their own
village, where they are living or working (and where they were born),
307
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
where they know the people and where the local residents trust them".
The text advises against a person without ethnological education
collecting material in an unfamiliar village where s/he has not lived for
a longer period of time. Apart from peasants, local collaborators also in-
clude teachers.
5
In doing so, Dunja Rihtman Auguštin relies on Claude Lévi-Strauss, rather
than on the much earlier methodological text by Bronislaw Malinowski
in the introduction to his classical work Argonauts of the Western Pacific
(1961, originally published in 1922). In this text Malinowski distin-
guishes three levels of ethnographic research: the structural level, the le-
vel of real life and the level of commentary about life.
6
During this period the emphasis on the diversity of practice/performance
in relation to the ideal and typical model also appears in the folklorist
research of the collaborators of the Institute of Ethnology and Folklore
Research (Marks and Lozica 1998; Lozica, Zebec, this volume).
7
In this particular case insiderness is not synonymous with the under-
standing of the insider or native indigenous as an authentic participant in
culture and society (cf. Povrzanović 1992a).
8
Geertz makes a radical break from the positivist and objectivist tenets of
anthropology, offering a semiotic concept of culture, in which science it-
self is not defined as an experimental entity in search of laws but an in-
terpretive endeavor in search of meanings (1973:5).
9
Reemphasize rather than simply emphasize, because intensive fieldwork
that was practiced throughout the 1970s, although not in the same way
as insiderness that is discussed above, also created material which be-
came the basis to criticize the cultural-historical paradigm which was
dominant at the time. In short, the material undermined the generality,
normativeness and coherence of knowledge about certain phenomena,
and pointed to the variability which was observed in their contextua-
lized research in everyday situations. Cf. Rajković 1974; Rihtman-Au-
guštin 1984; and the section about field and fieldwork in Croatian
ethnology in this chapter.
10
Since the 1970s, ethnologists working at the Institute of Ethnology and
Folklore Research have shifted their focus from cultural artifacts to peo-
ple. It is in the context of this tendency that Aleksandra Muraj quotes
308
Ethnology of the Proximate
309
Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Valentina Gulin Zrnić and Goran Pavel Šantek
310