a80dd1114be40a6676901ea7ab30af58.pdf

Media

Part of Mutual encounters / Lud, 2016, t. 100

extracted text: Lud, t. 100, 2016

II. FOCUS ON US: FOREIGN ANTHROPOLOGISTS
ON THEIR RESEARCH IN POLAND

MICHAŁ BUCHOWSKI
Department of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology
Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
Poland
European University Viadrina
Frankfurt (Oder)
Germany

MUTUAL ENCOUNTERS

Contemporary anthropology has many faces, subﬁelds, and research interests. Anthropologists study every conceivable topic, study “up” and study “down” or, when
focusing on their peers, even study “horizontally”; they also travel to all corners of
the world, where they visit rural communities, indigenous populations, sweatshop
ﬂoors, scientiﬁc laboratories, military training camps, border crossings, and NGO
ofﬁces, and are seen in the halls of the headquarters of global institutions such as the
European Commission, World Bank and United Nations. What seems a common and
eternal practice to us today was not the case in the past. Our research interests have
changed over time, and the world surrounding us has been transformed. By changing
our focus, we have moved the boundaries of the discipline. Things are not the same
as they were three or four decades ago.
For a long time, doing the anthropology of Europe was not an accepted practice
for overseas anthropologists. In his introduction to a special issue of “Anthropological Quarterly”, Conrad Arensberg (1963) made an appeal to study the cultures and
people of the “Old World”1. Of course, he was probably not the ﬁrst to have this idea.
It seems that Europe as an ethnographic ﬁeld site for anthropologists was discovered
1
I ask for readers’ understanding, as I am unable to mention here all the names and histories related
to the anthropological study of Europe, or even of Poland. Selected issues and publications can only
illustrate certain trends. I apologize all those whose works or names do not appear in this short account.

48

Michał Buchowski

and penetrated step by step. The ﬁrst inroads were made in the Mediterranean countries. Although various ethnological studies were carried out in this part of the world
long before World War II, such as those by Eugeniusz Frankowski (cf. 1920), anthropologists began to penetrate it more systematically in the 1950s. Julian Pitt-Rivers’
monograph The People of the Sierra (1971 [1954]) is considered a milestone in this
respect. John Campbell’s (1964) Honour, Family and Patronage about Greece, Paul
Sterling’s (1965) A Turkish Village (cf. Giordano 2012: 13), and William Douglass’
(1969) Death in Murelaga about rituals in Basque countryside continued this tradition. Nowadays doing ethnography in this area has become a usual, or even fashionable, practice. Several scholars have built their academic reputation based on their
research there.
The next area to be explored by anthropologists was the Alpine region. One of
the pioneers here was Robert Burns (1959), who studied Saint-Véran, the highest
village community in the French Alps. In the 1950s and 1960s, scholars such as John
Honigmann (1970), Frada Naroll (1960) and Raoul Naroll (Naroll R. 1958; Naroll,
Naroll 1962), John Cole and Eric Wolf (1974), Leopold Pospisil (1971, 1995), John
Friedl (1974), Robert Netting, and Daniela Weinberg have studied this region. Robert Anderson (1973) wrote a comprehensive overview of the studies in Europe at
this stage2.
Socialist Europe was the last region to which western anthropologists arrived.
Various factors led to this. Going east was often not conceivable for political or mental reasons, or both. It was not easy to get behind the Iron Curtain. Not surprisingly,
relatively liberal Yugoslavia under Josip Bros Tito’s rule was the ﬁrst country to
which anthropologists were allowed. Joel Halpern (1956, 1958, 1967), who studied
Serbian villagers, was one of the ﬁrst, if not the ﬁrst western anthropologist doing
long-term ﬁeldwork in a socialist land. In Yugoslavia he was followed by many, for
instance, Irene Winner (1971), author of a monograph on Slovenian peasants. Steven
Sampson (1974, 1982), Gail Kligman (1981), Katherine Verdery (1977, 1983) and
David Kideckel (1993), who defended his Ph.D. thesis at the University of Massachusetts (Kideckel 1979), ventured into Romania. Some of them were encouraged to
go there by John Cole, an expert on the Alpine region, who also worked in Romania
(cf. Cole 1977). Sam Beck carried out studies ﬁrst in Yugoslavia, and then moved to
Romania3. Research in Romania was possible thanks to Nicolae Ceaușescu’s policies since the late 1960s aimed at gaining partial independence from the Kremlin’s
dictate. Economic ties with the outside world were strengthened, technology from
the French car industry imported, capitalist iconic products allowed (a Pepsi factory
was built, and Coca-cola imported), and western loans granted. In a sense, the opening of borders to western scholars, anthropologists in particular, became part of this
package.
2

My knowledge of the studies done in the Alpine region is based on a comprehensive manuscript
written by Paolo Viazzo (n.d.)
3
An account of works on Central and Eastern Europe up to the 1980s is given by Halpern and
Kideckel (1983).

Mutual encounters

49

This expansion from the “soft (communist) underbelly” proceeded from the south
northward. In the latter half of the 1960s, János Kádár started his policy of goulashsocialism in Hungary, in both the economic and political spheres. In consequence,
western students were allowed to enter this country. Michael Sozan, who graduated
from Syracuse University in 1972, based the ﬁeldwork for his Ph.D. thesis on the
Hungarian minority in the Austrian Burgenland. He later published two important
books on Hungary (Sozan 1977, 1985). Soon afterwards, Chris Hann (1980) studied a collective farm in Hungarian Puszta (for more details, see his contribution to
this issue). But there were also others: Éva Huseby-Darvas (Huseby 1984; HusebyDarvas 1987), linguistic anthropologist Susan Gal (1978), and, a bit later, the more
historically-oriented anthropologist and sociologist Martha Lampland (1996), who
completed her Ph.D. thesis at the University of Chicago in 1987.
Since Czechoslovakia under Gustáv Husák after 1968 had embarked on a politically strict policy of “normalization”, Poland was next in line. After Władysław
Gomułka was toppled by Edward Gierek in 1970, the country began a more open
policy, both with regard to the ﬂow of capital and of people. Accounts given by Chris
Hann, Carole Nagengast and Frances Pine show how the structural framework made
possible their individual actions. Chris Hann (1985) moved north to Poland from
Hungary, Carole Nagengast (1991) came here across the Atlantic in order to study
the people in Wola Pławska/Rzędzianowice, near Stalowa Wola. Frances Pine decided to do research (in collaboration with Przemek Bogdanowicz) among the Polish
mountaineers in the Podhale region (Pine, Bogdanowicz 1982). In addition, Janine
Wedel (1986), an anthropologist trained at the University of California at Berkeley,
paid several visits to Poland between 1977 and 1986, spending also two years here
during martial law, mostly in Warsaw. With the exception of Bogdanowicz, all of
them remained devoted to anthropology, and, to lesser or greater degree, interested
in Polish affairs.
The reasons for coming to Europe, and Poland in particular, were multiple. As we
can read in the following essays, some were personal, some accidental, and others
based on the rational decision to chart an anthropological map of barely explored
territories. In the history of anthropological studies on Europe some scholars, for instance Leopold Pospisil and Eric Wolf 4, as well as Michael Sozan, and Zdenek Salzmann in Czechoslovakia, were actually born in continental Europe or in the countries
where they did later their ﬁeldwork. Quite a few returned to their countries of origin
after 1989, including Petr Skalník and László Kürti. In the Polish case, some had
more or less distant ancestors in the country, such as Przemek Bogdanowicz, Carole
Nagengast, Edouard Conte, and later Marysia Galbraith, Genevieve Zubrzycki and
Michał Murawski. And lastly, many had chosen to do their research in (post-)socialist Europe without having any family ties to the country being studied. In Poland,
4
“Eric Robert Wolf, an Austrian-born sociocultural anthropologist (…) Wolf’s lifelong fascination
with cultural diversity can be traced to his childhood in multilingual Vienna and his teen years in multiethnic Sudetenland, where his Austrian father (his mother was Russian) ran a textile factory prior to the
1938 Nazi takeover. To avoid persecution as Jews, Wolf and his family moved ﬁrst to England and then
to the United States” (Kottak 2012).

50

Michał Buchowski

this applied to Hann and Pine, as well as to the majority of the representatives of the
second generation of anthropologists of Poland (more about them anon).
As has already been mentioned, the socio-political context was decisive. The advancing thaw in East-West relations enabled young researchers to do their ﬁeldwork
in the respective countries. Anthropological interest in Central and Eastern Europe
(CEE) was a part of a progressing ethnographic penetration of the continent from
the south-west towards the north-east. The emergence of the anthropology of Europe
faced strong resistance in anthropological circles. For decades, at least in the Anglophone world, the anthropology of Europe was not considered “truly anthropological”. Privileged status was assigned to research done in other parts of the world, in
colonial and postcolonial settings, and among indigenous communities. John Cole
summarized the problem: “the incorporation of an anthropology of Europe into general anthropology has met with substantial resistance from within the anthropological
ranks and continues to face accusations of illegitimacy” (Cole 1977: 353). For “traditionalists”, it appeared contradictory for the study of “our” society to be conducted by
experts who by deﬁnition dealt with “others”. Western and semi-western industrialized societies were to be studied by sociologists.
From a global political perspective, with the Iron Curtain still in place (one should
not forget that all of these “liberal” communist rulers were authoritarian and often
treated any resistance harshly), CEE was perceived of as less anthropologically signiﬁcant than the rest of the world. Although it was important for the West to have
knowledge about the communist camp, its ideological and political competitor, this
area study was reserved for political scientists and historians, not anthropologists
or even sociologists (see Hann 1994). On top of this, as I have indicated above, in
the Cold War milieu anthropological research in the region was either impossible or
difﬁcult. Authorities in CEE did not want to have “western agents” wandering the
countryside, asking people strange questions. Perhaps they were implicitly aware of
Michel Foucault’s wisdom that knowledge is the vanguard of power. Only political
relaxation made such anthropological inquiry conceivably. Still, it appears in many
reports from the period between 1960 and the end of the 1980s that ﬁeldworkers were
treated with suspicion by the people they studied.
Thus, the obstacles to developing the anthropology of CEE were dual in nature:
both political and intra-disciplinary. This state of the art adversely affected anthropology’s position in terms of studies of “actually existing socialism”. Although the
region remained a blank space on the anthropological map, the position of anthropologists working in CEE was disadvantageous. No large interpretive community of
scholars was ready to absorb and discuss CEE anthropological experts’ ﬁndings at
that time. Halpern and Kideckel whined that there were numerous “difﬁculties facing
the anthropology of Eastern Europe as it attempts to penetrate into a general anthropological consciousness” (1983: 378). And they continued: “Marginality develops
from the status of both European and peasant studies within anthropology and, from
a broader perspective of culture history, the position of Eastern Europe within Europe”. This status quo “forces researchers to justify their anthropological identity and
the legitimacy of some of their research topics” (Halpern, Kideckel 1983: 378). This

Mutual encounters

51

perception of CEE anthropological studies also had negative repercussions after the
“Nations’ Fall”. In the mid-1990s, Deborah Cahalen complained about “a widespread
exclusion of Eastern Europe from mainstream anthropological discussions” (1996:
21). She continued by giving an account of an American anthropologist’s response
to her essay on gender relations in Poland. In general, she felt that “it was very difﬁcult to «get into» the paper because the concepts and arguments were too speciﬁc
to the Eastern European experience, and therefore were not broadly anthropological”
(Cahalen 1996: 24).
We should appreciate our foreign colleagues who became the forerunners of anthropological studies in the region, particularly in Poland, for their determination to
study a subject that was not considered signiﬁcant by disciplinary gatekeepers. It
should be underlined that by no means they have subscribed to dominant discourses
in the West about totalitarian regimes having made people’s lives unendurable and
producing social anomia. On the contrary, they contested these essentialized and ossiﬁed images, which were far from reality. They made every possible effort to show
how people managed to make their lives bearable, resisted state domination, got
around “impossibilities” by resorting to traditional group and family solidarity, by
using the institution of znajomości (connections) and by developing strategies known
as the skill of załatwić (wangle). These monographs and articles on Poland written by
the ﬁrst generations of external anthropologist give us a unique account of social life
under socialism. At least to me, their works were not only paradigmatically different,
but, for my own research interests, often more insightful than knowledge produced
by the two postwar generations of local ethnologists.
It is interesting that most studies carried out by Anglophone anthropologists in the
postwar period in Europe were done among peasants. Even a glance at a bibliography clearly indicates it, and this statement is valid for all European regions indicated
above. The reason for this is rather obvious: several decades ago, anthropology was
expected to study “others” and small communities. Studying rural communities ﬁtted this pattern and was excusable even if it was carried out in Europe. This kind
of research was analogous to several other studies carried out on peasants in Latin
America, South-East Asia and Africa at that time and before. No wonder that virtually all explorers did their ethnographies in the countryside, with Janine Wedel being
the exception that conﬁrmed the rule. It is also striking that in Poland all of these rural studies were done in the former Galicia, in a region populated by numerous rural
smallholders. Did this fascination result from a search for “exotic” topics? Or did
it simply fall into the mainstream of anthropological studies of Europe at the time?
Why was no other region of Poland studied in this period?
The way these ﬁrst studies on Poland were conceptualized and problematized
differed signiﬁcantly from the ethnological studies of rural populations conducted by
local ethnographers. Rural sociologists and social historians were the primary interlocutors for the ﬁrst wave of anthropologists visiting our region. Stefan Kieniewicz
(1969), Bogdan Gałęski (1971) and Witold Kula (1976) were the authors cited by
them, while Polish ethnographers (e.g., Roman Reinfuss and Maria Biernacka) were
referred to only sparsely, if at all (cf. Buchowski 2012: 23-24).

52

Michał Buchowski

I suspect that young scholars trained in Anglo-Saxon anthropology implicitly
shared the opinion of John Davis about ethnologists. He made a distinction between
backward and progressive anthropology. For him, the nationalist agenda of ethnologists immobilized the discipline like a mammoth in the frozen Siberian ground. Ethnologists were so petriﬁed in such an allochronic manner that to reﬁned western anthropologists they seemed like the living skeletons of nineteenth-century research
paradigms (Davis 1997: 4). Many years later, Katherine Verdery regretfully acknowledged that “when I ﬁrst went to Romania as an ambitious graduate student, I felt
intellectually superior to my Romanian ethnographer-colleagues even while recognizing that they had a wealth of knowledge I lacked about Romanian life-ways. But
they didn’t have «theory», and that’s what I had been trained to care about” (Verdery
2012: 2).
The issue of the mutual relationship between external and local scholars continued for some time. There is no necessity to discuss this here, since many articles
have been published about it, and it seems that my exchange of opinions with Chris
Hann exhausted the topic in a friendly manner (Buchowski 2004, 2005; Hann 2005).
A book on Poland’s “transition” to which scholars from both Poland and outside
contributed was one of the ﬁrst attempts to combine these varying traditions and
produce some form of synergy (Buchowski, Conte, Nagengast, eds., 2001). Overall,
my argument in this discussion was that the image of Polish ethnology and anthropology as theoretically insipid and disconnected from the world ﬂows of anthropological knowledge was incorrect. The visible domination of western anthropological
models – observed also by scholars in other parts of the world (e.g., Viazzo, n.d.;
Kürti 2000; Anăstăsoaie et al. 2003; Narotzky 2006) – resulted from hegemonic hierarchies of knowledge that hindered productive intellectual exchange. Well into the
twenty-ﬁrst century, western scholars did not really consider local contributions to
be valuable for their research or signiﬁcant in general for anthropological scholarship (Buchowski 2012). However, the situation has been improving systematically,
and contemporary anthropologists doing research on Poland are readily integrating
local scholars’ ﬁndings into their works. This is a result of, among other things, the
increasing international movement of people and ideas as well as the growing number of English language publications written by Polish authors. For this generation of
scholars, language and political borders have no special meaning, and they all belong
to the transnational community of scholars working on Poland.
However, this question of mutuality also has another side. The eagerness of Polish
authors to cite western gurus in their anthropological theories made them somewhat
reluctant to recognize the expertise of their colleagues doing research in Poland. It is
indicative that among the hundreds of anthropological books translated into Polish
only a few monographs were based on research in Poland (Wedel 2007; Dunn 2008;
Zubrzycki 2014; Murawski 2015).
In this context, it worth mentioning “halﬁes”, people who were born in Poland
and did research here, and then made careers abroad. In many ways, they have acted as intermediaries and facilitators. Their language competence and contacts with
scholars in the country of origin has contributed to the emergence of an anthropo-

Mutual encounters

53

logy without borders. There are no doubt many such individuals, but let me here just
mention some of them: Jan Kubik (1994), Karolina Szmagalska-Follis (Follis 2012),
Longina Jakubowska (2012), Joanna Mishtal (2015), and Kinga Pozniak (2015).
Meeting local ethnologists and anthropologists personally has been unavoidable.
It seems from what we can read below that initially the major contact point for the
ﬁrst international visitors was Grodzka Street 52 in Kraków. Nagengast, Hann, Pine
and Bogdanowicz, and later Galbraith, in one way or another were associated with
this address. I can only guess here why, but Andrzej Paluch’s international connections certainly played a role. Interest in south-east Poland encouraged them to seek
academic contacts there, too. No doubt, those associated with the Social Anthropology Division at the Department of Sociology at Jagiellonian University comprised
an interesting research group. The then-young scholars who were there, and who functioned or still function in academia include: Mariola Flis, Grażyna Kubica-Heller,
Jan Kubik, Marian Kempny, Zdzisław Mach and Janusz Mucha. Their spectacular
academic careers indirectly prove that they learned something from these visitors.
This is a good moment to stress how many Polish anthropologists remain thankful
for the help provided by these ﬁrst scholars in making connections throughout the
academic world.
More recently, the situation in anthropology has become much more complex
and diversiﬁed in all possible respects. The anthropology of Europe is no longer
a peripheral specialization within the discipline (for instance, the Society for the Anthropology of Europe within the American Anthropological Association has an enormous membership, reaching 800 persons); anthropologists who study Europe do not
have to legitimize their interest in this “strange” region; in the CEE context alone,
“postsocialism” has emerged as an innovative topic whose importance has been often
compared to postcolonial studies; the region has become a laboratory for neoliberal
reforms in which unprecedented sociocultural processes have been instigated; a number of young scholars have been attracted to CEE, including Poland.
After 1989 a new generation of scholars appeared5. For them also, as Marysia Galbraith remarks, “Eastern Europe was the new frontier for anthropology” (this issue).
The list of these researchers is quite long, and in the following I cite just names which
ﬁrst come to mind. First are those who came to do research in Poland all the way
from the US: Elizabeth Dunn (2004), Deborah Cahalen Schneider (2006), Geneviève
Zubrzycki (2006) Lisa Gurr, Elizabeth Vann, Christie Long (nee Evans), Marysia
Galbraith (2014) Dong Ju Kim, Eunice Blavascunas and Jessica Robbins-Ruszkowski; second are several scholars who arrived from European countries: Rosa Lehmann
(2001), Esther Pekerkamp (2008), Anika Keinz (2008), Alexandra Schwell (2008),
Jonathan Webber (2009), Michał Murawski (2015), Juraj Buzalka (2007), Jan Grygar
(2016) and Iuliia Buyskykh. The presence of anthropologists from the CEE region is
particularly praiseworthy. Two of them contributed to this volume, and it is striking
how their perspective can differ from those coming from the West.
5

For a short overview of Anglophone anthropological studies on CEE and the former Soviet Union,
see Wolfe 2000.

54

Michał Buchowski

From the writings of this new generation of scholars, it is visible how the way
anthropology is done has changed. Contemporary anthropologists do not have to
make excuses for their coming to areas seemingly peripheral for general anthropology. Europe as a subject of anthropological research is as justiﬁable as any other
region in the world. One gets the impression that for some time, CEE has become
even a privileged area of anthropologists’ study, since they have been able to observe
sweeping sociocultural processes. All these circumstances made CEE and Poland attractive for a new generation of scholars. They have established academic networks
in various cities – Poznań, Warsaw, Wrocław and elsewhere. As indicated in the ﬁrst
paragraph here, we have witnessed how research methods and topics have changed
since the very ﬁrst studies were carried out by the pioneering generation in the 1970s
and 1980s. Rural communities have ceased to be the prime object of focus, and now
most ﬁeld sites are in big cities and towns. For a long time, transformation has been
a catchword. Religion, Jewish studies, gender issues, borders, the construction of
identities, ethnic conﬂicts, memory, and aging as a sociocultural phenomenon, as
well as hegemonic discourses and practices, are all terms by which we can, at least
partly, characterize these new anthropological studies on Poland. They simply subscribe to what anthropologists do all over the world.
International scholars have always been helpful towards the Polish community
of anthropologists. It should be pointed out that Chris Hann and Frances Pine have
supervised a number of doctoral students who came from Poland and/or did their
research in Poland: Juraj Buzalka, Agnieszka Pasieka, Agata Ładykowska and Anna
Witeska-Młynarczyk immediately come to my mind. Several others attended seminars held by them at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology in Halle and at
Goldsmith College at the University of London. But these and other scholars’ impact
on our academia is much wider than this. Perhaps some personal accounts would be
illustrative; I know that many of my colleagues can evoke similar stories from their
memories. The point I want to make here is that we have all proﬁted from these collaborations and friendships. In other words, my personal encounters multiplied many
times over provide a vague image of how enormous the impact of our international
peers has been on what we do in anthropology and how we do it.
I met Chris Hann for the ﬁrst time when he was still in Cambridge; he lent me his
bike to ride around and invited me to his home for parties. Ernest Gellner attended
them, as well, and I mention this only because the enormous help this towering intellectual extended to many Polish anthropologists at that time should be recognized
here. Chris and I apparently missed each other before when he visited Poznań to attend the Rural Solidarity Meeting in 1981; I was there, too. We have come across one
another on various other occasions, and he has also been very supportive of me as the
director of the Institute in Halle. I know that he has helped many other scholars from
Poland, as well. I came across Carole Nagengast quite unexpectedly at the University
of California at Riverside in 1990, where I went for a year-long Fulbright scholarship. I remember her ﬁnishing her book Reluctant Socialists, and her consulting me
about the Polish terms used in the text. This book gave me several inspirations for
a series of works on Dziekanowice, a rural community in the Wielkopolska region,

55

Mutual encounters

starting with the title of a short book on it, Reluctant Capitalists (Buchowski 1997).
Since then, we have collaborated on several projects, including one founded by the
Wenner-Gren Foundation in 1995, and on a book that we co-edited with Edouard
Conte (Buchowski, Conte, Nagengast, eds., 2001). I have met Frances Pine on several occasions through the years, including at conferences and workshops we attended
together, and she invited me to supervise the dissertations of two of her students.
With few exceptions, I have met all the contributors to this issue, as well as several
other scholars who did their research in Poland. With many, like Deborah Cahalen,
Elizabeth Dunn, Juraj Buzalka and Jessica Robbins-Ruszkowski, I collaborated on
various occasions. Alexandra Schwell attended my seminar at Humboldt University
in 1997. Since then she has not only visited Poznań as an exchange student, but we
have worked together on research and book projects. Anika Keinz, before she became a junior professor at European University Viadrina, was a research assistant at
my chair there. Until today, we hold common Ph.D. seminars and workshops there.
Behind all of these collaborative works, which comprise merely the tip of an iceberg,
many friendly stories can be told.
The role of international scholars in the development of Polish anthropology
needs to be recognized. I only hope that their contacts with Polish anthropologists
have been as inspiring to them as our contacts with them have proven to us.

REFERENCES
Anăstăsoaie V., Könczei C., Magyari-Vincze E., Pecican E. (eds.)
2003
Breaking the Wall: Representing Anthropology and Anthropological Representations in Post-Communist Eastern Europe, Cluj-Napoca: EFES.
Anderson R.T.
1973
Modern Europe: An Anthropological Perspective, Paciﬁc Palisades, CA:
Goodyear.
Arensberg C.M.
1963
The Old World Peoples: The Place of European Cultures in World Ethnography, “Anthropological Quarterly” 36: 3, pp. 75-99.
Buchowski M.
1997
Reluctant Capitalists: Class and Culture in a Local Community in Western
Poland, Berlin: Centre Marc Bloch.
2004
Hierarchies of Knowledge in Central-Eastern European Anthropology,
“The Anthropology of East Europe Review” 22: 2, pp. 5-14.
2005
Correspondence: Reply to Chris Hann, “The Anthropology of East Europe
Review” 23: 1, pp. 198-200.
2012
Intricate Relations between Western Anthropologists and Eastern Ethnologists, “Focaal. Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology” 63,
pp. 20-38.
Buchowski M., Conte E., Nagengast C. (eds.)
2001
Poland beyond Communism: “Transition” in Critical Perspective, Fribourg: Fribourg University Press.

56
Burns R.K.
1959
Buzalka J.
2007
Cahalen D.
1996

Michał Buchowski

France’s Highest Village: Saint Véran, “National Geographic” 115,
pp. 571-588.
Nation and Religion: The Politics of Commemorations in South-East Poland, Berlin: LIT.

What Stalin and Reagan Told us to Think, “Replika”, Special Issue:
M. Hadas, M. Vörös (eds.), Colonisation or Partnership? Eastern Europe
and Western Social Sciences, pp. 21-26.
Cahalen Schneider D.
2006
Being Goral: Identity Politics and Globalization in Postsocialist Poland,
Albany: SUNY Press.
Campbell J.K.
1964
Honour, Family and Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral Values
in a Greek Mountain Community, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cole J.W.
1977
Anthropology Comes Part-Way Home: Community Studies in Europe, “Annual Review of Anthropology” 6, pp. 349-378.
Cole J.W., Wolf E.R.
1974
The Hidden Frontier: Ecology and Ethnicity in an Alpine Valley, New
York: Academic Press.
Davis J.
1977
People of the Mediterranean. An Essay in Comparative Social Anthropology, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Douglass W.
1969
Death in Murelaga. Social Signiﬁcance of Funerary Ritual in a Spanish
Basque Village, Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Dunn E.
2004
Privatizing Poland: Baby Food, Big Business, and the Remaking of Labor,
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
2008
Prywatyzując Polskę, trans. by P. Sadura, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Krytyki Politycznej [Polish translation of Dunn 2004].
Frankowski E.
1920
Systematizacion de los ritos usados en las ceremonias populares, San Sebastian.
Friedl J.
1974
Kippel. A Changing Village in the Alps, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gal S.
1978
Peasant Men Can’t Get Wives: Language Change and Sex Roles in a Bilingual Community, “Language in Society” 7: 1, pp. 1-16.
Galbraith M.
2014
Being and Becoming European in Poland: European Integration and SelfIdentity, London: Anthem Press.
Gałęski B.
1971
Basic Concepts of Rural Sociology, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Mutual encounters

57

Giordano C.
2012
The Anthropology of Mediterranean Societies, in: U. Kockel, M. Nic
Craith, J. Frykman (eds.), A Companion to the Anthropology of Europe,
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 13-31.
Grygar J.
2016
Děvušky a cigarety: o hranicích, migraci a moci, Praha: Slon.
Halpern J.M.
1956
Social and Cultural Change in a Serbian Village, New Haven: Human Relations Area Files.
1958
A Serbian Village, New York: Columbia University Press.
1967
The Changing Rural Community, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Halpern J.M., Kideckel D.
1983
Anthropology of Eastern Europe, “Annual Review of Anthropology” 12,
pp. 377-402.
Hammel E.A.
1968
Alternative Social Structures and Ritual Relations in the Balkans, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Hann C.M.
1980
Tázlár: A Village in Hungary, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1985
A Village Without Solidarity: Polish Peasants in Years of Crisis, New Haven: Yale University Press.
1994
After Communism: “Reﬂections on East European Anthropology and the
Transition”, “Social Anthropology” 2: 3, pp. 229-249.
2005
Correspondence: Reply to Michal Buchowski, “The Anthropology of East
Europe Review” 23: 1, pp. 194-197.
Honigman J.J.
1970
Rationality and Fantasy in Styrian Villages, “Anthropologica” 12: 1, pp. 129-139.
Huseby É.V.
1984
Community Cohesion and Identity Maintenance in Rural Hungary: Cultural Adaptation to Directed Social Change, Ph.D. Dissertation, Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan.
Huseby-Darvas É.
1987
Elderly Women in a Hungarian Village: Childlessness, Generativity, and
Social Control, “Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology” 2: 1, pp. 15-42.
Jakubowska L.
2012
Patrons of History: Nobility, Capital, and Political Transitions in Poland,
Farnham: Ashgate.
Keinz A.
2008
Polens Andere. Verhandlungen von Geschlecht und Sexualität in Polen
nach 1989, Bielefeld: transcript.
Kideckel D.
1979
Agricultural Cooperativism and Social Process in a Romanian Commune,
Ph.D. Dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
1993
The Solitude of Collectivism: Romanian Villagers to the Revolution and
Beyond, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

58

Michał Buchowski

Kieniewicz S.
1969
The Emancipation of the Polish Peasantry, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kligman G.
1981
Căluş: Symbolic Transformation in Romanian Ritual, Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Kottak C.P.
2012
Wolf Eric Robert, 1923-1999: A Biographical Memoir, National Academy
of Sciences.
Kubik J.
1994
The Power of Symbols Against the Symbols of Power: The Rise of Solidarity and the Fall of State Socialism in Poland, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Kula W.
1976
An Economic Theory of the Feudal System, London: New Left Books.
Kürti L.
2000
Uncertain Anthropology: Ethnography of Postsocialist Eastern Europe.
A Review Article, “Ethnos” 65: 3, pp. 405-420.
Lampland M.
1996
The Object of Labor: Commodiﬁcation in Socialist Hungary, Chicago:
Chicago University Press.
Lehmann R.
2001
Symbiosis and Ambivalence: Poles and Jews in a Small Galician Town,
Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Mishtal J.
2015
The Politics of Morality: The Church, the State and Reproductive Rights in
Postsocialist Poland, Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
Murawski M.
2015
Kompleks Pałacu. Życie społeczne stalinowskiego wieżowca w kapitalistycznej Warszawie, trans. by E. Klekot, Warszawa: Muzeum Warszawy.
Nagengast C.
1991
Reluctant Socialists, Rural Entrepreneurs: Class, Culture, and the Polish
State, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Naroll F.
1960
Child Training among Tyrolese Peasants, “Anthropological Quarterly” 33:
2, pp. 106-114.
Naroll R.
1958
German Kinship Terms, “American Anthropologist” 60: 4, pp. 750-755.
Naroll R., Naroll F.
1962
Social Development of a Tyrolese Village, “Anthropological Quarterly”
35: 3, pp. 103-120.
Narotzky S.
2006
The Production of Knowledge and the Production of Hegemony: Anthropological Theory and Political Struggles in Spain, in: G. Lins Ribeiro,
A. Escobar (eds.), World Anthropologies: Disciplinary Transformations
within Systems of Power, Oxford: Berg, pp. 133-156.

Mutual encounters

59

Pekerkamp E.
2008
The Fertile Body and Cross-Fertilization of the Discipline: Technologies of
Self in a Polish Catholic Youth Movement, in: N. Dyck (ed.), Exploring Regimes of Discipline: The Dynamics of Restraint, Oxford: Berghahn Books,
pp. 113-134.
Pine F.
1992
Uneven Burdens: Women in Rural Poland, in: S. Rai, H. Piklington, A. Phizacklea (eds.), Women in the Face of Change: The Soviet Union, Eastern
Europe and China, London: Routledge, pp. 57-78.
1993
“The Cows and the Pigs are His, the Eggs are Mine”: Women’s Domestic Economy and Entrepreneurial Activity in Rural Poland, in: C.M. Hann
(ed.), Socialism: Ideals, Ideologies, and Local Practice, London, New
York: Routledge, pp. 227-242.
Pine F., Bogdanowicz P.
1982
Policy, Response and Alternative Strategy: The Process of Change in
a Polish Highland Village, “Dialectical Anthropology” 7: 1, pp. 67-80.
Pitt-Rivers J.
1971 [1954] People of the Sierra. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Pospisil L.
1971
The Anthropology of Law. A Comparative Theory, New York: Harper & Row.
1995
Obernberg: A Quantitative Analysis of a Tyrolean Peasant Economy, New
Haven: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Pozniak K.
2015
Nowa Huta: Generations of Change in a Model Socialist Town, Pittsburgh:
Pittsburgh University Press.
Sampson S.
1974
National Integration through Socialist Planning: An Anthropological Study
of a Romanian New Town, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
1982
The Planners and the Peasants: An Anthropological Study of Urban Development in Romania, Esbjerg: Institute of East-West Studies, University
Centre of South Jutland, Sydjysk Universitetsforlag.
Schwell A.
2008
Europa an der Oder. Die Konstruktion europäischer Sicherheit an der
deutsch-polnischen Grenze, Bielefeld: transcript.
Sozan M.
1977
The History of Hungarian Ethnography, Washington, DC: University Press
of America.
1985
On Both Sides of the Border, Paris: I.U.S.
Sterling P.
1965
A Turkish Village, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Szmagalska-Follis K.
2012
Building Fortress Europe: The Polish-Ukrainian Frontier, Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Verdery K.
1977
Ethnic Stratiﬁcation in the European Periphery: The Historical Sociology of a Transylvanian Village, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford: Stanford University.

60
1983
2012

Viazzo P.
(n.d.)
Webber J.
2009
Wedel J.
1986
2007
Winner I.
1971
Wolfe T.C.
2000

Michał Buchowski

Transylvanian Villagers: Three Centuries of Political, Economic, and
Ethnic Change, Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Cold War Imperialism and After: US Anthropology of Eastern Europe,
paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological
Association, 2012, https://www.wcaanet.org/downloads/AAA2012/Verdery
_WCAA_AAA.pdf.
A Remote Land in the Heart of Europe. Some Dilemmas in the Anthropological Study of Alpine Societies (ms.).
Rediscovering Traces of Memory: The Jewish Heritage of Polish Galicia,
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
The Private Poland: An Anthropologist’s Look at Everyday Life, New York:
Facts on File Publications.
Prywatna Polska, trans. by S. Kowalski, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Trio
[Polish translation of Wedel 1986].
Slovenian Village: Žerovnica, Providence: Brown Publishing Company.
Cultures and Communities in the Anthropology of Eastern Europe and the
Former Soviet Union, “Annual Review of Anthropology” 29, pp. 195-216.

Zubrzycki G.
2006
The Crosses of Auschwitz: Nationalism and Religion in Post-Communist
Poland. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
2014
Krzyże w Auschwitz. Tożsamość narodowa, nacjonalizm i religia w postkomunistycznej Polsce, trans. by P. Tomanek, Kraków: Nomos [Polish translation of Zubrzycki 2006].

a80dd1114be40a6676901ea7ab30af58.pdf

Media

New Tags