Locating European anthropology
10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3931
Questo commento intende rivisitare i forum “Ripensare l’euro-antropologia” pubblicati sulla rivista Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale prendendo in considerazione tre questioni specifiche: Chi sono i soggetti dell’antropologia europea? Chi sono i suoi altri? Chi sono i suoi autori? A partire dalla constatazione che l’antropologia europea non implica una fissità spaziale (non esiste il “lì” nell’antropologia europea), suggeriamo che il sapere dell’antropologia europea sia invece il risultato di diverse forme di scambi attraverso e tra le frontiere. Tuttavia, trattandosi di un progetto intellettuale e politico, discutiamo ulteriormente alcune delle contraddizioni, delle ambiguità e dei paradossi che stanno dietro questo “mondialismo” della disciplina. Osservando che l’antropologia europea in particolare dovrebbe costantemente cercare di mettere in relazione gli sforzi di posizionamento della pratica etica, evidenze empiriche, riflessione storica e teorizzazione umanistica, proponiamo forme innovative di collaborazione accademica, creazioni narrative e forme di appartenenza a/con i luoghi.
application/pdf
2239-625X
3931
2
en
Francisco Martínez
Anuac
Locating European anthropology
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/anuac
8
Commentaries on Changing margins and relations within European anthropology
2019-12-29
2019-12-12
2019-12-29
2019-12-29
245-254
1
Francisco Martínez
2019/12/29
10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3931
245
University of Leicester, United Kingdom
2239-625X
2
254
Locating European anthropology
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/anuac/article/download/3931/3563
8
                                             2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 245-254




Locating European anthropology
Patrick LAVIOLETTE
New Europe College, Bucharest
Sarah GREEN
University of Helsinki
Francisco MARTÍNEZ
University of Leicester




ABSTRACT: This commentary revisits the “Rethinking Euro-anthropology” Forums
published in the journal Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale. It reconsiders three
specific issues: who are the subjects of European anthropology, who are its others, and
who are its authors? Noting that European anthropology does not imply a spatial fixity
(there is no “there there” in European anthropology), we suggest instead that European
anthropological scholarship is the outcome of diverse forms of crossborder and
transborder exchanges. Yet as a project that is both intellectual and political, we further
discuss some of the contradictions, ambiguities and paradoxes behind this “worlding”
of the discipline. By observing that E(e)uropean anthropology in particular should
constantly strive to relate the locating endeavours of ethical practice, empirical
evidence, historical reflection and humanistic theorising, we call for innovative forms
of academic collaboration, narrative creations and belonging to/with places.




This work is licensed under the Creative Commons © Patrick Laviolette, Sarah Green, Francisco Martínez
Locating European anthropology
2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 245-254.
ISSN: 2239-625X - DOI: 10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3931
246                                 PATRICK LAVIOLETTE, SARAH GREEN, FRANCISCO MARTÍNEZ



   European anthropology – the term, in addition to the category itself,
evokes axiomatic ambiguity: is it referring to the anthropology of Europe as
a place, or instead to the research carried out by anthropologists trained in
Europe? Actually, the same ambiguity appears whatever region of the world
one talks about, such as “Brazilian anthropology”, “Chinese anthropology”,
or “Russian anthropology”. Yet in the European case, there are a few added
layers. The first is that anthropology, as an idea, was an invention of a particular
kind of western (or Euro-American) mind-set: that is to say, it was the
outcome of an historically located epistemology, rather than a geographical
location, strictly speaking.
   The second layer of complication is that neither the precise geographical
location of Europe as a place, nor its meaning as an idea are agreed upon (on
the contrary). Still, geography does matter: The Cold War and linguistic
diversity within the European region made it difficult to see whether there
remained some common threads, or perhaps even some common humanity,
when considering the weight of diverse social and ethnological disciplining
within European scholarship. Anthropology carried out within the colonies
and other territories of empire mostly intended to study the diversity of the
human condition, as a means to either arrive at some understanding of
various particular Others or, alternatively, humanity in some general sense
(Kuper 1973; Eriksen 1995).
   In the past, Europeans were not included in this assessment, since
studying Europeans (or at least some of them) implicitly evoked the study of
Self, a terrain already occupied by many other academic fields in Europe,
most particularly sociology, but also anthropology’s direct neighbours, such
as ethnology and folklore. Given that anthropology explicitly set itself up as
studying Others who lived elsewhere (rather than others who were remnants
of our own pasts, or others who lived amongst us), research within the
European region was not even considered to be anthropology at all. Of
course, with the provincialising of Europe, after which Europeans became
simultaneously both Self and Other (Said 1998; Chakrabarty 2000; Douglas
1986; Strathern 1988; Wolf 1982; Wolff 1994), this kind of territorial carving
out of the different disciplines rapidly dissipated. Once the hierarchical
division between different parts of the world was challenged (one regionally
specific epistemology, the European one, being the source of
anthropological scientific knowledge, and the other, the rest of the world
that was not yet reproducing that epistemology, being the object of
European anthropological scientific attention), it became difficult to know
where to draw the line anymore – both between disciplines, and between


2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 245-254
LOCATING EUROPEAN ANTHROPOLOGY                                                   247


where anthropologists study, as opposed to where they learn how to study.
The new meaning of the phrase “European Anthropology” to refer to
research carried out by anthropologists in the European region, rather than
its more common meaning of one of the places “where anthropologists are
trained to do anthropology” drawing upon Euro-American epistemologies,
has created confusion ever since.
   Anthropology’s addition of the European region as a field site has created
different levels of tension in the region with the neighbouring disciplines of
ethnology, folklore and certain branches of (especially French) sociology.
While in the UK, there were a number of quite hostile moments of boundary-
drawing between them, the discipline’s Francophone manifestations of this
seem to have been quite harmonious (Parkin 2005). The other major sphere
of influence, “Kulturanthropologie und Sozialwissenschaft” had its own
highly charged political history that led to its distinctly insular circumstances
(Gingrich 2005; Macdonald 2015). Also in Britain, there were some
significant internal epistemological fights within anthropology itself – not
to say more “unmentionable” political tensions and ego rivalries – such as
the differences between Raymond Firth, David Schneider and ultimately the
wider four-fields approach of US vs Euro-British socio-cultural anthropology
(Ingold 2015; Eriksen in this journal). These coexistences and collaborations
occurred within a personality minefield and set of discourses (socio-political,
moral, reflexive) that became entangled at times (Bourdieu 1988).
   Partly as a result of all this turf war (sometimes literally), anthropology
and ethnography have gone through their own twenty-first century identity
crises, and are affected by increasing demands from universities to produce
academic work in certain forms and at a certain pace that is not necessarily
conducive for anthropology. So what is there to be defended? Is there still a
need to locate such disciplinary identities and relations, given the current
context in which the divisions between disciplines are no longer anywhere
near as clear as they used to be? Our short answer would be that anthropology
has to critically engage with what is left that is distinctive about the
discipline, as it lost its clearly distinctive object once the difference between
here (Europe) and elsewhere (everywhere else) was questioned. And what is
left, apart from a claim about the discipline’s core methodology,
ethnographic research, which is a technique rather than constitutive of a
discipline, as such? We suggest that perhaps what remains is a way of
knowing that has developed over time – an epistemological approach that
“mutated” during a certain historical and intellectual moment in parts of
Europe – then spread across some parts of the world (in anthropology’s case,
most particularly the USA). This stretching out was followed by a sustained,
long-term and still-ongoing process of critique and refashioning,

                                   2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 245-254
248                                 PATRICK LAVIOLETTE, SARAH GREEN, FRANCISCO MARTÍNEZ


differently-framed in different parts of the world. As this epistemological
approach has encountered other people, other places, other political and
economic conditions, other ideas and perspectives, it has generated constant
critique, and endless re-writings.
   At times, it has seemed as if the critique was so damaging, both
intellectually and morally, that anthropology might be arguing itself out of
its own existence. Yet such anxiety possibly disguised the creativity that was
simultaneously generated through the multiple voices which critically
attacked the disciplineʼs very own underlying premise, and the new knowledge
it generated. Being constantly in touch with, and attending to, other
people’s lives – as a basic principle of what anthropology does – has had
deep intellectual effects over the decades. Such a disciplinary ethos has
created a sharp, critical awareness of the regional, historical, political and
conceptual limitations of the earlier epistemological approach from which
social anthropology developed. Perhaps then, one of the elements that
anthropologists trained in European universities can do is to bring that
critical eye, informed by so much engagement with others, back to Europe;
There are recent indications, even from “our” own ranks, that many have
been doing so (Loftsdóttir, Smith, Hipfl 2018).
   Of course, when critical engagement is directed towards Europe, it can be
met with different kinds of encounters with others. Like all social, cultural
and humanities disciplines with a critical approach, anthropology faces
many institutional threats to its existence in terms of constraints and
demands dictated by funding and critiques of the perceived “usefulness” of
anthropology for something other than itself (Strathern 2006), not to
mention internal tensions over ownership and impact, including the usual
academic battles of hierarchy, status and where to locate the lingua-franca
centres of power (De L’Estoile 2015). As this volume charts out, these
epistemological, ideological and indeed ontological questions continue to be
played out within anthropology as well as between anthropology and the
institutions that house the discipline, as has perhaps always been the case,
partly through what could be called “internal/peripheral” struggles between
different threads of the discipline.

Anthropology of or in Europe?
   One of the things that we have discovered is that any reconsideration of
European anthropology is an ever-propagating sequence of questions: what
is the form and the content of Europeanness? What are the colours of the
variegated flags? Who covers the costs and pays the salaries? And who are
those buried in its cemeteries? In the introduction, the editors explain their


2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 245-254
LOCATING EUROPEAN ANTHROPOLOGY                                                    249


aim of not being excessively programmatic, neither delineating the contour
of European anthropology, nor articulating a definitive definition. Instead,
they propose to study contemporary anthropologists working in the
European region (there is no continent of Europe, geographically speaking)
and their relationship with the different conceptualisations of the notion of
“Europe”. Hence, European anthropology can be also envisioned in terms of
the scholarship of transnational networks taking place in Europe, and the
way this positioning gives a particular entry point to a broader global
anthropology. Further, it is also important to distinguish between
anthropology of and in Europe, between anthropological research done on
European topics (which raises particular issues of similarity/difference and
intellectual legacies – what could be called bringing the creative critique of
anthropology back to the place from which it developed), and the result of
having been trained in anthropology in a European university (which could
be carried out anywhere).
   In the “Rethinking Euro-anthropology” Forums that we organised for the
journal Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale (Green, Laviolette 2015a,
2015b; Martínez 2016), we invited a series of scholars to reflect on the
contemporary location of European anthropology, given that almost none of
the conditions that led to the development of the discipline exist anymore.
Many of the contributors to the Forums related this question to some major
intellectual themes, methodological questions and/or political debates
(including language, nationalism, ethnicity, and the ontological and
mobilities “turns”). Over the course of just a year, the focus of the Forum
itself shifted. It evolved from an original interest in opening up a debate
about the diversity that is European Anthropology, to a more existential
question of what makes the European context distinctive – and what should
be done about such distinctions.
   Sharon Macdonald (2013) reminds us that anthropology has traditionally
focused upon small-scale locales, whilst historians have more often taken
the nation-state as their frame. European anthropology does not imply a
spatial fixity, but an intellectual project, if not a political ambition, to a great
extent in tune with forms of supranational cooperation. Indeed, in the third
Forum, we learn that the discipline shares many of the same problems and
challenges of the European Union as a socio-political project (Martínez
2016; see also Keinz, Lewicki 2019). Viewed through such a lens, European
anthropology (this time meaning anthropology of the European region)
implicitly asks three things of itself: who are its subjects, who are its others,
and who are its authors and agents? Should we seek out singularity on a
regional basis (Nic Craith 2015)? And who would want to be part of that club
in the todayʼs climate?

                                    2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 245-254
250                                 PATRICK LAVIOLETTE, SARAH GREEN, FRANCISCO MARTÍNEZ


   In the currently dominant socio-economic conditions of academic life,
Euro-anthropology might still appear as an intellectual project against the
grain. On the flip side of the debate, Jasna Čapo (2014) proposes to use the
idea of Europe as a meeting platform, upon which a more transnational
anthropology could exist. Could we thus relate the locating endeavour with
an agreement to disagree? The need to locate European anthropology and
the current reclassification of Europe as a place and as an idea (Green 2013)
present Europeanness as a set of constitutive contradictions (De Genova
2014). And yet, despite being a space that questions its own existence, there
is no lack of people willing to dedicate time, money and energy to pursuing
European longevity; generation after generation. Likewise, the publication
of our Forums has generated further discussions and feedback beyond the
journal. Incidentally, Daniel Miller’s Forum contribution attracted
considerable attention in social media, mostly because of his expression of
self-gratification at receiving European Research Council (ERC) funding.
This led to a heated, if brief, critical debate about academic hierarchies
within the European region. Certain voices were critical of the way that ERC
grants (currently the most coveted source of academic research support for
European universities) reproduce pre-existing privilege rather than creating
new opportunities, while the less privileged live in increasing conditions of
precarity – in part because of the temporary and non-renewable junior posts
that ERC grants generate. Paradoxically, this debate took place through
digital platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, which have been the object
of Miller’s interests for several years (Miller et al. 2016). Such issues were,
and remain, serious ones. Yet when they are discussed within social media,
attention spans are short and people move rapidly on to other matters,
without really resolving anything. These are questions that need some
further consideration: how digital technologies have not only (a)effected the
very idea of located anthropologies (European or otherwise), but also the
speed at which issues come and go. Not to mention the levels of ongoing
engagement with “the field” that anthropologists now have to maintain,
long after they have returned to their universities to write up results and
apply for more ERC grants.
   In terms of institutional memory therefore, we wonder how someone like
Mary Douglas would have responded to the challenges with which Euro-
Anthropology has been confronted recently, as for instance the imposition
of unhelpful (or at least, non-anthropological) notions of quality, value and
utility (Shore, Wright 2015). In this volume, the absence of a critical
engagement with Douglas’s now largely overlooked How Institutions Think
(1986) is conspicuous. Yet some important disciplinary history is being


2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 245-254
LOCATING EUROPEAN ANTHROPOLOGY                                                           251


forgotten if we fail to ponder on the possibility that the ERC, like many other
benefactors (philanthropic or otherwise), as well as industry patrons, might
be usefully represented as if they are institutions that “think and behave”
according to their own rules. That form of reification, while it had its
conceptual weaknesses, occasionally helps in highlighting the power of
systems to impose certain material and even epistemological realities. Much
more recently, David Graeber has pointed to much the same thing in his
book on bureaucracy, The Utopia of Rules (2015).
   In this special section, and despite the relative absence of a discussion on
the power of certain institutional logic when implemented through
bureaucratic and financial means, many pressing contemporary questions
are addressed. For example, what is to be done to fix the current problems of
European anthropology? What are the major transformations of anthropology
at the moment (see Estalella, S. Criado)? And what role does European
anthropology play in the local economies of knowledge (Eriksen)? Of course,
some of the questions posed remain unanswered, or open. Crucially, the
question of who is part of this European anthropology club remains
unanswered. Several authors have preferred to respond to the question: how
do we take part in European anthropology (Martínez), rather than what is it,
as such. In other words, what do people need to do to be acknowledged as
members of this anthropology club, especially from regions that are regarded
as being peripheral to the key centres (whose locations appear to be a little
mobile just now)?
   The set of papers and commentaries also explores whether Euro-
anthropology could be a “gatekeeping concept” (Appadurai 1986) for
theorising about what the anthropologists working in this place do, how they
think, who should represent them. Sceptically, Nicholas de Genova answers
that:
     No accumulation of ethnographies merely situated in Europe will ever suffice
     to constitute a genuine and critical anthropology of Europe. My proposition,
     furthermore, is that an anthropology of Europe can only be truly and
     adequately critical if it is prepared to unrelentingly posit “Europe” itself as a
     problem (2014: 295).

   This commentary is in keeping with our suggestion of turning that
historical legacy of a critical eye back to Europe. There are indeed signs that
this process is well under way. Europe is not only being problematised from
different angles (Dzenovska 2014; Gutiérrez 2016), but also the anthropology
done by the scholars working in this place is increasingly influenced by
training and new ways of thinking that come from a non-West elsewhere
(Santos, Rodríguez-Garavito 2005; Comaroff, Comaroff 2012). Geographical

                                       2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 245-254
252                                 PATRICK LAVIOLETTE, SARAH GREEN, FRANCISCO MARTÍNEZ


spaces are thought as being fixed, but they might be shifted through ideas
and particular practices of circulation; E(e)uro-anthropology is part of these
processes of slow formation, not simply producing relationships and
narratives, but being simultaneously produced by them too.

REFERENCES
Appadurai, Arjun, 1986, Theory in anthropology: Center and periphery, Comparative
      Studies in Society and History, 28: 356-361.
Bourdieu, Pierre, 1988, Homo Academicus, London, Polity.
Čapo, Jasna, 2014, Ethnology and anthropology in Europe: Towards a trans-national
      discipline, Cultural Analysis, 13: 51-76.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh, 2000, Provincializing Europe, Princeton, Princeton University
      Press.
Comaroff, Jean, John Comaroff, 2012, Theory from the South: Or, how Euro-America is
      evolving toward Africa, Anthropological Forum, 22, 2: 113-131.
De Genova, Nicholas, 2014, Ethnography in Europe, or an anthropology of Europe?,
      Social Anthropology / Anthropologie Sociale, 22, 3: 293-295.
De L’Estoile, Benoît, 2015, Meeting grounds for pluralistic conversations, Forum
      rethinking Euro-anthropology: part two, Social Anthropology / Anthropologie
      Sociale, 23, 4: 497-498.
Douglas, Mary, 1986, How Institutions Think, Syracuse, Syracuse University Press.
Dzenovska, Daze, 2014, Bordering encounters, sociality, and distribution of the
      ability to live a normal life. Social Anthropology / Anthropologie Sociale, 22, 3:
      271-287.
Eriksen, Thomas Hylland, 1995, Small Places, Large Issues, London, Polity.
Gingrich, Andre, 2005, The German-speaking countries, One Discipline, Four Ways:
      British, German, French, and American Anthropology, Chicago, University of
      Chicago Press.
Graeber David, 2015, The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret
      Joys of Bureaucracy, London, Melville House.
Green, Sarah, 2013, Borders and the relocation of Europe, Annual Review of
      Anthropology, 42: 345-361.
Green, Sarah, Patrick Laviolette, 2015a, Forum Rethinking Euro-Anthropology,
      Social Anthropology / Anthropologie Sociale, 23, 3: 330-364.
Green, Sarah, Patrick Laviolette, 2015b. Forum Rethinking Euro-anthropology: part
      two, Social Anthropology / Anthropologie Sociale, 23, 4: 492-509.
Gutiérrez, Ana, 2016, The third world has come home, Rethinking Euro-anthropology:
      part three, Social Anthropology / Anthropologie Sociale, 24, 3: 374-75.
Heatherington, Tracey, Filippo M. Zerilli, eds, 2016, Anthropologists in/of the
      neoliberal academy, Anuac, 5, 1: 41-90.
Ingold, Tim, 2015, Dropping the social, Rethinking Euro-anthropology: part one,
      Social Anthropology / Anthropologie Sociale, 23, 3: 12-13.


2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 245-254
LOCATING EUROPEAN ANTHROPOLOGY                                                      253


Keinz, Anika, Paweł Lewicki, eds, 2019, European Bodies, Anthropological Journal of
      European Cultures, 28, 1: 1-87.
Kuper, Adam, 1973, Anthropology and Anthropologists. The British School in the
      Twentieth Century, London, Routledge.
Loftsdóttir, Kristín, Andrea L. Smith, Brigitte Hipfl, eds, 2018, Messy Europe: Crisis,
      Race, and Nation-State in a Postcolonial World, Oxford, Berghahn.
Macdonald, Sharon, 2013, Memorylands: Heritage and Identity in Europe Today,
      London, Routledge.
Macdonald, Sharon, 2015, Moving between anthropologies in and on Europe,
      Rethinking Euro-anthropology: part two, Social Anthropology / Anthropologie
      Sociale, 23, 5: 493-494.
Martínez, Francisco, 2016, Rethinking Euro-anthropology: part three, Social
      Anthropology / Anthropologie Sociale, 24, 3: 353-379.
Miller, Daniel, 2015, What difference might the ERC make? Rethinking Euro-
      anthropology: part one, Social Anthropology / Anthropologie Sociale, 23, 3: 338-
      340.
Miller, Daniel et al., 2016, How The World Changed Social Media, London, UCL Press.
Nic Craith, Máiréad, 2015, Diversity and singularity in European anthropology,
      Rethinking Euro-anthropology: part one, Social Anthropology / Anthropologie
      Sociale, 23, 3: 342-343.
Parkin, Robert, 2005, The French-speaking countries, in One Discipline, Four Ways:
      British, German, French, and American Anthropology, Chicago, University of
      Chicago Press, 157-256.
Said, Edward, 1978, Orientalism, New York, Pantheon.
Shore, Cris, Susan Wright, 2015, Governing by numbers: audit culture, rankings and
      the new world order, Social Anthropology / Anthropologie Sociale, 23, 1: 22-28.
Santos, Boavenura de Sousa, César A. Rodríguez-Garavito, eds, 2005, Law and
      Counter-Hegemonic Globalization: Toward a Subaltern Cosmopolitan Legality,
      Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Strathern, Marilyn, 1988, The Gender of the Gift, Los Angeles, University of California
      Press.
Strathern, Marilyn, 2006. Useful knowledge, Proceedings of the British Academy, 139,
      Isiah Berlin Lecture: 73-109.
Wolf, Eric, 1982, Europe and the People Without History, Los Angeles, University of
      California Press.
Wolff, Larry, 1994, Inventing Eastern Europe, Palo Alto, Stanford University Press.




                                      2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 245-254
                                             2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 245-254



 Patrick LAVIOLETTE, (PhD UCL), has an interdisciplinary background in the sub-
 fields of material and visual culture studies, as well as medical anthropology and
 human ecology. Much of his research deals with the formulation of British and
 European identities. He is the author of two monographs published in 2011: The
 Landscaping of Metaphor and Cultural Identity (Peter Lang, 2011) and Extreme
 Landscapes of Leisure: Not a Hap-Hazardous Sport (Ashgate, 2011). His research
 interests include maps, intellectual biographies, co-operative movements,
 adventure sports and culturescapes. His coming monograph is entitled Hitchhiking:
 Cultural Inroads (Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming).
 plaviolette@nec.ro

 Sarah GREEN is Professor of Social and Cultural Anthropology at the University of
 Helsinki, and was co-editor in chief, with Patrick Laviolette, of Social Anthropology/
 Anthropologie Sociale, 2014-2019. In her own work, she specialises on the
 anthropology of locations, borders and boundaries, particularly in the European/
 EU-ropean regions, with a specific focus on the UK, the Balkans, the Aegean
 region and most recently, the Mediterranean. She is author of Urban Amazons
 (Macmillan, 1997), Notes from the Balkans (Princeton University Press, 2005) and
 Borderwork, co-authored with Lena Malm (JaSilti, 2013). Green is currently PI of an
 ERC Advanced Grant called Crosslocations (2016-2021).
 sarah.green@helsinki.fi

 Francisco MARTÍNEZ is a Lecturer in the School of Museum Studies, University of
 Leicester. In 2018, he was awarded with the Early Career Prize of the European
 Association of Social Anthropologists. Francisco has been a postdoctoral
 researcher at the University of Helsinki and Aalto University. Currently, he is the
 co-editor of the Berghahn book series “Politics of Repair”, and member of the
 editorial board of the Anthropological Journal of European Cultures. Francisco has
 edited several books – including Repair, Brokenness, Breakthrough: Ethnographic
 Responses (Berghahn, 2019) and is the author of Remains of the Soviet Past in
 Estonia (UCL Press, 2018).
 fm211@leicester.ac.uk




This work is licensed under the Creative Commons © Patrick Laviolette, Sarah Green, Francisco Martínez
Locating European anthropology
2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 245-254.
ISSN: 2239-625X - DOI: 10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3931
