European anthropology: Transnationality and reflexivity within a shared horizon of meaning
10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3930
Perché l’antropologia europea è ancora un concetto controverso? In questo commento, propongo di individuare l’antropologia europea a partire dalla sua epistemologia, con la quale si intende principalmente la riflessività della disciplina, e a partire dal suo contesto transnazionale che esige non solo la comunicazione oltre i confini nazionali, ma anche parità negli scambi tra antropologi europei. Sostengo, inoltre, che l’antropologia europea si fondi su un orizzonte comune di significato che è condiviso dagli antropologi europei. In tal senso, concludo che affrontare la “controversia” attorno all’antropologia europea implichi impegnarsi in ulteriori controversie.
application/pdf
2239-625X
3930
2
en
Jasna Čapo
Anuac
European anthropology: Transnationality and reflexivity within a shared horizon of meaning
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
233-244
1
Jasna Čapo
2019/12/29
10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3930
233
Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research, Zagreb, Croatia
2239-625X
2
en
244
European anthropology: Transnationality and reflexivity within a shared horizon of meaning
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/anuac/article/download/3930/3562
8
                                         2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 233-244




European anthropology
Transnationality and reflexivity within a shared horizon of meaning

Jasna ČAPO
Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research, Zagreb




ABSTRACT: Why is European anthropology still a controversial concept? In this
commentary, I propose to locate European anthropology in its epistemology, by which
is primarily meant the discipline’s reflexivity, and in its transnational setting which
requires not only communication across national borders but also equality in exchanges
among European anthropologists. Also, I argue that European anthropology is to be
found in the common horizon of meaning that is shared by European anthropologists.
Along these lines, I conclude that dealing with the “controversy” of European
anthropology entails engaging with further controversies.




This work is licensed under the Creative Commons © Jasna Čapo
European anthropology: Transnationality and reflexivity within a shared horizon of meaning
2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 233-244.
ISSN: 2239-625X - DOI: 10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3930
234                                                                           JASNA ČAPO



   My first reaction to the invitation to contribute to this issue was puzzlement.
Why is European anthropology still a controversial concept, as suggested by
Francisco Martínez in the introduction? How is the controversy to be
understood: as an intra-European opposition between ethnologies dealing
with the own society and culture and comparative and/or cosmopolitan
anthropology dealing with other societies and cultures and resulting in
general insights about human condition? Is the controversy located in the
disputes over hierarchies of power among these strands of European
anthropology? Is it related to complementary yet separate professional
associations of European ethnologists, anthropologists and folklore
specialists, the SIEF (Société internationale d’ethnologie et de folklore) and
the EASA (The European Association of Social Anthropologists)? Does it
revolve around an epistemic uncertainty about the status of Europe as the
relatively new terrain of Otherness which attracted classical anthropology
only in the post-colonial era? Or, are we perhaps to discuss the position and
distinctiveness of European anthropology as a regional area of research
toward general anthropology? These questions have already engaged many
anthropologists over the years. While revisiting some of them, the present
set of articles and commentaries contributes to further the discussions about
European anthropology as well as to “locate where it might be” and discuss
the “conditions of possibility for the discipline” in relation to several topics
(see the Introduction).
   These issues are sketched from a position of someone originally trained in
Zagreb, in what used to be labelled ethnology (which included learning
about own folk traditions and indigenous cultures of the world 1) and later, in
anthropology and demography at UC Berkeley. This is, I suggest, a special
position not because of my parallelly national and international education
but also because Croatian ethnology has always strived to be transnational
in its outlook while doing research on the national terrain.
   Though it is usually assessed as a “national ethnology” (cf. Hofer 1968),
Croatian ethnology has been “national” only insofar as it has been dealing
with own folk2 and since the 1970s with urban and everyday culture. Within
this nationally bounded subject matter, it has been transnationalising and

1. At the time of my studies, in the 1980s, ethnology was taught from a diffusionist,
Kroeberian viewpoint.
2. As such, Croatian ethnology participated in the transnationalising European project of
establishing European Ethnology in the 1950s (via the journal Ethnologia Europaea,
European Atlas, the foundation of an association – La commission internationale des arts
populaires/CIAP, which later on became SIEF; cf. Rogan 2014).


2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 233-244
EUROPEAN ANTHROPOLOGY                                                                    235


has creatively adopted, indeed glocalised, diverse theoretical perspectives
and intellectual traditions: American culture area research of the 1940s,
German critical ethnology of the 1970s, French structuralism, Italian studies
on ideology, the Scandinavian turn toward studies of ethnicity and historical
anthropology, post-structuralism, Geertzian symbolic anthropology,
Bourdieus social theory, feminist anthropology, post-modern turn etc. Since
the 1990s and the tumultuous societal changes (the dissolution of
Yugoslavia) it has been discussing the issues of representation, positionality
of the researcher, ethics of research and critically revisiting research in the
socialist period as well as the nation-building project of the 1990s (Čapo
Žmegač 2002, Čapo, Gulin Zrnić 2014; 2017) 3. Within Croatian ethnology,
transnationalisation and eclectic outlook ensued from the study of own
culture and society4. To denote the result of that process, a well-known
Croatian ethnologist, Dunja Rihtman-Auguštin (2004) coined the term
“ethno-anthropology”. I argue that such a transnationalised ethnology
studying the own, can be inspirational for the discipline discussed here,
European anthropology.

From mutual acquaintance to transnationalisation
   The question marks that were popping up with regard to the present
volume have to do with the fact that the various facets of the “controversy”
of European anthropology have been in the focus of reflexion in much of
recent ethnological/anthropological debates in Europe (see also Eriksen, this
volume). They have been dealing with the issues of diversity of European
anthropologies, and consequently with the question of what unites them, as
well as with the issue of power inequality among disciplines practiced in
different countries.
   In the different national ideas of anthropologies in Europe, the concept of
the discipline – and its practice – has been closely evolving in relation to
social usages, political and social history of respective nation-states and
their national and/or colonial projects and institutional arrangements. Since
the 1960s two broad strands are identified and contrasted: a “national” and a
“cosmopolitan” style of the discipline (Hofer 1968). The first, usually named
ethnology, ethnography or folklore studies (Volkskunde in German) was

3. This is a position shared by some other Central European anthropologies, i.e. the
Slovenian one (Godina 2002).
4. Research was carried out on the national territory and among Croatians outside of the
national territory. Some of that research was geared toward the national project, some of it
pertained to general social theory. The national territorial purview of Croatian ethnology is
nowadays explicable more by scarce resources than any other reason.

                                        2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 233-244
236                                                                 JASNA ČAPO


supposedly studying folk culture (the culture of the peasantry), in the
context of nationalising political projects. It deployed a specific
ethnographic method with short-term visits to field sites. Geographically
speaking it could be found across Europe (e.g. in Germany, Austria, Poland,
Eastern Europe, France, Italy, the Scandinavian countries), but the term
eventually got stuck to ethnologies in Central-Eastern Europe, mainly those
that, for a good portion of the 20th century, evolved under socialism.
Practiced in the context of empire-building overseas, the “cosmopolitan”-
style anthropology was differentiated as comparatist and striving towards
universalism; it dealt with other societies and cultures utilising long-term
fieldwork and participant observation as the main ethnographic method. It
started to study European sites rather late, as sites of Otherness e.g. in the
Mediterranean. Several connotations were subsequently added to that grand
opposition originally proposed by Tamás Hofer and mainly attributed to the
discipline practiced in Central and East-European countries. Those
ethnologies were said to lack theoretical thinking and exhibit positivism and
empiricism (Buchowski 2004), they connoted smallness and marginality
(Prica 1995; Baskar 2008), their practitioners were frequently labelled
“native ethnographers” (Hann 2013) and alike.
   Contestations of that opposition became stronger in the 1990s and 2000s
and resulted in rather vehement debates, with most vociferous
deconstructions of the Western hegemony and claim to “proper
anthropology” as well as “defence” of local traditions of doing research
coming from Poland and Croatia (Prica 1995, Buchowski 2004; 2012a;
2012b). The debates between practitioners of the discipline in what used to
be the socialist bloc (Central and Eastern Europe) and those outside of it
lasted for over two decades. Those debates, very briefly, were over the nature
of ethnologies practiced in the first, and whether they can aspire to be
included into (social/cultural) anthropology as defined by the Western
practice of the discipline. In the debates, ethnological and folkloristic
enquiries in the former socialist bloc were relegated by some Western
anthropologists to second-class anthropology and bracketed out as relevant
knowledge. The Easterners “stroke back”, proclaiming that the debate
displayed power hierarchies in knowledge production that reflected political
and economic power differentials in the academic arena. Such critical voices
geared against what was perceived as the Western academic hegemony have
become more concerted recently and eventually backed by anthropologists
coming from the West. All voices required “fairness and equality” of
dialogue among diverse traditions of doing ethnology/anthropology in
Europe (cf. Ruegg 2014).


2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 233-244
EUROPEAN ANTHROPOLOGY                                                                    237


   I have argued elsewhere that that debate has become somewhat sterile,
for it over-generalised the two styles without discriminating between
different national contexts (Čapo 2014). In the 1960s, when it was first
stated, the distinction between “national ethnologies” (later on confined to
Eastern Europe for political rather than any other reasons) and “cosmopolitan
anthropology” may have pointed to certain differences, but later on, it was
ossified and over-burdened by a series of power-related attributes. Those
who insisted on it did not pay attention to inner dynamics of the discipline
in different national contexts and therefore did not provide an adequate
account of diversity in ethnologies/anthropologies across Europe. In
addition to hierarchies of power, the ossified distinction between “national
ethnologies” and “cosmopolitan anthropology” can be attributed to the lack
of information across linguistic and political (until 1989) divides on the
continent.
   Since the beginning of the 21st century that lack has started to be rectified.
One way of going about it addressed the complicated issue of national
languages in which many European ethnologies/anthropologies are written.
Here belong in particular the attempts of “small” European ethnologies, or
rather, of European ethnologies written in “small” languages, to win readers
beyond the nation-state in which they are practiced, by publishing in the
hegemonic language of academia, English5.
   On the other side, ethno-anthropologists have been invited to publish in
other countries. A most prominent example of this are country-specific
issues presenting national ethno-anthropological research in a prominent
French journal Ethnologie française, in French. This fine idea to make visible
diverse European ethnological/anthropological traditions, initiated by the
editorial board led by Martine Segalen, has resulted in a series of special
volumes on ethnologies/ anthropologies in Norway, Sweden, Poland,
Slovenia, Croatia, and Albania among others. An early example of a similar
attempt, initiated by Reinhard Johler, was a comprehensive volume with
studies by Croatian ethnologists translated into German (Čapo Žmegač,
Johler, Kalapoš, Nikitsch 2001).
   In addition to these presentations of singular European ethno-
anthropologies, there are comparative volumes that bring together analyses
of several national traditions. An early such volume focused on the then
fledging discipline of European Ethnology which had established itself in the
German-speaking world against its predecessor, Volkskunde. The bilingual
volume (German and English) presents several national ethnologies practiced
5. This was, however, not without ambivalence, for translation can be deceptive; also, it in-
volves expenses and may become a problem insofar as publishing in other languages evades
establishing disciplinary terminology in the vernacular.

                                        2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 233-244
238                                                                JASNA ČAPO


i n Central and Eastern Europe (and Holland), and focused around
transformations that our discipline underwent after 1989 (Köstlin,
Niedermüller, Nikitsch 2002). Most recent among similar concepts is the
volume edited by Andrés Barrera, Monica Heintz and Anna Horolets (2017).
It is a somewhat belated product of a long-standing effort by Barrera at
establishing a unified European research and teaching area in anthropology
(2005; 2008). Here one can also mention a volume with a more restricted,
South-Eastern European scope, with reviews of “ethnological sciences” in
that region (Roth 2014).
   The above-mentioned volumes give visibility to until then mutually little
known national usages of ethnology/anthropology. They were conceived of
as fora for thinking across national divides and they have paved the way
toward transnationalisation of ethno-anthropologies in Europe. Others are
taking up this challenge. A prominent example is the work of Ullrich Kockel
(2012). Also, Sarah Green and Patrick Laviolette have brought that project a
step further by initiating a debate about “the diversity that is European
Anthropology and the directions in which it is travelling” (2015a: 330).
Others have empirically shown that transnationalisation of different
traditions has occurred. For instance, The Companion to the Anthropology of
Europe (Kockel, Nic Craith, Frykman 2012) makes a conscious attempt to
bridge the gap between separate ethno-anthropological traditions in Europe,
reconcile the divide between what are thought to have been ethnologies
studying own society and cultural and social anthropology of the other and
overcome the still ambivalent position of European ethnology as “not quite”
cultural anthropology (Frykman 2012). The chapters support the opinion of
the editors that European ethnologies, in their many guises, have been
thematically, theoretically and methodologically brought in alignment with
cultural and social anthropology, an assessment made also by one of the
advocates of the divide between “national ethnologies” and comparative
anthropology, Chris Hann (2012, 2014). I believe therefore that the
controversy that F. Martínez is mentioning is not about whether there is
European anthropology. Rather, it might be about what characterises it, as
the contributions in Social Anthropology (Green, Laviolette 2015a; 2015b;
Martínez 2016) started to debate.

Bottom lines of a transnational European anthropology
   I propose that European anthropology is a discipline which resulted from
the process of transnationalisation of diverse traditions of doing ethnology/
anthropology in Europe. The process itself is grounded in reflexivity, which
is the hallmark of our discipline, and in the parity of dialogue among the


2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 233-244
EUROPEAN ANTHROPOLOGY                                                            239


practitioners of the discipline across national divides who partake of the
unifying horizon of meaning. Transnationalisation does not mean that the
anthropology of Europe can remain just “a network of perspectives”
acknowledged by each other while “every national, regional group”
continues to make “conscious use of its cultural specificity” (Hofer 1996: 95).
It means going beyond mere mutual recognition of nationally specific
perspectives to creating a transnational perspective that goes beyond
particular national traditions and their specificities. As in other studies
invoking it, the prefix trans is here used in the sense of “moving through
space or across lines, as well as changing the nature of something” (Ong
1999: 4). It requires a change of perspective, a radical shift from
methodological nationalism (Wimmer, Glick Schiller 2002) to methodological
transnationalism (Nieswand 2008). It means developing a European
anthropology that goes beyond nationally preferred topics and concepts and
includes issues relevant to Europe and/or the world, or parts thereof,
depending on what is studied. The span of topics presented at the
conferences organised by EASA, SIEF, and within the regional scope of
InASEA (International Association of Southeast European Anthropology) in
the past decades points to the creation of relevant common themes.
   The process of transnationalisation requires that we rely on our trademark,
reflexivity. Reflexivity is at the root of the constant “state of unrest” (Testa
2016) of the discipline. Ever since its establishment, anthropology has been
constantly challenging – and by the same token transforming – itself: it has
come up with a series of shifting paradigms, it has been discussing the loss
of its subject matter at various times and on various terrains, it has
questioned its basic episteme on several occasions (e.g. positivism vs
subjectivism, comparison vs particularism) and, since the 1980s the issue of
representation has forcefully imposed itself on anthropologists, with
reverberations until today. I argue that such a constant reflexive stance is a
condition sine qua non of European anthropology as a transnational discipline
which strives to cut across the diverse national traditions of practicing
ethnology/anthropology in Europe. Reflexivity facilitates dialogue among
diverse European anthropologies; reflexivity from a transnational
perspective helps de-naturalise national anthropological concepts and ways
of interpreting local meanings and forges new ones, it enables mixing
diverse ways of doing fieldwork (see Estalella, Sánchez Criado, this issue),
and asking questions of relevance beyond national borders, in the
transnational European space which is of relevance to each national society
in Europe.
   European modernity is the common horizon of meaning that all European
anthropologists share. Europe is not just a specific place of research but is a

                                   2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 233-244
240                                                                    JASNA ČAPO


common horizon, a state of knowledge (Wissenszustand), which is the product
of European (Western) modernity, stated Peter Niedermüller in a
programmatic text on European ethnology (2002). This statement pertains
well to transnational European anthropology because Europe is a common
horizon for all European anthropologists. That commonality enables
openness toward and cross-fertilisation of diverse national intellectual
strands of the discipline – of their insights, concepts, and methodologies. If
that was the empowering feature of Croatian ethno-anthropology (Čapo,
Gulin Zrnić 2014), it is an even more empowering characteristic of European
anthropology for it allows for radical challenging of all ethnologies/
anthropologies in Europe no matter whether they study own or other
cultures, in Europe and elsewhere. Openness should lead to mutual learning
and exchange and thus create fertile ground for a multiple-way dialogue
among diverse strands of doing anthropology in Europe. If it is to be a
multiple-way relationship, the flow of knowledge production should not fail
to become a balanced, mutually informed exchange from various sides on
the basis of parity and fairness. As I have argued elsewhere (Čapo 2014), that
exchange results from openness of all and each strand of ethnology/
anthropology to learn from one another and give shape to a genuine
transnational European anthropology. Since the context of knowledge
production in European anthropology is inherently transnational, inequality
of dialogue is untenable if the transnationalisation of the discipline is
genuinely to take place. If this does not happen, European anthropology will
not become transnational for it will always exclude some strands of the
discipline. Reflexivity is again of utmost importance, for it is with reflexivity
that fairness and equality are borne.
   There are, however, several rather imposing limitations to the process of
transnationalisation: What will be its main language of communication?
Who will be interested in it? Will the “big” language traditions (like the
French), partake of it? And what about the countries in which there is
already a well-established institutional division between “ethnology” (with
folklore studies) and “anthropology” (which is, after all, also present in the
division of the two pan-European associations, the EASA and the SIEF)?
Attempts to deal with these issues might require further discussions, as
dealing with the “controversy” of European anthropology entails engaging
with further controversies.




2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 233-244
EUROPEAN ANTHROPOLOGY                                                              241


REFERENCES
Barrera, Andrés, 2005, Towards an Anthropology of Europe: Outline for a Teaching
      and Research Agenda, in Anthropology of Europe: Teaching and Research, Peter
      Skalník, ed, Prague, Set Out: 3-25.
Barrera, Andrés, 2008, Aims and scope of the “Anthropology in Europe” project,
      Ethnologie française, 38, 4: 587-590.
Barrera, Andres, Monica Heintz, Anna Horolets, eds, 2017, European Anthropologies,
      Oxford, Berghahn.
Baskar, Bojan, 2008, Small National Ethnologies and Supranational Empires: The
      Case of the Habsburg Monarchy, Everyday Culture in Europe: Approaches and
      Methodologies, Máiréad Nic Craith, Ullrich Kockel, Reinhard Johler, eds,
      Aldershot, Ashgate: 65-80
Buchowski, Michał, 2004, Hierarchies of knowledge in Central-Eastern European
      Anthropology, The Anthropology of East Europe Review, 22, 2: 5-14.
Buchowski, Michał, 2012a, Intricate relations between Western anthropologists and
      Eastern ethnologists, Focaal, 63: 20-38.
Buchowski, Michał, 2012b, Anthropology in Postsocialist Europe, in A Companion to
      the Anthropology of Europe, Ullrich Kockel, Máiréad Nic Craith, Jonas Frykman,
      eds, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell: 68-87.
Čapo, Jasna, 2014, Ethnology and Anthropology in Europe: Towards a Trans-National
      Discipline, Cultural Analysis, 13: 51-76.
Čapo, Jasna, Valentina Gulin Zrnić, 2014, Croatian Ethnology as Cultural Anthropology
      at Home, Ethnologia Balkanica, 17: 85-103.
Čapo, Jasna, Valentina Gulin Zrnić, 2017, Grounding Contemporary Croatian Cultural
      Anthropology in Its Own Ethnology, in European Anthropologies, Andrés
      Barrera, Monica Heintz, Anna Horolets, eds, Oxford, Berghahn: 230-249.
Čapo Žmegač, Jasna, 2002, Petrified Models and (Dis)Continuities: Croatian
      Ethnology in the 1990’s, in Die Wende als Wende? Orientierungen Europäischer
      Ethnologien nach 1989, Konrad Köstlin, Peter Niedermüller, Herbert Nikitsch,
      eds, Wien, Institut für Europäische Ethnologie: 94-109.
Čapo Žmegač, Jasna; Reinhard Johler, Sanja Kalapoš, Herbert Nikitsch, eds, 2001,
      Kroatische Volkskunde/Ethnologie in den Neunzigern: Ein Reader, Vienna,
      Institut für Europäische Ethnologie.
Frykman, Jonas, 2012, A Tale of Two Disciplines: European Ethnology and the
      Anthropology of Europe, in A Companion to the Anthropology of Europe, Ullrich
      Kockel, Máiréad Nic Craith, Jonas Frykman, eds, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell:
      572-589.
Godina, Vesna, 2002, From Ethnology to Anthropology and Back Again: Negotiating
      the Boundaries of Ethnology and Anthropology in Post-Socialist European
      Countries, in A Post-communist Millenium: The Struggles for Sociocultural
      Anthropology in Central and Eastern Europe, Peter Skalník, ed, Prague, Set Out:
      1-22.
Green, Sarah, Patrick Laviolette, eds, 2015a, Forum Rethinking Euro-anthropology,
      Social Anthropology, 23, 3: 330-364.

                                     2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 233-244
242                                                                      JASNA ČAPO


Green, Sarah, Patrick Laviolette, eds, 2015b, Forum Rethinking Euro-anthropology:
      part two, Social Anthropology, 23, 4: 492-509.
Hann, Chris, 2012. Faltering dialogue? For a doubly rooted cosmopolitan
      anthropology, Focaal, 63: 39-50.
Hann, Chris, 2013, Introduction: Nations and Nationalism, Societies and Socialism,
      Fields and Wars, in The Anthropological Field on the Margins of Europe, 1945-
      1991, Aleksandar Bošković, Chris Hann, eds, Berlin, Lit Verlag: 1-28.
Hann, Chris, 2014. Beyond Cold War, Beyond Otherness. Some Implications of
      Socialism and Postsocialism for Anthropology, in Does East Go West?
      Anthropological Pathways Through Postsocialism, Christian Giordano, Francois
      Ruegg, Andrea Boscoboinik, eds, Berlin, Lit: 35-56.
Hofer, Tamás, 1968, Anthropologists and Native Ethnographers in Central
      European Villages: Comparative Notes on the Professional Personality of Two
      Disciplines, Current Anthropology, 9, 4: 311-315.
Hofer, Tamás, 1996, National Schools of European Ethnology and the Question of
      “Latent Ethnicity”, Ethnologia Europaea, 26: 89-96.
Kockel, Ullrich, 2012, Editorial: European Ethnology, Europeanist Anthropology
      and Beyond, Anthropological Journal of European Cultures, 21, 2: 1-4.
Kockel, Ullrich, Máiréad Nic Craith, Jonas Frykman, eds, 2012, A Companion to the
      Anthropology of Europe, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell.
Köstlin, Konrad, Peter Niedermüller, Herbert Nikitsch, eds, 2002. Die Wende als
      Wende? Orientierungen Europäischer Ethnologien nach 1989, Vienna, Institut
      für Europäische Ethnologie.
Martinez, Francisco, 2016. In a state of repair, Rethinking Euro-anthropology: part
      three, Social Anthropology, 24, 3: 353-356.
Niedermüller, Peter, 2002, Europäische Ethnologie: Deutungen, Optionen,
      Alternativen, in Die Wende als Wende? Orientierungen Europäischer Ethnologien
      nach 1989, Konrad Köstlin, Peter Niedermüller, Herbert Nikitsch, eds, Vienna,
      Institut für Europäische Ethnologie: 27-62.
Nieswand, Boris, 2008, Wege aus dem Dilemma zwischen Transnationalismus- und
      Integrationsansatz. Simultane Inklusion von migranten-iniitierten
      charismatischen Gemeinden in Berlin, Migration und religiöse Dynamik.
      Ethnologische Religionsforschung im transnationalen Kontext, Andrea. Lauser,
      Cordula Weißköppel, eds. Bielefeld, Transcript: 35-52.
Ong, Aihwa, 1999, Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality,
      Durham, Duke University Press.
Prica, Ines, 1995, “To be here- to publish there”. On the Position of a Small
      European Ethnology, Narodna umjetnost: Croatian Journal of Ethnology and
      Folklore Research, 32, 1: 7-23.
Rihtman Auguštin, Dunja, 2004, Ethnology, Myth and Politics. Anthropologizing
      Croatian Ethnology, Aldershot, Ashgate.
Rogan, Bjarne, 2014, When the Folklorists Won the Battle but Lost the War: The
      Cumbersome (Re-)Birth of SIEF in 1964, Cultural Analysis, 13: 23-50.


2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 233-244
EUROPEAN ANTHROPOLOGY                                                              243


Roth, Klaus, ed, 2014, Ethnologia Balkanica, 17.
Ruegg, François, 2014, Postsocialism and the Confinement of Anthropology, Does
      East Go West? Anthropological Pathways Through Postsocialism, Christian
      Giordano, Francois Ruegg, Andrea Boscoboinik, eds, Berlin, Lit: 81-93.
Testa, Alessandro, 2016, Young scholars of an ageing discipline in the old continent,
      Rethinking Euro-anthropology: part three, Social Anthropology, 24, 3: 371-
      373.
Wimmer, Andreas, Nina Glick Schiller, 2002, Methodological nationalism and
      beyond: nation–state building, migration and the social sciences, Global
      Networks, 2, 4: 301-334.




                                     2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 233-244
                                         2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 233-244




 Jasna ČAPO is Research Advisor at the Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research
 in Zagreb. She has convened the 12th Congress of the SIEF in Zagreb in 2015. Čapo
 and her team have recently completed the project City-making: space, culture and
 identity (www.citymaking.eu). Her research interests include refugee and economic
 migrations, migrants in urban contexts, identity- and place-making. She is author
 of Strangers Either Way (2007) and Dva doma (Two Homes, 2019) and co-editor of
 Co-Ethnic Migration Compared (with K. Roth and C. Voß, 2010) and Etnologija
 bliskoga (Ethnology of the Proximate, with V. Gulin Zrnić and G.-P. Šantek, 2006).
 capo@ief.hr




This work is licensed under the Creative Commons © Jasna Čapo
European anthropology: Transnationality and reflexivity within a shared horizon of meaning
2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 233-244.
ISSN: 2239-625X - DOI: 10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3930
