10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3667
application/pdf
2239-625X
3667
2
en
Mairi McFadyen
Anuac
On the carrying stream into the European mountain: Roots and routes of creative (Scottish) ethnology
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/anuac
8
Thematic section: Changing margins and relations within European anthropology
2019-12-29
2019-04-30
2019-12-29
2019-12-29
189-211
1
Mairi McFadyen
2019/12/29
10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3667
189
University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
2239-625X
2
en
211
On the carrying stream into the European mountain: Roots and routes of creative (Scottish) ethnology
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/anuac/article/download/3667/3559
8
                                            2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211




On the carrying stream into the European mountain
Roots and routes of creative (Scottish) ethnology

Ullrich KOCKEL
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh
Mairi MCFADYEN
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh




ABSTRACT: Since 2016, a diverse network of academic researchers, creative practitioners
and cultural activists has emerged in Scotland, keen to explore the potential of a
“creative ethnology”. This is in part a response to the politico-cultural and wider
intellectual climate in the aftermath of the referendum on Scottish independence in
2014, and to ongoing debates in the arts and academia. As activists in this network, and
ethnologists at almost opposite ends of our respective academic journeys, but who
share similar perspectives and concerns, we reflect in this article on the margins and
intersections of (European) ethnology in Scotland through mapping our personal
trajectories in terms of geographical location, institutional contexts, research foci and
methodological experimentation. Given limitations of space, we concentrate on aspects
highlighting the specific contexts we have found ourselves living and working in, thus
illustrating the positionality of (European) ethnology in Scotland through our
individual trajectories in their relationality, rather than attempting a comprehensive
account of the field. Our focus here is on that emerging “creative ethnology” and its
potential contribution as non-hegemonic anthropologies are becoming increasingly
recognized.

KEYWORDS: EUROPEAN ETHNOLOGY, NON-HEGEMONIC          ANTHROPOLOGIES,   SCOTTISH   POLITICAL CULTURE,
PLACE WISDOM, REFLEXIVE TRADITION.




This work is licensed under the Creative Commons © Ullrich Kockel, Mairi McFadyen
On the carrying stream into the European mountain: Roots and routes of creative (Scottish) ethnology
2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211.
ISSN: 2239-625X - DOI: 10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3667
190                                                  ULLRICH KOCKEL, MAIRI MCFADYEN



Ethnological being-in-the-world
   European ethnology “originated in the political struggles […] for ethnic
recognition through certain culturally distinctive features” (Dégh 1975: 114).
While one can take issue with the purposes motivating much of this earlier
ethnology, the raison d’être of ethnological studies of Europe in different
regional and national contexts was never exclusively antiquarian, but
intensely political. This connection between ethnology and national
resurgence is not necessarily driven by and supporting an exclusive
nationalism elevating one culture vis-à-vis every other – and some Others in
particular (Herder 2017). The reinvention of European ethnology as cultural
anthropology in different national contexts since the 1960s has generated
new ways of imagining the world and our place in it (Kockel 1999). We dig
where we stand; our own personal roots, as well as our own local place, are a
part of our research apparatus (McIntosh 2008; Byrne 2012; Fenton, Mackay
2013). Often the focus is our relationship with the past and how we make
sense of it in the present; ethnology has thus been closely associated with
the history, collection and study of folklore in relation to cultural belonging
(West 2012; Kockel, Nic Craith, Frykman 2012).
   Considering questions of belonging in Scotland and Europe at this
historical juncture cannot avoid engagement with the reshaping and
potential relocation of “central” and “peripheral” sites of knowledge
production; nor can we ignore the devastation neoliberalist policies are
inflicting on the conditions for production of anthropological knowledge –
from mounting student debt to the precarisation of the academic workforce
(see Martínez introduction). In contrast to continental Europe, folklore and
ethnology are, in institutional terms, virtually absent from UK universities.
Scotland stands out here. Pivotal for the development of ethnology in
Scotland was the founding, in 1951, of the School of Scottish Studies, based
at the University of Edinburgh, to collect, archive and promote the cultural
traditions of the nation (Fenton 1990), encouraged, like the Folklore
Commission in Ireland two decades earlier, by visiting Nordic scholars.
During the post-war period, smaller, more remote communities, seen as last
refuges for everything from language and dialect, songs and stories to
customs, beliefs, craft, industry, living conditions, social organization and
material culture, provided an impetus for collecting. Calum MacLean,
brother of poet Sorely MacLean, was one of the first fieldworkers for the
School of Scottish Studies in the Gaelic context, soon joined by Hamish
Henderson, who largely focused on Scots language material. The story of
tradition in this place – Henderson called it “the carrying stream” (Bort

2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
ON THE CARRYING STREAM INTO THE EUROPEAN MOUNTAIN                                  191


2010) – has been a fascinating and international one. Staff and students of
the School have played an active role in the cultural life of the nation.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the School was a key contributor to the
Folk Song Revival, and in the 1980s it introduced the first university degree
in Scottish Ethnology (Aberdeen followed in the 1990s). Ethnologists have
been highly visible in the public sphere, from advising government to
developing and supporting public and community engagement with the
traditional arts in Scotland and beyond.
   The emerging network of creative ethnologists arose from reactions on
social media to Gary West’s inaugural lecture as Professor of Scottish
Ethnology at the University of Edinburgh. For some, “creative ethnology” is
about finding more imaginative ways to share our research through creative
production and performance (West 2012). For others, it is about how we
engage in vital dialogue – cultivating sympathy, synthesis and synergy
(Patrick Geddes; see McFadyen 2015b) – with other fields, such as ecology
(Kockel 2012). Implicit in “creative ethnology” is the notion of creative
practice. Rather than drawing on the creativity of the artist as someone else,
there is a sense that we ought to liberate our own creative instinct, become
artists ourselves. This reflects an expanded anthropological notion of art,
echoing the invocation by artist Joseph Beuys (“everyone an artist”) of the
power of the human body and spirit to transform and be transformed in a
constant, creative process he referred to as “social sculpture” (Walters 2012).
This ethnological being-in-the-world, recognizing our vital role in social
movement and change, necessitates an activist orientation in our scholarly
commitment. In developing such practice, we share a desire to inspire re-
engagement with a broader notion of culture in this place, as part of a future-
oriented project.
   “To be truly creative”, writes Norman Bissell (2014: 5), “we must adopt [a]
sensitive awareness and openness to the world, and work at it consciously in
our various fields of endeavour – whether in music, writing, visual and other
arts or sciences or combinations of these”. In a series of essays on cultural
renewal, the poet Kenneth White (2004: 145) postulated “a new poetic
anthropology”. “The real work”, he wrote, “consists in changing the
categories, grounding a new anthropology, moving towards a new experience
of the earth and of life” (White 2004: 22; our emph.). White called this
approach “geopoetics”, and in 1989 established the International Institute of
Geopoetics as a center for a Global Network, based in France. His writings
had helped us each on our own journey, and in June 2017, a conference on
the Isle of Seil in the west of Scotland presented an opportunity to explore
creative ethnology as a form of geopoetics with other participants. This


                                     2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
192                                                         ULLRICH KOCKEL, MAIRI MCFADYEN


essay draws on some of the threads from that exploration. More than other
humanities and social science fields, ethnology is rooted not just in a
national and regional, but, crucially, in the local milieu – that is, in specific
places. That brings inevitable political and wider responsibilities, which
require that we see both the trees and the wood, as well as understanding, at
least in principle, what is going on beyond the forest. We are mindful of the
significance of nationalism in modern societies, that there is nothing
“natural” about nation-states, and that confining studies to geopolitical
entities can be counterproductive (Wimmer, Glick-Schiller 2003); however,
we contend that grounding ethnological understanding in place does not
inevitably procure methodological nationalism (see, inter alia, Ribeiro 2007),
and may indeed be a safeguard against it.
   In his introduction to a collection of essays on anthropological studies of
contemporary Britain, Nigel Rapport noted that such studies were
“conducted in the shadow of a more proper anthropology elsewhere” (2002:
4). However, Rapport (2002: 7) contended, an anthropology in and of Britain
      has the potential […] of providing some of the best that the discipline can offer
      because an anthropologist thoroughly at home in linguistic denotation, and
      familiar with behavioural forms, is more able to appreciate the connotative: to
      pick up on those niceties of interaction and ambivalences and ambiguities of
      exchange, where the most intricate (and interesting) aspects of sociocultural
      worlds are constructed, negotiated, contested and disseminated.

   Concluding that collection, Cohen (2002: 326) pointed out that “people
live most of their lives in circumstances of particularity”, arguing that
anthropology’s role derives from its “competence […] to substantiate, inform
and signal reservations about large-scale statements” (2002: 327). Not the
generalizations attempted by early folklorists and anthropologists are the
purpose of inquiry, but description and analysis of specificity, difference. An
anthropology “at home”, defined in these terms, converges with ethnology
as defined by Frykman (2003), and draws on empirically grounded
continental European approaches. From the perspective of this European
ethnology, studying one’s own society and culture is entirely comparable to
the “more proper anthropology elsewhere” (Rapport 2002: 4) that Strathern’s
(1987) critique of an anthropology “at home” appeared to defend.

The Scottish context
   Both globally and locally, cultural industries are progressively taking over
traditional forms of creation and dissemination, bringing about changes in
cultural practices (Nic Craith 2004). In the UK policy framework, “culture” is
currently devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government,

2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
ON THE CARRYING STREAM INTO THE EUROPEAN MOUNTAIN                                  193


through Creative Scotland as its agency, seeks to implement an instrumentalist
paradigm of development, prioritizing “creative industries”. Within cultural
policy, “heritage” has become a major factor. What constitutes “heritage” is
increasingly officially defined, governed by philosophical ideas that
originate in a Euro-American way of thinking about the relationship
between past and present, including a desire to order and categorize, and a
late-modern obsession with vulnerability, uncertainty and risk (Noyes 2010;
see also Logan, Nic Craith and Kockel 2016).
   The adoption by UNESCO in 2003 of the Convention for the Safeguarding
of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH), which draws on “earlier con-
versations in folklore studies” (Noyes 2015: 299), has illuminated the role of
public participation in the inventorying, presentation and conservation of
cultural heritage, and the need to re-conceptualize tangible and intangible
heritage as connected, interactional aspects of the heritage whole. Noyes
(2015: 300) notes that the inextricable intertwining of “social, political,
academic, and policy lines of attention to traditional expressions […] for at
least four hundred years […] excites considerable anxiety among folklore
scholars” who are often reluctant “to align with local-level activism and
insights, or in moments of professional necessity argue for the utility of
convergence with UNESCO and/or the state”.
   The Convention encourages state support for the living performance of
cultural traditions in the communities in which they are practiced,
emphasizing the intrinsic value and national importance of traditional music
and its value to local and community life. In the current constitutional set-
up, however, Scotland has no direct pathway to official UNESCO recognition;
the convention recognizes only States Parties; the UK has not ratified the
convention and is unlikely to do so any time soon (Nic Craith, Kockel and
Lloyd 2018). This freedom from official bureaucracy, however, has provided
an opportunity to interpret policy differently. Drawing on the civic national
model of citizenship laid out by the Scottish Government, cultural heritage
policy – unlike elsewhere in Europe – embraces and recognizes the diversity
of cultures found in Scotland, which includes the indigenous languages of
Scots and Gaelic as well as that of immigrant communities.
   Since 2010, traditional arts activities – music, song, storytelling, dance –
has been supported in the mainstream by the funding body Creative
Scotland. The traditional arts community comprises both professional
performers and amateurs, an ecology of community organizations, a vibrant
culture of community-based festivals happening at the grassroots, and
highly successful international festivals, such as the Scottish International
Storytelling Festival or Celtic Connections. In the context of the booming

                                     2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
194                                                  ULLRICH KOCKEL, MAIRI MCFADYEN


creative industries, forms of local culture are offered up for global
consumption. This throws up a conundrum: framing traditional arts as both
an export brand and as a set of cultural practices in need of safeguarding due
to the threat of globalised commodification. French (2009) has accused the
Scottish Government of commodifying the traditional arts while at the same
time privileging “specific cultural expressions that aid the government’s
political project of constitutional change”. Pragmatically, the traditional arts
benefit from this situation, but sit precariously and uncomfortably within
such an ideology.
   Recent work by TRACS (Traditional Arts and Culture Scotland) has
highlighted the creative potential of cultural heritages in local communities
across Scotland (and their global connections) as a potential pathway to both
“local ownership of cultural resources and to creative inspiration”
(McFadyen 2015a: 1). With sympathetic implementation, ICH policy could
raise awareness and support the sustainability of those cultural practices
that define the diverse groups, communities, regions and national identity of
contemporary Scotland. Noyes (2015: 309) warns that even with UNESCO
designation of their practice, “for the foreseeable future, most subaltern
practitioners and marginal communities are on their own”, and asks if it
might be possible for scholars on the margins “to imagine an intervention
from below that would work not upon the local but upward – toward and
beyond the state?” This is part of what “creative ethnology” stands for.
Where its concern is with heritage policy, creative ethnology follows folklore
studies and “the longer and broader sociocultural work of modernity in
singling out local traditions as identity markers” (Noyes 2015: 299). Its
efforts are connected to the formation of its nation-state as well as to grass-
roots resistances to the standardisation this entails, and to holding the
resulting tensions in creative confluence.
   The constitutional question came to a head during the referendum for
Scottish independence in 2014. Given Scotland’s cultural and political
heritage, there was a sense that the traditional arts community had a
responsibility to contribute to the national debate, irrespective of political
leanings or differences of opinion. In a climate of rising political tension,
however, public arts organizations and networks involving traditional arts
were careful to avoid taking an explicit position. Contributions had to come
from individuals and independent groups. Mairi was an active campaigner at
this time, taking a lead in catalysing the campaign group TradYES, part of
the wider non-party creative cultural campaign National Collective
(McFadyen 2018). The tone of this campaign was explicitly positive,
inclusive and outward-looking, drawing upon an emerging traditional arts

2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
ON THE CARRYING STREAM INTO THE EUROPEAN MOUNTAIN                                  195


discourse and reflecting both the ethos of the wider Yes campaign and the
Scottish Government’s inclusive, civic nationalism. Far from recreating
binaries of exclusionary nationalisms of the European past, traditional music
was presented literally as a “welcome table” for “new Scots” (MacKenzie
2014). By 2014, almost all public statements from this community, reflecting
a trend in the wider arts community, advocated an independent Scotland.
While this very public alignment of the traditional music community with
support for independence in cultural and political discourse might give a
skewed view of the opinions of the wider society, it is noteworthy that not
since the Scottish Folk Revival and anti-Polaris movement of the 1960s has
this community been so politically active.
   Most commentators regard the referendum campaign as a progressive,
creative and formative period in Scottish politics, leaving a legacy of cultural
confidence that has fed into an emerging sense of cultural possibility (Harvie
2016; Kockel 2017). Since 2014, Scotland has seen more “folk culture” made
visible in the mainstream, such as the 2016 film Hamish the Movie, about the
cultural influence of Hamish Henderson, or the performance of Martyn
Bennett’s GRIT at the Edinburgh International Festival (McFadyen 2016).
The run-up to the referendum catalyzed artists and cultural activists into a
large-scale participatory democratic process, transforming the political and
cultural landscape through embodied and creative ways of engaging in the
debate, and opening up alternative, grassroots spaces. In post-referendum
Scotland, it has become common practice for citizens to demand new ways
of grassroots participation in politics and policy-making, challenging the
pervasive neoliberal model, and seeking a different alignment between
culture, politics and the public. Such a renewal of cultural policy “centres on
the need for praxis – for theoretically informed, critically reflective action
[…] oriented towards social justice across the integrated economic, political,
cultural, kinship and ecological spheres of our existence” (French and Asher
2012).
   Against this backdrop, “creative ethnology” emerged as a movement
bringing together cultural activists and academic researchers to explore new
ways of engaged practice. The politico-cultural and wider intellectual
climate of post-devolution, pre-independence Scotland, together with the
historical situation of European ethnology here, provided a particularly
fertile ground for this development. Like the small European nations of the
nineteenth century, Scotland is a country in search of itself, but its political
culture is much more outward-looking, and the spirit of the independence
campaign overall has been inclusive. Unlike nationalistic ethnologies of the
past (see, e.g., Rihtman-Auguštin 2004 on Croatia, Dow and Bockhorn 2004

                                     2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
196                                                  ULLRICH KOCKEL, MAIRI MCFADYEN


on Austria, and the contributions to Nic Craith, Kockel and Johler 2008 on
other parts of Europe), Scottish ethnology has been shaped by intellectuals
like Hamish Henderson with his left-of-center internationalist outlook that
has encouraged an approach to studying culture at once rigorous and
playful, and connected with elsewhere, both in Europe and beyond. The
public folklore agencies in the U.S., working with practitioners and
communities to secure funding and venues, but also to enhance resilience in
the face of change (Noyes 2015: 309; see also Kodish 2012), are part of this
wider context.
   Although the term “creative ethnology” was used before (West 2012), it
acquired wider currency and meaning following Gary West’s (2016) inaugural
lecture on “Performing Testimony: towards a creative ethnology for the 21 st
century”, when Ullrich used the hashtag #CreativeEthnology in a congratulating
tweet. West had opened his lecture with extracts from a play he had written,
based on a private oral history archive bequeathed to Edinburgh’s School of
Scottish Studies. Within a few days, a meeting of interested individuals had
been arranged. At that meeting, West observed that “[m]any people with
ethnological background and training are also working in different creative
ways”, and drew parallels with ICH and “the overlap between performance
and heritage as a creative process”; he also noted that while he had used
“creative ethnology” in the title of his inaugural lecture, he had “never really
intended […] this as a term in itself” (McFadyen 2017: 3). However, the term
clearly captured a momentum that had been building. A Creative Ethnology
Studio had already been initiated as a joint workshop series run by Heriot-
Watt University’s Intercultural Research Centre and the University of
Edinburgh’s School of Scottish Studies, “with the aim of facilitating a
network of researchers interested in exploring the creative aspects and
potentials of ethnological practice” (ibid: 5), and involving network
members from across Scotland; events have since covered visual art, poetry,
walking as method, theatre, and graffiti.

Furrows in the ethnologic field
   At its inaugural meeting, the “creative ethnology” network noted that it
was “rooted here in this place but not confined to this part of the planet”
(ibid: 1). We have already commented on the contextual specificity that
created conditions for this movement to emerge in Scotland at this time, and
the significance of rootedness in place cannot be overstated (see Ribeiro
2007; Kołodziejczyk 2010). Focusing on issues of place brings certain risks –
the ghosts of a “blood and soil” ideology, thriving on folklore, are always


2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
ON THE CARRYING STREAM INTO THE EUROPEAN MOUNTAIN                                  197


looming in the background (Kockel 2012). Moreover, the vision of “newly
indigenous”, implicit in the inclusive concept of the “new Scots”, may have
romantic appeal, but how does an emphasis on local specificity and active
cultural engagement sit with the concept of a disinterested, rigorous,
objective academic inquiry? Nearly half a century ago, Feyerabend (2010
[1975]) made a powerful case Against Method, arguing for epistemological
anarchy on the grounds that rigid scientific methodology impedes new
insights. This would suggest that, instead of rigid epistemologies,
ethnologists should creatively combine empathetic ethnography with
critically-aware theory. Arguably, “all logics are ethnologics” (Kan and
Turner Strong 2006: xvi), and thus it makes sense to speak of ethnologies in
the plural: despite the entirely justified critique of “methodological
nationalism”, there is a place for the acknowledgement of context and
specificity. While we may have to adjust our choice of methods to our subject
of inquiry, and keep an open mind with regard to interpreting what we might
find, what matters most is that we seek to ground our theorising in the lived
emic experience of the people we are studying, rather than in some
fashionable etic discourse. In searching for new ways of looking at the world,
we can draw on a rich tradition of critical thought in our immediate cultural
context. Constraints of space only allow us to indicate a few of these deeper
wells.

Hamish Henderson
   The legacy of the aforementioned Hamish Henderson was an integral part
of Mairi’s undergraduate studies in Scottish ethnology at the School of
Scottish Studies, where she later gained her PhD. Ullrich first encountered
Henderson’s work indirectly, while immersed in the folk “scene” of the 1970s
and 1980s, through conversations with singer-songwriter Hamish Imlach in
Hamburg, and later with Christopher Harvie in Tübingen, whose history of
Scotland in the twentieth century, No Gods and Precious Few Heroes (Harvie
2016), took its title from a line in one of Henderson’s poems (Henderson
1948: 19). He never met Henderson personally, but became intrigued by this
culturally and politically complex character – a polyglot Scot, at once a
Scottish nationalist and an internationalist socialist with strong intellectual
and personal connections to Germany and Italy, who translated Gramsci’s
Prison Letters into English. Henderson was a folklorist, collector, folk
revivalist, a poet, songwriter, political activist, translator and public
intellectual. Lamenting the isolation of the artist in modern society, he
sought to overcome the distance between the poet and “the people”. As
Gibson (2015: 1f.) notes, Henderson “envisaged the role of the artist in

                                     2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
198                                                  ULLRICH KOCKEL, MAIRI MCFADYEN


society as one caught between an absolute submission to the collective tide
of human experience” and “the need to absorb and recreate this collective
force according to an individual or personal credo” – a tension embodied in
the famous “flytings” between Henderson and poet Hugh MacDiarmid in the
pages of daily newspapers, a crucial contribution to our understanding of the
cultural landscape of Scotland in the second half of the twentieth century.
Henderson was part of the very “folk process” he sought to understand,
bringing the phrase “the carrying stream” into cultural consciousness, and
writing songs like “Freedom Come All Ye”, connecting socio-cultural
struggles in Scotland with the Anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa
(McFadyen, Nic Craith 2019).

Patrick Geddes
   Beyond Henderson’s internationalist Scottish ethnology, another beacon
on our respective intellectual journeys has been Patrick Geddes, whose work
we first discovered at different times and from different personal angles:
Ullrich through an extra-curricular foray into landscape architecture while
working on his undergraduate dissertation, Mairi during postdoctoral
research at the Institute for Advanced Studies (IASH) in Edinburgh. Geddes’
work on local and regional planning influenced Ullrich’s early research on
endogenous regional development, a concern he returned to with his
inaugural lecture as Professor of Ethnology and Folklife at Ulster (Kockel
2008a), where, drawing on the Geddesian triad of “Place-Folk-Work”, he
explored connections between culture and nature through the ethnological
prism of “place”. Mairi’s interest was in Geddes’ cultural-ecological
imagination and his role in the late Victorian Celtic Revival. Her research,
with a particular focus on the vital role of traditional arts in cultural renewal,
fed into a series of talks and workshops at the Scottish Storytelling Centre’s
Celtic Summer School during 2014–2016.
   Described variously as a Victorian polymath and synthesising generalist,
Geddes was looking for connections and patterns, and the intellectual tools
to bring disparate ideas into relation. Having spent time in India and formed
a lifetime friendship with Bengali polymath and poet Rabindranath Tagore
(Fraser 2005), he saw Eastern philosophy as necessary complement to
Western thought. His famous “thinking machines” (Meller 1990: 45-52) are
rich examples of his integrated perspective and synthetic world-vision; his
three-dimensional “Notation of Life” reflects the dynamic process of people
living in, reacting to and acting upon the environment. Not merely
descriptive or analytic, it represents a call to action – a methodology for


2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
ON THE CARRYING STREAM INTO THE EUROPEAN MOUNTAIN                                  199


enabling and sharing new knowledge. Geddes’ ability to think from the
perspective of culture enabled him to utilize elements from history and
tradition to achieve benefits for his contemporary world. He believed art, as
an expression of place, embodies folkloric and creative elements of a
society’s collective memory. His cultural-ecological imagination is perhaps
best embodied in his seasonal magazine, The Evergreen, a mouthpiece for the
Celtic Revival, which brought together artists, writers and thinkers who
shared the belief that Scotland could only be a creative nation when it was
actively seeking to implement its own vision of a “commonweal”, with
collectivity, creativity, rootedness in place, and community involvement at
its heart. This rather Romantic understanding that rootedness in a specific
locality is the fundamental condition for a truly international and global
vision was the very basis of Geddes’ thinking.

Kenneth White
   In our introduction, we noted the poet Kenneth White’s postulate,
developed in a series of “essays on cultural renewal”, of a “new anthropology”
that ought to move “towards a new experience of the earth and of life”
(White 2004: 22). Describing Romanticism as “a radical crisis in the Western
conception of the world, a criticism of its systems, values and ambitions, an
encyclopedic [sic] search for knowledge in all directions and the groundwork
for a new epistemology, as well as a tremendous outburst of creativity”, he
invoked an aspect of the Romantic Movement that infused early approaches
to what we nowadays call (European, Scottish etc.) ethnology – “the
“transcendental travelogue” ... [that] ... moves through a spiritual
topography ... [on] a journey from […] confusion and ignorance to a cosmo-
poetic reading of the universe” (White 2004: 96). A key aspect of these
travelogues is their method, guided by the idea of giving “a sense all along
the way of what is open and flowing and cannot be defined in any cut-and-
dried fashion”.
   Attempts to develop the kind of “deep anthropology” White postulated
have been frustrated by a fashionable Cultural Studies concentrating on the
chaos and confusion we encounter on the façade of our everyday, and
shackled by an increasingly constrained funding regime valuing
instrumental uses that can be readily established over longer-term
fundamental insights that may only be speculated on at present. Thus the
ethnological fieldworker, like the modern citizen White describes, finds her-
or himself “in a civilization which, having no deep culture, tries to
camouflage its […] lack by making a lot of noise and flashing a lot of
images”, living “complacently in a well-filled mediocrity” (White 2004: 59).

                                     2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
200                                                  ULLRICH KOCKEL, MAIRI MCFADYEN


To counter this complacent mediocrity, an epistemological and ethical
reorientation of anthropology is necessary; any ethnological study of culture
that abandons the field is in danger of, literally, “losing the plot”. The
challenge is to engage actively with forms of understanding that can be
found outside the disciplinary canon, for example in art, in so far as it is
“founded and grounded, [not] just another aspect of the circus” (White 2004:
59). This is not to eschew universal statements, but to ensure such
statements retain resonances of the local roots and dispositions that make
them relevant and applicable to the local context (Kockel 2008a). That
curious specificity of the universal is a guiding intuition of “geopoetics” as
proposed by Kenneth White. In this, White’s poetic cosmopolitanism meets
and merges with the rootedness emphasized by Geddes.

Nan Shepherd
   White’s geopoetics requires an openness and readiness to both recognize
and consciously abandon inherited concepts, philosophical assumptions,
cultural baggage, language and discourse, to quasi clear the way for a direct
encounter with the world. Such clearing we find, for example, in Nan
Shepherd’s autobiographical work, The Living Mountain, which has been
described as something of a “geo-poetic quest” (MacFarlane 2011: xiv). Her
way “into” the mountain is by use of all the senses as well as the mental
faculties, combining learned knowledge with physical experience. She writes
of moments when she is “not bedevilled by thought” (Shepherd 2011: 93),
“living in one sense at a time to live all the way through” (ibidem: 105). As
James McCarthy (2017) observed: “She was in good company with that other
unrecognised geopoet, […] John Muir, who said that “going out is actually
going in””.
   Unlike other thinkers mentioned in this section, Shepherd, a teacher and
writer, lived all her life (1893-1981) in Peterculter, near Aberdeen. Her
writing is deeply immersed in the local ecology of the Cairngorm mountains
in her native Scottish Highlands. In all of Shepherd’s work, this regional
landscape is an important feature, yet her writing should be understood as
parochial only in the most expansive sense, as expressed by the Irish poet
Patrick Kavanagh, who suggested that “the parish was not a perimeter, but
an aperture: a space through which the world could be seen” (Macfarlane
2016: 62), writing that “to know fully even one field or one land is a
lifetime’s experience. In the world of poetic experience, it is depth that
counts, not width” (quoted in MacFarlane 2016: 63). Shepherd’s is a voice
that opens up possibilities for conveying modes of experience existing


2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
ON THE CARRYING STREAM INTO THE EUROPEAN MOUNTAIN                                  201


beyond the constraints of everyday life. Her engagement with the natural
world is a direct, embodied encounter with the elemental, opening up a new
space outside of our habitual experience, re-framing our perception of the
world, and our relationship with it. Thus, her writing upsets habitual and
hegemonic ways of seeing and understanding the world, and reveals the
hidden ideological nature of the dominant discourses of science, history,
romanticism and landscape aesthetics that have come to define the Scottish
landscape. Instead of depicting a “world out there”, Shepherd presented a
world that is, as Tim Ingold might say, “meaningfully engaged with” (1995:
58).

Bashabi Fraser
   Indian-born Bashabi Fraser was until recently Professor of Creative
Writing and Director of the Scottish Centre for Tagore Studies at Edinburgh
Napier University. She is also a poet who engages with the personal and
cultural experience of migration and post-colonialism. Ranging “across the
territories” (White 2004), much of her work represents a geopoetic approach,
although not explicitly so. This is particularly evident in her epic poem From
the Ganga to the Tay (Fraser 2009), in which a dialogue unfolds between the
two big rivers of India and Scotland, encompassing history, culture and
tradition as well as the experience of migration, echoing Henderson’s
“carrying stream”. As an author, she embodies Indian-Scottish cultural
relations, and her research includes the correspondence between Tagore and
Geddes (Fraser 2005) as an early twentieth-century cross-cultural meeting of
minds.

Beyond the binaries
   One feature uniting these thinkers is their non-parochial outlook, which
is in stark contrast to old-style folklore studies as represented, for example,
by the controversial “folk studies of linguistic islands” (Sprachinselvolks-
kunde; see Weber-Kellermann 1959 for an early critique). Even Nan
Shepherd’s literary and non-fiction work is conscious of the holographic
character of place – at once particular and universal. Each place in its
distinctiveness is also a mirror of the world, not in the imperialist sense of
being a glorious example for all elsewheres, but in the deep ecological sense
of a unique expression of the confluence of all these elsewheres. Ultimately,
“our parish is the cosmos” (McIntosh 2012: 34). Conventional binaries that
separate the “scientific” from the “non-scientific” in a hierarchical manner
appear from this perspective as the power-political constructs they are: the


                                     2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
202                                                  ULLRICH KOCKEL, MAIRI MCFADYEN


etic categories of a hegemonic “scientific community” can no longer claim
superiority to the emic categories of a subaltern “local community”;
oighreachd, cultural heritage “from above”, is balanced – and often
challenged – but dualchas, cultural heritage from below. But this challenge
of established hierarchies and mutually exclusive viewpoints is only the
beginning. Indicated in our use of another language – Scottish Gaelic – in
this context is the recognition that the world may look different through
different linguistic lenses (Nic Craith 2008). The superior position of the
scientific method that Feyerabend railed against in the 1970s may be less
pronounced in other cultural universes. Although the pressures of
globalization may have blurred these distinctions somewhat in the political
practice of how inquiry is supported by public funds, it remains worth
pondering whether and, if so, why the Kulturwissenschaften have a notably
higher standing in German-speaking countries than cultural studies have in
Anglophone funding regimes.

Locating creative ethnology within Europe – and Beyond
   In his 2008 election statement for the presidency of the Société
Internationale d’Ethnologie et de Folklore (SIEF), Ullrich noted that
ethnology was facing “significant challenges in terms of disciplinary identity
and […] location within academia. One major challenge is to maintain the
traditional strengths of our field while being proactive in developing
contemporary and future-oriented fields of inquiry” (quoted in Kockel 2013:
2). While this is true across Europe (and beyond), it is particularly pertinent
in the British context, where (European) ethnology has historically struggled
to establish itself even as a niche subject at university level (Kockel 2008b),
and the anthropology of European societies has fared only marginally better,
surviving often by individual symbioses in departments devoted to other
disciplines. The ESRC Seminars in European Ethnology (2001-03), which
Ullrich coordinated while at the University of the West of England, were an
attempt to develop a broader basis for the field across the UK and help dispel
its image as an amateur antiquarian pursuit (Kockel 2008b). While scholarly
associations – both within ethnology and folklore, such as the ISFNR or the
AFS, and beyond – have long provided international networking
opportunities for individuals working largely in isolation at their home
institution, two such associations have played a major role in locating UK-
based ethnologist explicitly within a European and wider global framework –
SIEF and EASA (European Association of Social Anthropologists). The latter
emerged in the late 1980s partly as a European-based reaction to the global


2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
ON THE CARRYING STREAM INTO THE EUROPEAN MOUNTAIN                                  203


hegemony of North Atlantic-centric (Ribeiro 2007: para 27) anthropological
theorizing, while the former arose from a succession of bodies closely
associated with the League of Nations and, later, UNESCO, where it became
affiliated to the anthropological sciences and in 1966 adopted a European
profile for political reasons (Rogan 2008).

SIEF and European anthropology
   Despite the field’s weak institutional basis, ethnology in the UK has long
had a strong presence at SIEF conferences, largely through its Scottish
participants. Kockel (2008b: 149) noted that, by contrast, English institutions
were represented at the 2001 conference in Budapest primarily by non-
English scholars. Under the theme “Liberating the Ethnological
Imagination”, SIEF’s 2008 congress, hosted by the University of Ulster’s
Academy of Irish Cultural Heritages, took up the challenge of engagement
with other fields and creative practices, a concern also reflected in that
Academy’s doctoral programme, which produced several innovative theses,
supervised by Ullrich, that, with hindsight, deserve the label of “creative
ethnology” (including McIntosh 2008; Walters 2012). Characteristic of these
works was a deep engagement with place, which led to the establishment in
2009 of a SIEF “Place Wisdom” Working Group, and inspired the title of
SIEF’s 2011congress in Lisbon, “People Make Places”. The format of creative
workshops, introduced for the 2008 congress, has since become a regular and
popular feature of SIEF conferences, and has also been adopted by EASA
congresses.
   While EASA, set up in 1989 to advance anthropology in Europe, initially
included few European ethnologists, the pattern differed between countries,
possibly reflecting an element of methodological nationalism, or, less
drastically, simply nuances in disciplinary evolution. Over the years, a
certain osmosis occurred between EASA and SIEF as dual membership
increased, helped without doubt by the adoption of a policy, by both
organizations within a few years of each other, to encourage presenters at
their major congresses to become members. Membership statistics therefore
reflect this policy and are not an indicator of an actual convergence of fields.
However, there are other clues.
   At the 2011 SIEF General Assembly in Lisbon, the perennial question of
the society’s name was raised once again — should it continue to refer to
“ethnology” and “folklore”, or should the latter be deleted and the
designation “European” be added to ethnology instead? Throughout the
history of the association, this issue has created tensions between the
various communities of practice and tradition represented within the SIEF,

                                     2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
204                                                  ULLRICH KOCKEL, MAIRI MCFADYEN


reflected at the 2001 General Assembly in Budapest as one professor,
emphasizing that in his country there were seven chairs in folklore, was met
with an exasperated cry from the floor: “I hate folklore!”. The German-
speaking countries in particular have since the 1960s witnessed agonizing
debates over the positioning of Volkskunde (“folk studies”; see Bendix 2012).
For many younger members of SIEF, the link with folklore had long been
problematic; some departments had reinvented themselves as cultural
anthropology, and new generations of researchers gravitated towards EASA
partly to escape the perceived stuffiness of folklore. Some ethnologists see
this as an existential threat to their discipline (Hann 2008: 77).

Anthropology as cosmopolitan project
   With its emphasis on drawing global anthropological insights from
consciously situated ethnological perspectives (Nic Craith 2008), creative
ethnology in Scotland is one of what Gledhill (2016) calls “world
anthropologies’ in practice. But how does it resonate with the new
cosmopolitanism in anthropology? Ribeiro (2007: para. 24), distinguishing a
“metropolitan provincialism” ignorant of what happens outside its core from
a “provincial cosmopolitanism” versed in hegemonic discourse due to
linguistic power imbalance, notes that “anthropologies without history”
(Krotz) are rarely taught in their home countries. Similarly, Fardon (2008:
238) suggests that much of the literature on cosmopolitanism privileges the
experience of “Europe’s language majorities and their settler societies”,
whereas minorities actually need cosmopolitan sensitivity “to feel any sense
of belonging to [their] own national project”. Although part of the dominant
Angloshpere, Scotland finds itself peripheral within the UK, which may go
some way towards explaining the global aspect of creative ethnology’s
grounded approach that emphasizes Gaelic and Scots, challenging a
monolingual hegemony that impedes a postcolonial “polycentric global
anthropology” (Ribeiro 2007: para. 26). Hann (2008) contrasts the
comparative cosmopolitanism exemplified by Radcliffe-Brown and, more
recently, Kuper, with Herderian cosmopolitanism that recognizes “the
central significance of local attachments” (Nielsen 1987: 383; see also
Herder 2017), and such a “rooted cosmopolitan anthropology would be a true
synthesis” (Hann 2008: 80). Keeping local attachments intact may indeed be
a key step towards emancipation (Nielsen 1987). There is nowhere more
local than the Self, and Rapport’s (2007) introspective cosmopolitanism
therefore chimes with the rooted cosmopolitanism of creative ethnology, as
McFadyen (2012) exemplifies it.



2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
ON THE CARRYING STREAM INTO THE EUROPEAN MOUNTAIN                                  205


Closer to home: “Nordic” Scotland
   Given the historical influence of Scandinavian scholars on Scottish
ethnology (Fenton 1990), it is worth noting briefly the recent popularization
of a “Nordic perspective” on Scottish affairs by broadcaster and writer Lesley
Riddoch and others. The think-tank Nordic Horizons, founded by Riddoch in
2009, examines the suitability of Nordic social and political models for
Scotland (Riddoch 2014; Riddoch, Bort 2017). While not a new trope, the
contemporary interest in a “Nordic Scotland” reaches beyond the shared
Viking heritage evident especially in the Northern Isles and the Hebrides. It
builds on historical links, seeking to interpret them for the twenty-first
century, projecting Scotland as “the most accessible, second most populous,
fertile, ethnically diverse and southern part of the Nordic region” (Riddoch
2011). Such visions, inspired by geographical and historico-cultural
propinquity, have been augmented by a discursive reconstruction of
Scotland as a haven of social democracy (Keating and Harvey 2015: 123).
This debate has been alert to practical imperfections in the Nordic model,
but, in a spirit of critical engagement and mutual learning, has been feeding
into a broader reimagining of Scotland (Kockel 2017), looking further afield
for its self-definition than the “auld enemy’ south of the border. Creative
ethnology is contributing to this reimagining, for example through “New
Connections Across the Northern Isles”, which forms the practice element of
a PhD project “linking people & heritage through the diverse maritime
cultures across Orkney & Shetland, co-curating & researching culture as
resource for sustainable development” (@NorthernNousts).

Into the mountain
   Creative ethnology as it has been emerging in the Scottish context —
drawing on these wider trends and influences as well as on its local roots
both geo-cultural and socio-political — is an attempt to hold the global and
the local, thinking and action, in creative confluence through engaged praxis
rooted in place. Given the resurgence, across Europe and beyond, of
populism across the old political spectrum, and the correlate rise in
xenophobia, it is not surprising that critical researchers have regarded
emphasis on place categorically as a retreat into territorial tribalism, or at
best reactionary relapse into a rural idyll. Ribeiro (2007: para. 28) cautioned
against “nativist” perspectives projecting “the periphery” as the essential
source of unparalleled authentic creativity and radicalism, rejecting this
vision of “pristine otherness” in favour of an “openly dialogical and hetero-
glossic” one. Transnational narratives of the local evoke Eastern Europe, one


                                     2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
206                                                  ULLRICH KOCKEL, MAIRI MCFADYEN


of Europe’s internal others, as what Kołodziejczyk (2010) calls a “phantasm
that renders cosmopolitan Europe parochial through a playful and self-
mocking ideology of provincialism”. As one of the UK’s internal others,
Scotland is in a similar position, and creative ethnology provides substance
to its transnational narratives.
   Place is a key dimension of human being, which is always a “being there”
(Frykman 2003; our emph.), in a specific place. How we are there, in the places
we make by dwelling in and with them, both physically and spiritually, is an
important question. Interesting answers are likely to come from a radical
ethno-/anthropology mining the intangible cultural heritages of Europe (and
indeed the wider world) for alternatives to prevalent misconceptions of how
this world works – not out of romantic hankering for paradise lost, but from
an acute sense of ecological responsibility. On their own, the wisdom and
ability to do this will not solve any problems, be they local or global; but
grass-roots engagement is a vital part of any solution (Noyes 2015: 311).
What the eponymous SIEF working group describes as “Place Wisdom”
stems from locally-grounded – even if itinerant (Kołodziejczyk 2010) –
practice. Finding new articulations of “Scotland” requires sensitive
translation that, while sustaining the original complexity of the locally
specific, makes it accessible for other interpretive idioms through an
“indigenous cosmopolitanism” (Kołodziejczyk 2010). Creative approaches to
ethnology and anthropology, aiming to achieve such translation, are in the
ascendant globally, and approaches that “build up deep, long-term
knowledge” (Macdonald 2015: 493) to support such endeavors have been
common in various traditions of European ethnology and folklore. However,
where hegemonic European anthropology tries to maintain an objective (or
should that be: objectified?) distance from the local ecology, it may be more
walking “up” the mountain — instead of “into” it, as Nan Shepherd advocated:
exploring ourselves in and through the place, and vice versa, to understand
how we make the world through the places that make us. To do that, and
“reclaiming the human through introspection” (Rapport 2007), is key to the
geopoetic anthropological intuition of a creative ethnology.




2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
ON THE CARRYING STREAM INTO THE EUROPEAN MOUNTAIN                                  207


REFERENCES
Bendix, Regina, 2012, From Volkskunde to the “Field of Many Names”: Folklore
      Studies in German-speaking Europe since 1945, in A Companion to Folklore,
      Regina Bendix, Galit Hasan-Rokem, eds, Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell: 364-90.
Bissell, Norman, 2014, Atlantic poetics: Expanding our sense of world, Stravaig, 3:
      4-5.
Bort, Eberhard, ed, 2010, Borne on the Carrying Stream: The legacy of Hamish
      Henderson, Ochertyre, Grace Note.
Byrne, Steve, 2012, Dig Where You What?, http://digwhereyoustand.blogspot.co.uk/,
      accessed on 6/03/2016.
Cohen, Anthony, 2002, The “Best of British”— with More to Come..., in British
      Subjects: An Anthropology of Britain, Nigel Rapport, ed, Oxford, Berg: 323-29.
Dégh, Linda, 1978, The study of ethnicity in modern European ethnology, Journal of
      the Folklore Institute, 12, 2-3: 113-129.
Dow, James, Olaf Bockhorn, 2004, The Study of European Ethnology in Austria,
      Aldershot, Ashgate.
Fardon, Richard, 2008, Cosmopolitan nations, national cosmopolitans, in Anthropology
      and the New Cosmopolitanism, Pnina Werbner, ed, Oxford, Berg: 233-259.
Fenton, Alexander, 1990, Phases of ethnology in Britain. With special reference to
      Scotland, Ethnologia Europaea, 20: 177-88.
Fenton, Alexander, Margaret Mackay, 2013, A history of ethnology in Scotland, in
      An Introduction to Scottish Ethnology, Alexander Fenton, Margaret Mackay,
      eds, Edinburgh, John Donald: 49-70.
Feyerabend, Paul, 2010 [1975], Against Method, 4th ed., London, Verso.
Fraser, Bashabi, 2005, A Meeting of Two Minds: Geddes-Tagore Letters, Edinburgh,
      Word-Power.
Fraser, Bashabi, 2009, From the Ganga to the Tay, Edinburgh, Luath.
French, Leigh, 2009, Variant’s submission to the parliamentary Traditional Arts
      Working Group, Traditional Arts, Culture and Commerce, https://creative-
      scotland.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/traditional-arts-culture-and-commerce.html,
      accessed on 9/03/2018.
French, Leigh, Gordon Asher, 2012, Crisis capitalism and independence doctrines,
      Bella Caledonia, http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2012/08/28/crises-capitalism-and-
      independence-doctrines, accessed on 6/03/2016.
Frykman, Jonas, 2003, Being there: An introduction, in Being There. New
      Perspectives on Phenomenology and the Analysis of Culture, Jonas Frykman, Nils
      Gilje, eds, Lund, Nordic Academic Press: 7-51.
Gibson, Corey, 2015, The Voice of the People: Hamish Henderson and Scottish Cultural
      Politics, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.
Gledhill, John, ed, 2016, World Anthropologies in Practice: Situated Perspectives,
      Global Knowledge, Oxford, Berg.
Hann, Chris, 2008, Towards a rooted anthropology: Malinowski, Gellner and
      Herderian Cosmopolitanism, in Anthropology and the New Cosmopolitanism,
      Pnina Werbner, ed, Oxford, Berg: 69-84.

                                     2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
208                                                      ULLRICH KOCKEL, MAIRI MCFADYEN


Harvie, Christopher, 2016, No Gods and Precious Few Heroes, 4th ed, Edinburgh,
     Edinburgh University Press.
Henderson, Hamish, 1948, Elegies for the Dead of Cyrenaika, London, Lehmann.
Herder, Johann Gottfried, 2017, Song Loves the Masses: Herder on Music and
     Nationalism, Philip Bohlman, ed, Oakland, University of California Press.
Ingold, Tim, 1995, Building, dwelling, living: how people and animals make
     themselves at home in the world, in Shifting Contexts: Transformations in
     Anthropological Knowledge, Marilyn Strathearn, ed, London, Routledge: 57-80.
Kan, Sergei, Pauline Turner Strong, 2006, Introduction, in New Perspectives on
     Native North America: Cultures, Histories, and Representations, Sergei Kan,
     Pauline Turner Strong, eds, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press: xi-xlii.
Keating, Michael, Malcolm Harvey, 2015, Small Nations in a Big World: What
     Scotland can learn, Edinburgh, Luath.
Kockel, Ullrich, 1999, Borderline Cases: The Ethnic Frontiers of European Integration,
     Liverpool, Liverpool University Press.
Kockel, Ullrich, 2008a, Putting the Folk in Their Place: Tradition, Ecology and the
     Public Role of Ethnology, Anthropological Journal of European Cultures, 17, 1:
     5-23.
Kockel, Ullrich, 2008b, Turning the world upside down: Towards a European
     ethnology in and of England, in Everyday Culture in Europe: Approaches and
     Methodologies, Máiréad Nic Craith, Ullrich Kockel, Reinhard Johler, eds,
     Aldershot, Ashgate: 149-63.
Kockel, Ullrich, 2012, Being from and coming to: Outline of an ethno-ecological
     fra mewo rk , in Radical Human Ecology: Intercultural and Indigenous
     Approaches, Lewis Williams, Rose Roberts, Alastair McIntosh, eds, Aldershot,
     Ashgate: 57-71.
Kockel, Ullrich, 2013, Letter from the President, SIEF News, 11, 1: 2-3.
Kockel, Ullrich, 2017, On becoming indigenous: Building, dwelling and thinking
     future heritages of a nordic Scotland, in Rajaamatta: Etnologisia keskusteluja,
     Hanneleena Hieta, Aila Nieminen, Maija Mäki, Katriina Siivonen, Timo
     Virtanen, eds, Helsinki, Ethnos: 367-89.
Kockel, Ullrich, Máiréad Nic Craith, Jonas Frykman eds, 2012, A Companion to the
     Anthropology of Europe, Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell.
Kodish, Debora (2012), Imagining Public Folklore, in A Companion to Folklore, Regina
     Bendix, Galit Hasan-Rokem, eds, Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell: 579-597.
Kołodziejczyk, Dorota, 2010, Cosmopolitan Provincialism in a Comparative Perspective,
     in Re-routing the Postcolonial: New directions for the new millennium, Janet Wilson,
     Cristina Sandru, Sarah Lawson Welsh, eds., London, Routledge: 151-162.
Logan, William, Máiréad Nic Craith, Ullrich Kockel, eds, 2016, A Companion to
     Heritage Studies, Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell.
Macdonald, Sharon, 2015, Moving between anthropologies in and on Europe, Forum
     Rethinking Euro‐anthropology: part two, Social Anthropology, 23: 493-494.



2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
ON THE CARRYING STREAM INTO THE EUROPEAN MOUNTAIN                                    209


Macfarlane, Robert, 2011 [1977], Introduction, The Living Mountain, Edinburgh,
      Canongate: ix-xxxvii.
Macfarlane, Robert, 2016, Landmarks, London, Penguin.
MacKenzie, Eilidh, 2014, Eilidh MacKenzie: Scotland, the Welcome Table, http://national-
      collective.com/2014/06/05/eilidh-mackenzie-scotland-the-welcome-table,
      accessed on 6/03/ 2018.
McCarthy, James, 2017, Nan Shepherd: An Early Geopoet. Inaugural Tony McManus
      Lecture, Scottish Centre for Geopoetics, 18 December 2017.
McFadyen, Mairi, 2012, Understanding the Maysie: A contemporary ethno-
      musicological enquiry into the embodied ballad singing experience, PhD thesis,
      University of Edinburgh.
McFadyen, Mairi, 2015a, Making it Ours: Intangible Cultural Heritage in Scotland,
      Traditions in Place, Edinburgh, Traditional Arts & Culture Scotland.
McFadyen, Mairi, 2015b, Patrick Geddes’ Cultural-Ecological Imagination, www.mairi-
      mcfadyen.scot/blog/2015/8/2/patrick-geddes, accessed on 19/02/2018.
McFadyen, Mairi, 2016, GRIT at the Edinburgh International Festival: It Is Marvellous
      In Our Eyes, www.mairimcfadyen.scot/blog/2016/8/27/grit-eif, accessed on 6/
      03/2018.
McFadyen, Mairi, 2017, Creative Ethnology. Minutes of the Inaugural Meeting,
      Tuesday 17th Jan., Kilderkin, Edinburgh, unpubl. manuscript.
McFadyen, Mairi, 2018, Referendum reflections: traditional music and the
      performance of politics in the campaign for Scottish independence, in
      Understanding Scotland Musically, Simon McKerrell, Gary West, eds, London,
      Routledge: 60-77.
McFadyen, Mairi, Máiréad Nic Craith, 2019, Performing Scots-European heritage,
      “For A’ That!”, in Heritage and Festivals in Europe: Performing Identities, Ullrich
      Kockel, Cristina Clopot, Baiba Tjarve and Máiréad Nic Craith, eds, London,
      Routledge: 141-155.
McIntosh, Alastair, 2008, Rekindling Community: Connecting People, Environment
      and Spirituality, Schumacher Briefings 15, Dartington, Green.
McIntosh, Alasdair, 2012, The challenge of radical human ecology to the academy,
      i n Radical Human Ecology: Intercultural and Indigenous Approaches, Lewis
      Williams, Rose Roberts, Alastair McIntosh, eds, Aldershot, Ashgate: 31-56.
Meller, Helen, 1990, Patrick Geddes: Social Evolutionist and City Planner, London,
      Routledge.
Nic Craith, Máiréad, 2004, Local cultures in a global world, in Communicating Cultures,
      Ullrich Kockel, Máiréad Nic Craith, eds, Münster, LIT: 279-299.
Nic Craith, Máiréad, 2008, From national to transnational: A discipline en route to
      Europe, in Everyday Culture in Europe: Approaches and Methodologies, Máiréad
      Nic Craith, Ullrich Kockel, Reinhard Johler, eds, Aldershot, Ashgate: 1-18.
Nic Craith, Máiréad, Ullrich Kockel, Reinhard Johler, eds, 2008, Everyday Culture in
      Europe: Approaches and Methodologies, Aldershot, Ashgate.




                                       2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
210                                                      ULLRICH KOCKEL, MAIRI MCFADYEN


Nic Craith, Máiréad, Ullrich Kockel, Katherine Lloyd, 2018, The convention for the
      safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage: Absentees, objections and
      discourses, in Key Issues in Cultural Heritage: Intangible Heritage, Laurajane
      Smith, Natsuko Akagawa, eds, London, Routledge.
Nielsen, Kai, 1987, Cultural Identity and Self-Definition, Human Studies, 10, 3-4:
      383-390.
Noyes, Dorothy, 2010, Traditional Culture: How does it work?, CP101 Concepts and
      Institutions in Cultural Property, Working Paper 1, Georg-August-Universität
      Göttingen.
Noyes, Dorothy, 2015, From Cultural Forms to Policy Objects: Comparison in
      Scholarship and Policy, Journal of Folklore Research, 52, 2-3: 299-313.
Rapport, Nigel, 2002, “Best of British!” An Introduction to the Anthropology of
      Britain, in British Subjects, Nigel Rapport, ed, Oxford, Berg: 3-23.
Rapport, Nigel, 2007, An Outline for Cosmopolitan Study: Reclaiming the Human
      through Introspection, Current Anthropology, 48, 2: 257-283.
Ribeiro, Gustavo, 2007, Anthropologies du monde, Journal des anthropologues, 110-
      111.
Riddoch, Lesley, 2011, Look North, Scotland, The Guardian, 5 December, www.the-
      guardian.com/commentisfree/2011/dec/05/north-scotland-nordic, accessed
      on 24/06/2019.
Riddoch, Lesley, 2014, Blossom: What Scotland Needs to Flourish, Edinburgh, Luath.
Riddoch, Lesley, Eberhard Bort, 2017, McSmörgåsbord: What pots-Brexit Scotland
      can learn from the Nordics, Edinburgh, Luath.
Rihtman-Auguštin, Dunja, 2004, Ethnology, Myth and Politics, Aldershot, Ashgate.
Rogan, Bjarne, 2008, From CIAP to SIEF: Visions for a Discipline or Power Struggle?,
      in Everyday Culture in Europe: Approaches and Methodologies, Máiréad Nic Craith,
      Ullrich Kockel, Reinhard Johler, eds, Aldershot, Ashgate: 19-63.
Shepherd, Nan, 2011[1977], The Living Mountain, Edinburgh, Canongate.
Strathern, Marilyn, 1987, The limits of auto-anthropology, Anthropology at Home,
      Anthony Jackson, ed, London, Tavistock.
Walters, Victoria, 2012, Joseph Beuys and the Celtic Wor(l)d. A Language of Healing,
      European Studies in Culture and Policy 10, Münster, LIT.
Weber-Kellermann, Ingeborg, 1959, Zur Frage der interethnischen Beziehungen in
      der “Sprachinselvolkskunde”, Österreichische Zeitschrift für Volkskunde, 62:
      19-47.
West, Gary, 2012, Voicing Scotland: Folk, Culture, Nation, Edinburgh, Luath.
West, Gary, 2016, Performing Testimony: towards a creative ethnology for the 21st century,
      Inaugural lecture, University of Edinburgh, 30 November. www.youtube.com-
      /watch?v=JWBr1NZT2tk, accessed on 24/06/2019.
White, Kenneth, 2004, The Wanderer and His Charts, Edinburgh, Polygon.
Wimmer, Andreas, Nina Glick-Schiller, 2003, Methodological nationalism, the social
      sciences, and the study of migration: An essay in historical epistemology,
      International Migration Review, 37, 2: 576-610.


2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211
                                            2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211




 Ullrich KOCKEL is Professor of Cultural Ecology at Heriot-Watt University,
 Edinburgh, Emeritus Professor of Ethnology at Ulster University and Visiting
 Professor of Social Anthropology at Vytautas Magnus University Kaunas. A Fellow
 of the Academy of the Social Sciences and Member of the Royal Irish Academy, he
 also serves on the boards of Learning for Sustainability Scotland, the Scottish
 Centre for Geopoetics, and the Alliance for Intergenerational Resilience.
 u.kockel@hw.ac.uk

 Mairi McFadyen is an Associate Member of the Intercultural Research Centre
 (Heriot-Watt University). Her PhD, undertaken at the University of Edinburgh,
 explored the aesthetics, poetics and transformative power of the traditional ballad
 and won the 2012 Michaelis-Jena Ratcliff Prize for ethnology and folklore.
 Outwith academia, Mairi has worked with various organisations, including
 Traditional Arts and Culture Scotland (TRACS) and ethnological community
 enterprise Local Voices.
 hello@mairimcfadyen.scot




This work is licensed under the Creative Commons © Ullrich Kockel, Mairi McFadyen
On the carrying stream into the European mountain: Roots and routes of creative (Scottish) ethnology
2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 189-211.
ISSN: 2239-625X - DOI: 10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3667
