Perspectives and Images. Fragments on Knowledge Production I.

Prispevek je prvi del obsežnejše razprave o produkciji znanja med pogledi in podobami v etnologiji med 19. in 21. stoletjem. Metafori pogled in podoba označujeta raziskovalni proces, odsevata kritično refleksivno držo sodobne znanosti, implicirata delnost in tudi pristranost pogledov in znanja. Znanje se vedno ustvarja v konkretnih družbenih okoliščinah, z izostrenostjo osebnih in poklicnih obzorij raziskovalcev, z razvito institucionalno infrastrukturo, z ustreznim metodološkim instrumentarijem in naposled tudi z odmevnostjo znanstvenih spoznanj. V ospredju pozornosti sta 19. in prva polovica 20. stoletja, upoštevan pa je predvsem pogled na empirično stvarnost in njeno znanstveno konceptualizacijo oz. razmerje med njima. Razvoj evropskih nacionalnih etnologij je pretežno produkt etnične oz. nacionalne paradigme. V njeni narodopisni izpeljavi je bila korespondenca med empirično in raziskovalno konceptualizirano resničnostjo minimalna (»ljudska«/»narodna« kultura kot konstrukt), ideološko sprejemljiva in disciplinarno konstitutivna. *** This paper is the first part of a more extensive discussion on ethnological knowledge production between the 19th and 21st centuries. The metaphors of “perspective” and “image” characterize the research process, reflect the critical reflexive stance of contemporary scholarship, and imply partiality as well as bias of perspectives and knowledge. Knowledge is always produced in concrete social circumstances, with researchers’ personal and professional horizons, a developed institutional infrastructure, appropriate methodological instruments, and, last but not least, the impact of scholarly findings. The 19th century and first half of the 20th century are placed at the forefront, and the perspective on empirical reality and its scholarly conceptualization or the relationship between them is primarily taken into account. The development of the European national ethnologies is largely the result of an ethnic or national paradigm. In its ethnological implementation, the correspondence between empirical reality and its scholarly conceptualizations (i.e., “folk” culture as a construct) was minimal, but ideologically acceptable and constitutive with regard to the discipline.