Ar baigėsi posocializmas Lietuvoje? Antropologija ir posocializmo transformacijų etnografija

Kristina Šliavaitė
{"title":"Ar baigėsi posocializmas Lietuvoje? Antropologija ir posocializmo transformacijų etnografija","authors":"Kristina Šliavaitė","doi":"10.33918/25386522-2029001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Has Post-Socialism Ended in Lithuania? The Anthropology and Ethnography of Post-Socialist Transformations\n\nThe main aim of the paper is to overview ethnographic research on post-socialist transformations in Lithuania by contextualising it within the broader framework\nof the field of anthropology of post-socialism. The author refers to numerous discussions in the field on the validity of the use of the term post-socialism long\nafter the collapse of the Soviet system (Sampson 1999; Humphrey 2002; Műller 2019, etc), and discusses whether and how selected ethnographies on social cultural\ntransformations in Lithuania after the 1990s and later use the term postsocialism,\nand how the period is defined conceptually and chronologically. The first part of the paper introduces discussions in anthropology on challenges in defining the post-socialist region and the chronology of post-socialism (Humphrey 2002; Buyandelgeriyn 2008; Frederiksen, Knudsen 2015; Műller 2019; Нильсен 2004, etc), as well as reflections on issues of the representation and unequal relations between the West and the East in studies of post-socialist European countries (Thelen 2011; Buchowski 2012; Cervinkova 2012; Klumbytė, Sharafutdinova 2013b; Frederiksen, Knudsen 2015, etc). These critical studies indicate that ethnographies of socialist and post-socialist East Central Europe\nconstructed it as the ‘other’, different to the western part of the region (Thelen 2011; Buchowski 2012; Cervinkova 2012; Klumbytė, Sharafutdinova 2013b; Frederiksen, Knudsen 2015; Műller 2019; etc), and that the term post-socialist/post-socialism refers to these unequal relations between the West and the East (Cervinkova 2012; Frederiksen, Knudsen 2015; Műller 2019; etc). However, disregarding certain conceptual challenges, it is agreed that the ethnographies of social cultural transformations in post-socialist European countries are unique and important, due to their methodological approach (long-term fieldwork), and focus on people’s everyday lives and the emphasis on the interrelations of cultural, social and economic processes (Burawoy, Verdery 1999; Hann 2002; Hőrschelmann, Stenning 2008, etc).","PeriodicalId":286691,"journal":{"name":"Lietuvos etnologija / Lithuanian ethnology","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lietuvos etnologija / Lithuanian ethnology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33918/25386522-2029001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Has Post-Socialism Ended in Lithuania? The Anthropology and Ethnography of Post-Socialist Transformations The main aim of the paper is to overview ethnographic research on post-socialist transformations in Lithuania by contextualising it within the broader framework of the field of anthropology of post-socialism. The author refers to numerous discussions in the field on the validity of the use of the term post-socialism long after the collapse of the Soviet system (Sampson 1999; Humphrey 2002; Műller 2019, etc), and discusses whether and how selected ethnographies on social cultural transformations in Lithuania after the 1990s and later use the term postsocialism, and how the period is defined conceptually and chronologically. The first part of the paper introduces discussions in anthropology on challenges in defining the post-socialist region and the chronology of post-socialism (Humphrey 2002; Buyandelgeriyn 2008; Frederiksen, Knudsen 2015; Műller 2019; Нильсен 2004, etc), as well as reflections on issues of the representation and unequal relations between the West and the East in studies of post-socialist European countries (Thelen 2011; Buchowski 2012; Cervinkova 2012; Klumbytė, Sharafutdinova 2013b; Frederiksen, Knudsen 2015, etc). These critical studies indicate that ethnographies of socialist and post-socialist East Central Europe constructed it as the ‘other’, different to the western part of the region (Thelen 2011; Buchowski 2012; Cervinkova 2012; Klumbytė, Sharafutdinova 2013b; Frederiksen, Knudsen 2015; Műller 2019; etc), and that the term post-socialist/post-socialism refers to these unequal relations between the West and the East (Cervinkova 2012; Frederiksen, Knudsen 2015; Műller 2019; etc). However, disregarding certain conceptual challenges, it is agreed that the ethnographies of social cultural transformations in post-socialist European countries are unique and important, due to their methodological approach (long-term fieldwork), and focus on people’s everyday lives and the emphasis on the interrelations of cultural, social and economic processes (Burawoy, Verdery 1999; Hann 2002; Hőrschelmann, Stenning 2008, etc).
后社会主义在立陶宛结束了吗?后社会主义转型的人类学和民族志本文的主要目的是通过在后社会主义人类学领域的更广泛框架内将其语境化,概述立陶宛后社会主义转型的民族志研究。作者引用了在苏联体制崩溃很久之后,关于使用“后社会主义”一词的有效性的大量讨论(Sampson 1999;汉弗莱2002;Műller 2019等),并讨论了20世纪90年代以后立陶宛社会文化转型的精选民族志是否以及如何使用“后社会主义”一词,以及如何在概念上和时间上定义这一时期。论文的第一部分介绍了人类学中关于定义后社会主义地区和后社会主义年表的挑战的讨论(Humphrey 2002;Buyandelgeriyn 2008;Frederiksen, Knudsen 2015;Mű我2019;Нильсен 2004等),以及对后社会主义欧洲国家研究中东西方的代表性和不平等关系问题的思考(Thelen 2011;Buchowski 2012;Cervinkova 2012;klumbytje, Sharafutdinova 2013b;Frederiksen, Knudsen 2015等)。这些批判性研究表明,社会主义和后社会主义东中欧的民族志将其构建为不同于该地区西部的“他者”(Thelen 2011;Buchowski 2012;Cervinkova 2012;klumbytje, Sharafutdinova 2013b;Frederiksen, Knudsen 2015;Mű我2019;后社会主义/后社会主义一词指的是西方和东方之间的不平等关系(Cervinkova 2012;Frederiksen, Knudsen 2015;Mű我2019;等等)。然而,抛开某些概念上的挑战,人们一致认为,后社会主义欧洲国家社会文化转型的民族志是独特而重要的,因为它们的方法方法(长期的田野调查),关注人们的日常生活,强调文化、社会和经济过程的相互关系(Burawoy, Verdery 1999;损害2002;Hőrschelmann, Stenning 2008等)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信