Book Reviews / Comptes rendus

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Riki van Boeschoten, Othon Alexandrakis
{"title":"Book Reviews / Comptes rendus","authors":"Riki van Boeschoten, Othon Alexandrakis","doi":"10.1484/j.food.5.118678","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Loring M. Danforth and Riki Van Boeschoten open their book with the advertisement for a workshop the authors gave at the Program in Hellenic Studies, Princeton University, on 10 May 2005. The subject of the workshop was the evacuation of about 25,000 children by members of the Communist Party of Greece from Northern Greece to Eastern Europe during the Greek Civil War of 1946–49—an operation characterized by the Greek government as ‘‘genocide’’ and a ‘‘crime against humanity.’’ As per the advertisement, Danforth and Van Boeschoten would draw on the life stories of refugee children to offer a critique of political master narratives informed by ideologically motivated interpretations of the evacuation program. The workshop became a ‘‘crucial moment’’ (4) for the authors. Leading up to the event, they received numerous angry messages and threats both from academics (Hellenists working in various academic disciplines) and, more generally, from members of the Greek diaspora. The hostility reached a crescendo at the workshop itself, which, following Danforth and Van Boeschoten’s presentation, saw a prominent member of the Greek diaspora (a rather well-known author and columnist) set off on an angry tirade and storm out of the room when asked to give Danforth and Van Boeschoten a chance to respond. He, and others, accused the authors of misrepresenting what really happened. Emotions ran high. In a testament to their professionalism and dedication to the project, the authors explain in these opening pages of the book that they followed up with each critic, reconsidered the terms of their inquiry and revisited the analysis of their primary data. What follows is a masterful, innovative text that makes multiple notable contributions to anthropology, intervenes positively into various dangerous political trajectories and, crucially, remains grounded in, respectful of, and committed to the memories, understandings and desires of the authors’ primary consultants. This is ethnography at its finest. Opening the text with this difficult scene and with a notably auto-ethnographic tone is certainly a clever move. It helps the reader to connect with Danforth and Van Boeschoten while introducing the ongoing importance and contentiousness of their subject. This opening section also hints at the various analytical and methodological innovations the text has to offer. One of their critical moves, we discover, was to expand the ethnographic base of the project following the workshop to include not only children sent away from Greece by Communist Party members, but also children who were sent to paidopoleis (lit. ‘‘children’s cities’’) in other parts of the country by the Greek government during the same period—indeed, both the political left and right evacuated children during the Greek Civil War. This brings the lived experience of the war, separation, exile and life thereafter among refugee children into more direct analytical focus. This also makes more provocative the authors’ assertion that various commonalities run through the stories of child refugees and, moreover, that these commonalities challenge various collective narratives and the national ‘‘history’’ of the event. In general terms, the book offers significant theoretical contributions to refugee studies, the anthropology of children and childhood, and the politics of memory, and it challenges researchers to consider the unique positionality of children in history, political geography and ideological conflict. However, I would argue that it achieves something further, something positive for the consultants who contributed to the text. Danforth and Van Boeschoten explain that one of their strategies in critiquing master narratives is to question the universalisms that underpin these. They do this by way of giving power, agency and voice to those who lived the events in question rather than those who interpret them. In doing so, the refugee children who until now have been lumped into categories defined by others, and whose individual stories have been glossed, redacted or ignored, are permitted to step out front, past lingering political frames, to contribute to the building of mutual recognition and the healing of lingering traumas. The book is organized into three tidy parts. In the first, ‘‘Histories,’’ Danforth and Van Boeschoten situate the evacuation programs in larger historical context. The reader is led through the Axis occupation of Greece in 1941, to the rise of the communist-sponsored resistance organization National Liberation Front (and its military wing, the Greek Popular Liberation Army), to the liberation of Greece and the increasing tension between the political left and the royalist right, and finally to 1946, when the political right won national elections and the stage was set for the Civil War. They detail the parti-","PeriodicalId":36312,"journal":{"name":"Food and History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food and History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1484/j.food.5.118678","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Loring M. Danforth and Riki Van Boeschoten open their book with the advertisement for a workshop the authors gave at the Program in Hellenic Studies, Princeton University, on 10 May 2005. The subject of the workshop was the evacuation of about 25,000 children by members of the Communist Party of Greece from Northern Greece to Eastern Europe during the Greek Civil War of 1946–49—an operation characterized by the Greek government as ‘‘genocide’’ and a ‘‘crime against humanity.’’ As per the advertisement, Danforth and Van Boeschoten would draw on the life stories of refugee children to offer a critique of political master narratives informed by ideologically motivated interpretations of the evacuation program. The workshop became a ‘‘crucial moment’’ (4) for the authors. Leading up to the event, they received numerous angry messages and threats both from academics (Hellenists working in various academic disciplines) and, more generally, from members of the Greek diaspora. The hostility reached a crescendo at the workshop itself, which, following Danforth and Van Boeschoten’s presentation, saw a prominent member of the Greek diaspora (a rather well-known author and columnist) set off on an angry tirade and storm out of the room when asked to give Danforth and Van Boeschoten a chance to respond. He, and others, accused the authors of misrepresenting what really happened. Emotions ran high. In a testament to their professionalism and dedication to the project, the authors explain in these opening pages of the book that they followed up with each critic, reconsidered the terms of their inquiry and revisited the analysis of their primary data. What follows is a masterful, innovative text that makes multiple notable contributions to anthropology, intervenes positively into various dangerous political trajectories and, crucially, remains grounded in, respectful of, and committed to the memories, understandings and desires of the authors’ primary consultants. This is ethnography at its finest. Opening the text with this difficult scene and with a notably auto-ethnographic tone is certainly a clever move. It helps the reader to connect with Danforth and Van Boeschoten while introducing the ongoing importance and contentiousness of their subject. This opening section also hints at the various analytical and methodological innovations the text has to offer. One of their critical moves, we discover, was to expand the ethnographic base of the project following the workshop to include not only children sent away from Greece by Communist Party members, but also children who were sent to paidopoleis (lit. ‘‘children’s cities’’) in other parts of the country by the Greek government during the same period—indeed, both the political left and right evacuated children during the Greek Civil War. This brings the lived experience of the war, separation, exile and life thereafter among refugee children into more direct analytical focus. This also makes more provocative the authors’ assertion that various commonalities run through the stories of child refugees and, moreover, that these commonalities challenge various collective narratives and the national ‘‘history’’ of the event. In general terms, the book offers significant theoretical contributions to refugee studies, the anthropology of children and childhood, and the politics of memory, and it challenges researchers to consider the unique positionality of children in history, political geography and ideological conflict. However, I would argue that it achieves something further, something positive for the consultants who contributed to the text. Danforth and Van Boeschoten explain that one of their strategies in critiquing master narratives is to question the universalisms that underpin these. They do this by way of giving power, agency and voice to those who lived the events in question rather than those who interpret them. In doing so, the refugee children who until now have been lumped into categories defined by others, and whose individual stories have been glossed, redacted or ignored, are permitted to step out front, past lingering political frames, to contribute to the building of mutual recognition and the healing of lingering traumas. The book is organized into three tidy parts. In the first, ‘‘Histories,’’ Danforth and Van Boeschoten situate the evacuation programs in larger historical context. The reader is led through the Axis occupation of Greece in 1941, to the rise of the communist-sponsored resistance organization National Liberation Front (and its military wing, the Greek Popular Liberation Army), to the liberation of Greece and the increasing tension between the political left and the royalist right, and finally to 1946, when the political right won national elections and the stage was set for the Civil War. They detail the parti-
书评/书评
2005年5月10日,Loring M. Danforth和Riki Van Boeschoten在普林斯顿大学希腊研究项目上举办了一个研讨会,他们以这个研讨会的广告打开了他们的书。讲习班的主题是1946年至1949年希腊内战期间,希腊共产党成员将大约2.5万名儿童从希腊北部疏散到东欧。希腊政府将这一行动定性为“种族灭绝”和“反人类罪”。根据广告,Danforth和Van Boeschoten将利用难民儿童的生活故事,对政治大师的叙事进行批判,这些叙事是由对疏散计划的意识形态动机的解释所决定的。研讨会成为了作者们的“关键时刻”。在活动开始之前,他们收到了许多来自学者(在不同学科工作的希腊人)和更普遍的希腊侨民的愤怒信息和威胁。这种敌意在研讨会上达到了高潮,在丹佛斯和范·博斯肖滕的演讲之后,当被要求给丹佛斯和范·博斯肖滕一个回应的机会时,一位著名的希腊侨民(一位相当知名的作家和专栏作家)开始了愤怒的长篇大论,然后愤然离开了会场。他和其他人指责作者歪曲事实。情绪高涨。为了证明他们的专业精神和对项目的奉献精神,作者在书的开头几页解释说,他们跟进了每个评论家,重新考虑了他们的调查条款,并重新审视了他们的原始数据的分析。接下来是一篇出色的、创新的文本,它对人类学做出了许多显著的贡献,积极地介入了各种危险的政治轨迹,至关重要的是,它仍然植根于、尊重并致力于作者的主要顾问的记忆、理解和愿望。这是最好的人种学。以这个艰难的场景开篇,用一种明显的民族志语气,当然是一个聪明的举动。它有助于读者与丹福斯和范·博斯乔滕建立联系,同时介绍他们的主题的持续重要性和争议性。这个开头部分还暗示了文本必须提供的各种分析和方法创新。我们发现,他们的关键举措之一是在研讨会之后扩大了该项目的人种学基础,不仅包括共产党员从希腊送走的儿童,还包括同一时期希腊政府送往该国其他地区的paidopoleis(意为“儿童城市”)的儿童——事实上,希腊内战期间,左翼和右翼都疏散了儿童。这使难民儿童的战争、分离、流亡和其后生活的亲身经历成为更直接的分析焦点。这也使作者的断言更具挑衅性,即各种共性贯穿于儿童难民的故事中,而且,这些共性挑战了各种集体叙述和该事件的国家“历史”。总的来说,这本书为难民研究、儿童和童年人类学以及记忆政治提供了重要的理论贡献,它挑战了研究人员考虑儿童在历史、政治地理和意识形态冲突中的独特地位。然而,我认为它取得了一些更进一步的成就,对于为文本做出贡献的顾问来说是积极的。Danforth和Van Boeschoten解释说,他们批评大师叙事的策略之一是质疑支撑这些叙事的普遍性。他们这样做的方式是把权力、代理权和发言权赋予那些经历过这些事件的人,而不是那些解释这些事件的人。在这样做的过程中,难民儿童被允许走到前面,越过挥之不去的政治框架,为建立相互承认和治愈挥之不去的创伤做出贡献。这些儿童到目前为止一直被归类为其他人定义的类别,他们的个人故事被粉饰、编辑或忽视。这本书被整齐地分为三个部分。在第一本“历史”中,丹福斯和范·博斯乔滕将疏散计划置于更大的历史背景中。他们详细介绍了聚会
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
Food and History
Food and History Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
×
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