Eh, da je Derida propustio taj let... O procenjivanju 'dometa' tzv. 'američke antropologije' iz Beogradske strukturalno-semiološke škole antropologije folklora

Abstract

Imajući u vidu skorije kritike 'nerazvijenosti', 'pozitivizma', 'metodološke nazadnosti' i drugih nedostataka pripisanih nekakvoj 'američkoj antropologiji' od strane autora iz Beogradske strukturalno-semiološke škole analiziram situaciju u kojoj kolege i studenti mogu da dođu u iskušenje da zdravorazumsku političku vezu polifone etnografije, neoromantizma i nacionalizma tumače kao kontraintuitivnu istoriju discipline. Već sam nagovestio da su značajne transformativne razlike po pitanju odnosa prema strukturalizmu između evropskih antropologija, posebno Beogradske strukturalno-semiološke škole antropologije folklora, i tzv. 'američke' antropologije, rezultat puke slučajnosti - činjenice da su francuski strukturalizam i francuski poststrukturalizam na američku interdisciplinarnu intelektualnu scenu ('Teorija') lansirani istovremeno, na zajedničkoj konferenciji). Ova ironična kontigencija ne bi bila mnogo više do još jedna zabavna epizoda za studente, istoričare antropologije i istoričare ideja, da ne postoje pokušaji, sve artikulisaniji i sve frekventiji, da se intelektualne tradicije porede kao da su elementi jednolinijske evolucije discipline. Beogradska strukturalno-semiološka škola (u daljem tekstu SS), a posebno njen spiritus movens i najcitiraniji predstavnik I. Kovačević poslednjih godina kritikuje nekakvu celinu tzv. 'američke antropologije' čiji se 'dometi' (termin je autorov) procenjuju u komparativnoj perspektivi pri čemu se za jedinicu analize uzimaju neargumentovanom generalizacijom označene nesamerljive tradicije ('postmoderna antropologija' s jedne odnosno'antropologija' s druge strane). Beogradska SS škola jeste razvila globalno originalnu, mada ne plasiranu i zapravo nikada iskorišćenu bateriju za sinhronu analizu folklornih fenomena, ali je to učinila pošto su Lič Nidam, Snajder, etnonauka i kognitivna antropologija Levi-Strosove ideje o duhu i nauci već prilagodili etnografskoj fenomenologiji. Transformacija levi-strosovske analize i njen ograničeno uspešan projekat prilagođavanja analizi fenomena od uobičajenog interesa za antropologiju dogodila se uporedo razvoju kritike strukturalizma kao teorije kulture na američkoj interdisciplinarnoj sceni, pa predstavlja pre dokaz teorije po kojoj i u antropologiji postoji makar jedan 'atlantski jaz' analogan onom u filozofiji nego relevantan kontekst za uporednu analizu 'dometa' specifičnih i međusobno nezavisnih disciplinarih tradicija. Tekst indirektno dokazuje i da Levi-Stros u istoriji antropoloških ideja ima i dijametralno suprotne funkcije - od 'postmoderne' neo-romantičarske pozitivističke kritike imperijalnog realizma (u SAD) do 'prosvetiteljske' realističke anti-tribalističke kritike etnologije kao pozitivističke nacionalističke i nacionalne nauke (u Srbiji). Poseban naglasak u radu stavlja se na lokalni kontekst, u kojem je strukturalizam kao zasnivajući diskurs antropologije kao nauke nasuprot etnologiji kao nacionalnoj prozi, imao potpunu drugačiju funkciju u odnosu na strukturalizam u a) istoriji američke antropologije i b) istoriji inter-disciplinarne/postmoderne Teorije.

Taking into account recent critiques of 'underdevelopment', 'positivism' 'methodological backwardness' and other failings attributed to so-called 'American Anthropology' by some of the authors from the Belgrade Structural-semiotic School of Anthropology of Folklore, I analyse the context in which colleagues and students may be tempted to explain common sense political connection between polyphone ethnography, neo-romanticism and nationalism as counter-intuitive history of the discipline. I already pointed that the important transformative differences in the attitudes towards structuralism between European anthropologists, especially Belgrade Structural-semiotic School of Anthropology of Folklore and so called 'American Anthropology', are the consequence of a pure coincidence -the fact that French structuralism and French poststructuralism were launched simultaneously at the American interdisciplinary intellectual scene ('Theory') at the same conference. This ironic concurrence would not be much more than one entertaining episode for students, historians of anthropology and historians of ideas, if there were no attempts (more and more frequent and increasingly fluently articulated) to compare different intellectual traditions as they were elements of the same unilineal evolution of the discipline. Belgrade Structural-semiotic School (further called only SS) and especially its spiritus movens and most prominent representative Prof. Kovačević started in recent years to criticise some 'American Anthropology' measuring its academic 'achievement' (the author's term) in comparative perspective and taking as an analytical unit uncritically generalized traditions marked with a single term of 'postmodern anthropology' on the one hand, and 'anthropology' on the other. Belgrade SS School did develop globally original, although badly promoted and never fully used, battery for the synchronic analysis of the folklore phenomena, but this was done only after Leach, Needham, Schneider and representatives of ethnoscience and cognitive anthropology had already adapted Levi-Strauss's ideas about mind and science to ethnographic phenomenology. Transformation of Levi-Strauss's analysis and limited success of its adaptation to the analysis of phenomena that usually concern anthropology happened simultaneously with the development of the critique of structuralism as a theory of culture in the American academic scene. This proves a theory that there is at least one 'Atlantic split', analogue to that in philosophy, more than it makes a relevant context for measuring of the comparative 'academic achievements' of the specific and unconnected disciplinary traditions. Indirectly, this paper explains that Levi-Strauss's work has contradictory functions in the history of ideas in anthropology, serving as a starting point for 'postmodern' neo-romantic and positivistic critique of imperial realism (in USA), as well as 'enlightened', realistic and anti-tribal critique of ethnology as positivistic, nationalistic and national science (in Serbia). In this paper special emphasis is placed on the local context in which structuralism as a founding discourse of anthropology is opposed to ethnology as national prose. As such it had completely different role in comparison to structuralism in a) the history of American anthropology and b) in the history of interdisciplinary/postmodern Theory.