Research Potential of Center of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Contemporary, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw and the Prospects of Scientific Cooperation with Folklorists and Ethnologists of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

Author

Kość-Ryżko Katarzyna (Warsaw, Poland) – a Dr hab., an ethnologist and ethno-psychologist, a researcher of contemporary and traditional culture, an editor of the IAE PAN series of the Biblioteka Etnografii Polskiej

Oyungerel Tangad (Warsaw, Poland) – an ethnologist. She works at the Center of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Contemporary in the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw

Research Potential of Center of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Contemporary, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw and the Prospects of Scientific Cooperation with Folklorists and Ethnologists of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

Abstract

The jubilee celebration of the centenary of existence of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NASU) provided not only the chance to solemnize the 100^th anniversary, which Ukrainian nation is proud of, but also the ground for making recapitulations and strengthening the international scientific cooperation. The centennial of the NASU work is a difficult time. Many things have been changed: the states’ borders, political systems and alliances, ethnic divisions, as well as living and working conditions of «ordinary» people, ethnic conflicts come into being from time to time. These changes (their origin and effects) have caused the transformation of traditional societies and cultures and become the object of interest for numerous research disciplines, especially for those focusing on a human being – on his activities and cultural heritage. The specific issues in this field are the domains of a. o. ethnography, ethnology and cultural anthropology. It is rather difficult to make a clear distinction between these three terms, which, as a matter of fact, describe the same research object and scope (at various stages of the discipline development, its theoretical and methodological approaches). Analogically, as the simplification is to limit, from time to time, the research issue to the narrowly specified field and interpretation direction. Ignoring the broader political and historical context of some cultural phenomena and attributing them to strictly specified positions, according to pre-arranged criteria of territorial divisions, limits the field of knowledge to single-sided perspective. This is so for a few reasons – the most obvious of them is the current shape of state borders, which not always corresponds to actual national, cultural and ethnic divisions. These divisions do not take into account the social relations (the trans-border, transnational and intercultural ones), existing between people, who inhabit a given territory for years.

The artificial practice of fragmentation of research fields usually follow from formal barriers, e. g. the necessity of lowering costs, the difficulties in accessing reliable material and human resources. Yet, sometimes, the researchers are unwilling or frightened to tackle the difficult issues, which are either politically inconvenient or able to disrupt the current status quo between the involved sides (e. g. ethnic groups or nations) [18; 24]. That is why the borderlands, although for some people regarded as the sources of conflicts, are seen by many researchers as the regions with extreme research value [11]. Some scholars see the borderlands as a kind of prototypes of sociallaboratories, in which there can be observed (like through a magnifying glass) the processes barely visible in other regions, while in borderlands having a clear course and strong dynamics [34].

The borderlands are extremely attractive also for ethnologists and folklorists, who document and analyze the products of thoughts and works of people from the regions, where various cultural impacts are interweaved. However, conducting the field research in borderlands is an organizational challenge and requires great cultural sensitivity and a broad knowledge (including not only a local history but also the knowledge of local authority relations), this provides the access to the abundant and invaluable knowledge. This is particularly so, when field researches are conducted by the competent, multinational and interdisciplinary teams, e. g. consisting of researchers from neighboring or, on the contrary, remote countries. Yet, the latter case brings the danger of too large cultural distance as well as of the lack of knowledge of local mentality and historical context of coexistence of different ethnic groups on the same territory. This may disable understanding the local uniqueness or capturing the genius loci and hence it may be impossible to create the adequate description and interpretation. The former case is not free from difficulties, either, although it seems to have more advantages.

Ignoring the problematic issues of local societies coexistence with their broader historical, social and political context is also the example of self-censorship used by some researchers, who do not want to get engaged into polemical disputes. Such an attitude gives the chance to preserve the safe distance. This is associated with various kinds of obstacles, which science is not free from, (e. g. with difficult parts of history, long lasting and unresolved conflicts, complicated relations between nations). Yet, the inconvenience of some issues in public and mass media discourse is, quite often, the encouragement for cultural anthropologists and ethnologists, who willingly act with groups experiencing marginalization [33].

Such an attitude is not always understood by the government, which is reflected in current situation in Poland and in the planned reform of primary, secondary and higher education, in which ethnology is erased from the list of scientific disciplines. The lack of any communication and agreement between the representatives of science and current Polish state as well as the unwillingness of Polish government to comprehend the destructive consequences of such a step raised great objection in Polish and foreign humanists’ environment. The actions to support Polish humanists, organized by students and international scientific authorities, together with numerous petitions addressed to the ministry responsible for the new Law on science (the so-called Ustawa 2.O/ Konstytucja dla Nauki), stay so far without any response or are simply ignored. This is not the first evidence of the repetitiveness of some disgraceful historical events and of the incapability of drawing right conclusions from previous experiences. It remains to hope that ethnology – now practiced in Poland under the name of research on culture and religion will preserve its identity and methodological distinctness, as well as the liberty to choose the topics and ways to interpret them, namely, its intellectual freedom.

Undertaking common research topics and conducting in cooperation project in research teams consisting of highly-qualified staff is the purpose, which has been realized successfully for years by M. Rylskyi Institute for Art Studies, Folkloristics and Ethnology NAS of Ukraine and Center of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Contemporaneity of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, PAS. The effects of their cooperation include not only the substantive exchange, meetings and discussions taking part in conferences, but also publications and field research. The institutions in question have carried out a few initiatives together. At least two latest ones should be mentioned: the interacademical projects Social and Cultural Transformations in the Societies of Poland and Ukraine (2014–2016) and Social and Cultural Changes in the Context of European Mobility (Poland and Ukraine) (2018–2020).

An important significance in documenting and popularizing of both material and immaterial national heritage belongs to the ethnologists and folklorists from M. Rylskyi IASFE NAS of Ukraine, whom we have the pleasure to cooperate with. And although we live in difficult times, in which many nations, groups and individuals are really anxious about their future and self-determination, we hope that scientific progress and education will contribute to the improvement of living conditions all over the world.

That is why, on this very important occasion, we wish our Ukrainian colleagues from NAS of Ukraine the proper appreciation of their research potential and the significance of their work in the civilizational and social development of their country. First of all, we wish them the optimal working conditions in order fto be able to realize their bravest plans and research ideas. Instead of conclusion, it is worth recalling the words of the former USA president Barrack Obama, as they are still relevant and, what is more, become more and more relevant everyday, which we can see, if we follow daily information services. Barrack Obama said: «Today, more than at any other time, science seems to be the key to survive, both for our planet and for us as a nation and for our well-being and safety. It is time to treat science again as one of the most important parts of our lives» (B. Obama, Radio Information Agency).

Keywords

Ethnology, research on culture and religion, Folkloristics, migration, research projects, Polish Academy of Sciences, National Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Centre of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Contemporaneity, Polish-Ukrainian research projects.

References

1. Baraniecka-Olszewska, K. (2013) Ukrzyżowani. Współczesne misteria męki Pańskiej w Polsce (Seria Monografie FNP). Toruń: Wydawnictwo UMK, 2013.
2. Baraniecka-Olszewska, Kamila. (2016). Managing Sensational Forms: Optimization, Maximization and Efficacy. The Great Fair in Kalwaria Pacławska. In: State, Religion, and Church in Russia and Worldwide. Moscow, no. 3, vol. 34, pp. 148–171. 

https://doi.org/10.22394/2073-7203-2016-34-3-148-171

3. Baraniecka-Olszewska, K. (2017) Stereotypes in the Service of Anthropological Inquiry: Pilgrims from Ukraine in the Kalwaria Pacławska Sanctuary. EthnologiaPolona, vol. 38, pp. 89–106.
4. Baraniecka-Olszewska, K. (2018) Reko-rekonesans: praktyka autentyczności. Antropologiczne studium odtwórstwa drugiej wojny światowej w Polsce. Kęty: Wydawnictwo Derewiecki.
5. Baraniecka-Olszewska, K. (2018) Natura Sanat: On Ecological Aspects of Healing Miracles in Kalwaria Pacіawska, Poland. Journal of Global Catholicism, vol.2, issue 2, pp. 26–55.

https://doi.org/10.32436/2475-6423.1033

6. Baraniecka-Olszewska, K., Kabzińska, I., Oyungerel, T. (eds.) (2018) Lokalne i globalne perspektywy azjanistyczne: księga jubileuszowa dla Profesora Sławoja Szynkiewicza. Warszawa: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, Polska Akademia Nauk.
7. Červinkova, H. (2012) Badania w działaniu i zaangażowana antropologia edukacyjna.Teraźniejszość– Człowiek – Edukacja, no 1 (57), pp. 7–18.
8. Červinkova, H., Gołębniak, D. (eds.) (2010) Badania w działaniu: Pedagogika i antropologia zaangażowane(translation of many translators). Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Naukowe DSW.
9. Cisel’ski, T., Čapevs’ki, E., Kušnir, V. (eds.) (2007) Polâki na pivdni Ukraîni ta v Krimu. Odessa: Odes’kij Nacional’nij Universitet im.I. I. Mečnikova; Olsztyn: Polskie Towarzystwo Historyczne – Oddział w Olsztynie; Opole: Wydział Historyczno-Pedagogiczny Uniwersytetu Opolskiego; Wrocław: Dolnośląska Szkoła Wyższa Edukacji Towarzystwa Wiedzy Powszechnej we Wrocławiu.
10. Domagała, B. (2009) Ukraińcy na Warmii i Mazurach: studium procesów asymilacji. Olsztyn: Towarzystwo Naukowe, Ośrodek Badań Naukowych im.Wojciecha Kętrzyńskiego.
11. Fedorovyč, R. (2013) Studiî z ukraînsko-pol’skogo etnokul’turnogo pograniččâ. L’viv: L’viv’skij nacional’nij universitet im. Ivana Franka.
12. Freud, Z. (2013) Kultura jako źródło cierpień[worg. Das Unbehagen in der Kultur, Wien 1930]. Warszawa: Aletheia.
13. Fricker, M. (2006) Powerlessness and Social Interpretation. Episteme: AJournal of Social Epistemology, vol. 3, 1–2, рp. 96–108.

https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.96

14. Grünberg, K., Sprengler, B. (2005) Trudne sąsiedztwo: stosunki polsko-ukraińskie w X–XXwieku. Warszawa: Książka i Wiedza.
15. Kamocki, J. etal. (2008) Polska – Ukraina: pogranicze kulturowe i etniczne. Wrocław: Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze.
16. Konieczny, Z. (2010) Polacy i Ukraińcy na ziemiach obecnej Polski w latach 1918–1947: zarys problematyki.Przemyśl: Archiwum Państwowe, Polskie Towarzystwo Historyczne; Oddział: Przemyskie Towarzystwo Archiwistyczne «Archiwariusz».
17. Kość-Ryżko, K. (2011) Between strangeness and familiarity. The process of acculturation in the psycho-social approach. Ukrainian Art Studies: Materials, Investigations, Reviews (National Academy of Sciences, Ukraine, Rylsky Institute of Art Studies, Folkloristics and Ethnology), Kiev, vol.11, pp. 302–309. URL: http://mdue_2013_12_38(1).pdf.
18. Kość-Ryżko, (2013) Etnolog w labiryncie znaczeń kulturowych. Psychologiczne wyzwania badań terenowych. Kuźma, I. (ed.) Tematy trudne. Sytuacje badawcze. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytet Łódzki, pp.15–46.

https://doi.org/10.18778/7525-963-6.02

19. Kość-Ryżko, K. (2014)Wykorzenieni. Dylematy samookreślenia polskich repatriantów z Kazachstanu. Studium etno-psychologiczne.(Seria: Biblioteka Etnografii Polskiej, vol.60). Warszawa: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN.
20. Kość-Ryżko, K. (2015) Identity dilemmas of Polish repatriates from Kazakhstan– between fulfilment, hope and disappointment. EthnologiaPolonіa, no 36, pp.209–236.
21. Kość-Ryżko, K. (2015) Tożsamość (de-)konstruowana czy (re‑)konstruowana? Enkulturacja małoletnich uchodźców z Czeczenii w Polsce. Etnografia Polska, vol.59, pp. 5–29.
22. Kość-Ryżko, K., Czerniejewska, I. (2012) Uchodźcy w Grupie i Czerwonym Borze– różne miejsca i różne światy? Wpływ warunków osiedlenia na proces adaptacji.Buchowski, M., Schmidt, J. (eds.). Imigranci: między izolacją a integracją. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Nauka i Innowacje, pp. 187–213.
23. Kuźma, I. (2015) Domy bezdomnych. Badania sytuacji kryzysowych. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
24. Kuźma, I. (red.) (2013) Tematy trudne, Sytuacje badawcze. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytet Łódzkiego.
25. Lee, E. (1966) ATheory of Migration. Demography, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 47–57.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2060063

26. Obama, B. URL: https://pl.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barack_Obama ; https://pl.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nauka (access 22.12.2018).
27. Orszak trzech Króli [A Retinue of Three Kings/ Procession of Three Kings]. URL: http://orszak.org/historia-orszaku-trzech-kroli (access 12.01.2019).
28. Plummer, K. (2001) Documents of Life2: An Invitation to a Critical Humanism. London: Sage.
29. Surmiak, A. (2014) Antropologia kłamstwa? Badania nad kłamstwem w perspektywie antropologii społeczno-kulturowej. Kultura i Społeczeństwo, no4, pp. 201–224.
30. Tangad, O. (2013) Scheda po Czyngis Chanie. Demokracja po mongolsku. Warszawa: Collegium Civitas, Wydawnictwo Trio.
31. Tangad, O. (2017) Spokrewniony przez naukę– o badaczu rodziny mongolskiej. Dla Profesora Sławoja Szynkiewicza w 80. rocznicę urodzin. Etnografia Polska, vol. 61, pp. 241–245. URL: http://rcin.org.pl/dlibra/docmetadata?id=65952 (access 28.12.2018).
32. Tangad, O. (2018) Polskie ekspedycje etnologiczne w Mongolii i refleksje wokół przekładu kulturowego. Doświadczenia «zterenu». Baraniecka-Olszewska, K., Kabzińska, I., Oyungerel, T. (eds.). Lokalne i globalne perspektywy azjanistyczne: księga jubileuszowa dla Profesora Sławoja Szynkiewicza. Warszawa: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, Polska Akademia Nauk.
33. Wróblewski, F., Sochacki, Ł., Steblik, J. (eds.) (2010) Antropologia zaangażowana(?). (Seria: Prace Etnograficzne, zeszyt 38). Kraków: WUJ.
34. Zowczak, M. (2011) Antropologia, historia a sprawa ukraińska. Otaktyce pogranicza. Lud, vol. 95, pp. 45–67.
35. Zowczak, M. (ed.) (2010) Na pograniczu «nowej Europy»: polsko-ukraińskie sąsiedztwo. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG.