Observations fr om Within, Observations fr om Without The Dutch in Anthropological Perspective Rob van Ginkel van Ginkel, Hob 1998: Observations fr om Within, Observations from Without. The Dutch in Anthropological Perspective. - Ethnologia Europaea 28: 67-90. Prior to the 1950s, the ethnography of the Netherlands was virtually a terra incogn ita.. Dutch anthropologists usually conducted research in the tropics anti filreign eth nographers did not do fieldworkin the country either. It was only in the 19!i0s and 1960s that native and fo reign anthropologists hesitatingly began to carry out research pertaining to Dutch society and culture. The 1970s were a take­ off period, in which the number of anthropological publications on the Dutch stea<iily increased. The present review article describes the rise and growth , the theoretical and methodological approaches, and the themes of this subfield. It al::;o discusses some of the pros and cons of endogenous ethnography. Dr Rob van Ginkel, Department of Anthropology, University of Amsterdam, Oudezi,jdsAchterb urgwal 185, NL -1012 DK Amsterdam, The Ne therlands. E-mail: vanginkel@pscw. uva.nl the newly independent states and thereupon Introduction many had to find new fieldwork locations, and Obviously, there is no such thing as the anthro­ usually these were fo und closer to home. Sec­ pology of the Netherlands. In regard of theory, ondly, less fu nding became available for eth­ methodology, and subject matters, the range of nography in the tropics, while at the same time, approaches is simply too diverse. Moreover, government and non-governmental organiza­ there is no strong tradition of"anthropology at tions increasingly financedapplied and policy home"or "endogenous ethnography" in the Neth­ research at home, for example regarding ethnic erlands. It was only in the 1970s that a growing minorities, marginal groupings, crime and so number of Dutch and some foreign anthropolo­ fo rth. Thirdly, anthropologists in academe real­ gists began conducting research and publish­ ized that anthropology is the study of all human ing about various groups and segments ofDutch societies and cultures - including their own. society. Previously, Dutch anthropologists pre­ New education and research programs were dominantly did fieldworkin the tropics, and in initiated, attracting scores of students, many of the colonies of the East Indies, Surinam and whom fo und employment in applied and policy Papua New Guinea in particular. In the aca­ research (van Ginkel 1994b). demic division of labor, research into Dutch This paper will review the ethnographic lit­ society and culture was more or less the pre­ erature pertaining to the Netherlands. Gener­ serve of sociologists, social geographers, histo­ ally, three broad streams can be discerned: rians and folklorists. historical anthropology, the ethnography of the The repatriation of anthropology in the N eth­ social fr inge and the ethnography of ethnic erlands, which occurred later than in most minorities. The literature on ethnic minorities other European countries, can be attributed to is quite extensive, and will not be reviewed here several fa ctors. Firstly, decolonization process­ since it has already been the subject of other es all but barred access for anthropologists to review articles (see, for instance, van Niekerk 67 199:3). Hi::;torical ethnography usually takes a tried to discern Franconian, Saxon and fi'risian diachronic or proce::;::;ual pen;peciive, covering clements and character traits in the Dutch developments over a relatively long span of populace. Under Stcinmct7.'s successor, Henri time. The ethnography of marginal groupings Nicolaas ter Ve cn, and his students, sociogra­ generally concentrates on specific social catego­ phy became a form or applied social science. ries and either misses a historical dimension or Their studies were often concerned with the takes a short-term (post-World War II) perspec­ consequences of the enclosure of the Zuyder tive. Before presenting the main findings of Sea, land reclamations, and the coping str·ate­ anthropologists belonging to these two 'schools', gies and social organization of the settlers in I will brieflydwell on the scanty ethnographic the reclaimed polders . However, by the mid- literature produced before the 1970s. 1 1 950s the heyday ofsociography was over. Mod­ ern sociologists criticized its empiricism and this new generation fo und inspiration in Amer­ Predecessors and Early Ethnographers ican fu nctional sociology and its theories ofihe Of course, there arc authors who can be consid­ middle range. Sociography fe ll apart into th ree ered anthropologists or ethnographers auant­ separate disciplines: sociology, social geogra­ la-lettre. For instance, in his seminal book The phy and anthropology. Em harassment of Riches (1.987: 9), the histori­ In the meanwhile, cultural anthropologists an Simon Schama states thai 18th century had for the first time shown an interest in the writers of natural history - among whom Jo­ Netherlands. It was Ruth Benedict who con­ hannes le Francq van Berkhey and Cornelis ducted a war-time study of Dutch culture "at a van Alkemade - can be regarded as such and distance" (van Ginkel 1992b, 1993a). This work, Martinus Stuart's work can also be mentioned written in 1944 in assignment and under the in this respect (Ensel 1994). These scholars aegis ofthe Officeof War Information in Wash­ devoted much attention to the habits, customs ington, remained unpublished. It was Bene­ and the 'national character' or regional cultures dict's task to produce a document for the Amer­ of Dutch people. The same goes for the myriad ican army in which she had to outline the Dutch accounts of travellers who visited the Nether­ national character. This document had to in­ lands (cf. van Ginkel 1997a). In the late nine­ struct the American soldiers how to behave teenth and early twentieth centuries, another when liberating the Dutch population fr om the category of writers should be mentioned: phys­ German occupation army. Benedict interviewed ical anthropologists and craniologists (for early Dutch war refugees and immigrants and con­ overviews, see Davis 1865; Mayet 1902). How­ sulted various written documents, but was of ever, fo r obvious reasons their biologistic work course unable to conduct fieldworkin the coun­ has been discredited fo llowing World War II. try. It was not until the 1930s that social scien­ Nor did the firstDutch cultural anthropolo­ tists applied what is nowadays believed to be gist to write on his compatriots conduct field­ the hallmark of ethnography: fieldwork and work. H.Th. Fischer (1947) based his article on participant observation. Generally their field­ the Dutch kinship system entirely on the avail­ work was brief and only used as an additional able literature. In this post-war period, it was research method. Sebald Rudolf Steinmetz - a still no general practice among Dutch anthro­ jurist who turned sociologist, geographer and pologists to enter the field and conduct partici­ ethnologist - was the fo unding father of this pant observation. school, known as 'sociography'. Sociographers It was only in the early 1950s that the Dutch/ conducted community studies and attempted to American married couple John and Dorothy quantify the data they gathered in neat descrip­ Keur did extended anthropological fieldwork in tive statistics. They also devoted attention, a Dutch hamlet, Anderen, located in the prov­ among many other things, to the mentality of ince of Drenthe. Their ethnography, entitled the people they studied which they usually The Deeply Rooted (1955), in many respects linked to racial characteristics. That is, they resembles the work of Dutch sociographers. It 68 is rather descriptive und coven;a wide range of impressionistic, covering such subjects a�; the topic�; d uminuting �;ociul lilc in the village. But kinship system, social relationships, communi­ unlike socio�-,<raphcrs, the Keurs based their ty gossip and social control. Peter Kloos studied book almost entirely on participant observa­ religion and (non)church attendance in Gaster­ tion. Thi�;wa�;, however, not an easy task. Ini­ en, a community in the province of Drenthe, tially, the villager�;considered the Keurs "snoop­ and reported about his role conflictswhen doing ing strangers" and they were "loathe to speak research (1961, 1969). Kloos also conducted fr eely or much that was significant" (Keur 1969: fieldwork in the colonization community or 518). But the Anderen people got used to the Swifterbant in the polder ofEastern Flevoland, activities of the Keurs. However, the publica­ which was reclaimed afterWorld War II. Here tion of their book led to some commotion, not he studied the fo rmation of fo rmal organi7.a­ only i n the village itsclr, but al�;o among sociol­ tions (for example churches and association�;), ogists, who regarded it as an incursion in what and the development of friendship relations they considered their exclusive domain, and and social networks (1966, 1975, 1981). doubted the usefulness or participant observa­ Although endogenous ethnography gained tion and the qualitative turn in social science. acceptance in academe, these initial research The first anthropological fieldresearch con­ projects were little more than side-tracks. The ducted by Dutch anthropologists in the Nether­ overwhelming majority of Dutch anthropolo­ lands aroused similar sharp reactions from gists still went to the tropics to conduct field­ sociologists. It was Andre Ktibben,