'Latent Ethnicity' or 'Patent Problematics' in National Schools of European Ethnology? Thomas K. Schippers Schippers, Thomas K. 1996: 'LatentEthnicity' or'PatentProblematics' in National Schools of European Ethnology? Commentary. - Ethnologia Europaea 26: 107- 110. This short comment on Tamas Hofer's paper discusses the opportunity of the association on 'latent' ethnicity with national schools of European ethnology rather than with certain academic centres of influencein the history of European ethnology. It also points out the danger of overestimation ofthe cultural dimension of the ethnologist's personality compared to his personality as a scientist. Finally the use of an 'ethnic' terminology in an European context is questioned. Dr Thomas K. Schippers, Universite de Nice - Sophia Antipolis, Laboratoire d'ethnologie, 98, Bd Edouard Herriot, B.P. 209, F-06204 Nice. In Tamas Hofer's paper, presented at the Ethno­ interest and they have been definedas particu­ logia Europaea meeting in Pecsvarad (Hunga­ lar domains fo llowing geographical, social or ry, October 1995), he stresses an issue that has even cultural criteria (which vary from one been crucial in the historical development of country to another, especially in the field of European ethnology in various European coun­ social sciences and humanities). One of the tries or even regions : the importance ofwhat he origins of the diversity of national schools of calls the 'ethnic' or 'national' baggage of schol­ European ethnology may be fo und in the differ­ ars in the ways they conceptualise and analyze ent choices made in the various European coun­ 'ethnographic reality'. One could add to this, tries among the 'first wave' disciplines to estab­ especially during the starting years of our dis­ lish the scientificcredibility of so-called 'nation­ cipline, the 'academic baggage' ofit's early prac­ al ethnology'. If there has been any 'latent titioners in which a variety of earlier estab­ ethnicity' at work here, this should, I think, first lished disciplines can be fo und, like linguistics of all be sought in these various choices made (philology, dialectology... ), history, (human) ge­ among the 'firstwave' disciplines. In some coun­ ography, sociology etc. In many countries, na­ tries, academic national ethnology was fo unded tional schools of European ethnology have in by linguisticly schooled, while in others by ge­ this perspective come into being - under vari­ ographers or anthropologists etc. Even the per­ ous names - as parts of a 'second wave' of sonal fields of interest of individual scholars academic segmentation and specialisation oc­ have sometimes played a role in the scientific curring in the firsthalf of the 20th century. This orientations of national ethnology in the early wave fo llowed a first one that had allowed days. during the second half of the 19th century, the These choices among the methods and para­ academic and institutional recognition of social digms of pre-existing 'first wave' disciplines sciences more generally (cf. Schippers, 1995: have of course also been influenced by the 235-240). historical - often political - contexts of the Most of these 'first wave' academic disci­ period in which these national schools - ofwhat plines had no explicit (geographically) bordered has only since 1936 been called European eth­ areas of interest, while on the contrary many of nology - have been fo unded. In those countries the 'second wave' ones have been established as where, for various reasons, national borders 'local' specialisations of the 'first wave'fields of were perceived as problematic, the scientific 107 practice of' national ethnology has been based stitutions than on the content nfthcir research. on the a rea l and cartographic methods 'bor­ Another i m portant is::;uedis cussed by Ta mas rowed' from linguists, who had started, since Hofe r, concerns the role of the languages in the end of' the 19th century, to e::;tablish the which E uropean ethnologist::; p ublish (and scientific credibility of' their approach on the think?). Al th ough most European ethnologists publishing of linguistic maps and atlases. In have, until quite recently, mainly published in those countries where the national ethnology their own national languagcs - ofwhichsome at was mainly the fa ct of' scholars trained in ar­ least, are internationally read - this has never chaeology and practiced in archives and muse­ been a more important obstacle for communica­ ums rather than in the university, the main tion among its practitioners than in neighbour­ area of research was more specificly directed ing disciplines. This persistence of the use of towards 'material culture', while in other coun­ one's own language in our disciplines, even if tries, where linguists and philologists played this language is not generally read abroad, may an important role in the institutionalisation of also be due to the groups of potential readers of national ethnology, the research interests con­ national or regional ethnology. Many European cerned more likely so-called 'immaterial' as­ ethnologists arc mainly employed by national pects of the national culture. These historical or regional administrations or governments to fa cts are well known today as well as the many document and analyze aspects of their own combinations of disciplinary borrowing that country or region and to communicate their European ethnologists have practiced ever since. research results to a national or regional public National ethnological schools can be consid­ in various forms (texts, lectures, teaching, exhi­ ered, fr om my point of view, rather as the bitions, etc.). Comparing with other regions or results of various academic 'borrowing' process­ countries has been for these reasons only a es, than as related to any fo rm of'latcnt ethni­ secondary preoccupation for many, if one at all. city'. This 'latent ethnicity' can perhaps be de­ For quite a long time, only those European tected more clearly in the different degrees of ethnologists involved in international institu­ interest shown in various European countries tions like the C.I.A.P.. (1928) or the S.I.E.F. concerning the institutional development of (1964) have been confronted with the conceptu­ national ethnology as an academic discipline on al differences due to linguistic variety (which its own. Especially those countries where the have led to the International Dictionaryof Re­ national identity is a rather 'covert' category gional European Ethnology and Folklore pub­ like in"England or in the Nether lands, there has lished in 1960 by Ake Hultkrantz). It is mostly always been very little enthusiasm to install in these international networks, that concepts academically a specifically national ethnology. elaborated in a national context have found In other countries like France, this has also their way to international acceptance, leaving been the case during the period when the carto­ to the participants the often delicate task to graphic methods were considered as the way of translate them 'back home' into an acceptable doing national ethnology in a scientificmanner: equivalent in their mother tongue. These net­ the mapping of regional cultural differences works have during this century had several was 'unconsciously' (?) perceived as endanger­ predominant languages of communication, ing national unity (cf. Le Bras, Todd, 1981: 13- which resulted, at least partly, fr om the 'demo­ 30). The introduction of the monographic stud­ graphic weight' of the different participating ies, based on other methods and theories, en­ linguistic groups; after having been one of the dangered probably less the national 'latent' fe ar last academic disciplines where German was for national diversity and allowed the birth of used as the international language for scientific an 'ethnologie fra nr;aise' inspired by general communication, European ethnologists seem to ethnology/social anthropology and 'Annales'­ adopt nowadays more and more English as like history. In these different cases 'latent their lingua franca (although still very few ethnicity' seems of more influenceon the 'quan­ native English-speakers seem to be involved in tatif' development of national ethnological in- European ethnology... ). 108 As Ta mas Hofer recalls in his paper, these ethnicity ofthe group (or groups?) that uses thi::; lingu istic a::;pects have their importance in the language as its national language on the other, way ethnologists describe and analyze ethno­ seem very questionable to me (as a Dutch-born, graphic fa cts or build up more theoretical expla­ French educated ethnologist, studying Europe­ nations. But on the other hand an overestima­ an societies ...). tion of th is linguistic/conceptual aspect can Or does he want to suggest some 'latent: lead to a kind of' scienti fic 'tribalisation', which influence betweenthe research items of partic­ may endanger the very existence of our disci­ ular national ethnological schools and regional pline, as well as that of all other social sciences or national ethnographic originals? Ifthis is the and humanities, because it will throw them case, the use of the concept of ethnicity is not back to a pre-scientific (poetic?) level. This ten­ necessary and even dangerous, because it would dency can be observed since a few years in suggest the existence of(homogenious?) 'ethnic' neighbouring disciplines like social and cultur­ groups as national or regional entities in Eu­ al anthropology, where some practitioners have rope. More general, the actual