ქართული ეთნოლოგიის წარსული, აწმყო და მომავალი
Loading...
Date
2011
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
მერიდიანი
Abstract
It is generally known that ethnology belongs to one of the important
spheres of the humanities. It was established as a scientific discipline in the 70s
of the 18th century.
Unlike other sciences, ethnology has experienced certain destiny (or
disaster) which concerns both its object and name. What does the ethnology
study? we often offer students a simple and ready explanation by S. Lourie:
“Ethnology studies all the problems related to the life of ethnos”.
Anthropology is considered to be the science about changeability of
human being in time and space. While the physical anthropology studies the
issues of changes of human being’s organism, cultural anthropology focuses on
the variation of culture.
Ethnography/ethnology as a scientific branch and direction was founded
in Germany and German-speaking countries but anthropology – in Englishspeaking
counties as social anthropology in England and as cultural
anthropology in the USA. American school did not take the full name of the
English because the former directed the research in a different way. What is a
leading aspect for ethnology/ethnography on the one hand, and for
social/cultural anthropology on the other hand? German school is characterized
by the historical direction, Anglo-Saxons – sociological. This is the main
distinctive point between anthology/ethnography and anthropology. In one
word, the point of departure for ethnology is ethnos (people) and ethnicity and
ethnical culture and society (socium), but for anthropology – socium (society),
for cultural anthropology – study of cultural features of all kinds of people
(ethnos) and without ethnicity. Anthropology, actually, overlooks thnos,
ethnogenesis and ethnical history, i.e. ethnology and anthropology do not
comply with each other from this point of view as well. In the least, one of the
most cardinal problems of modern ethnology is to study ethnos, ethnical
relationships. We mean existed strained relations, conflicts between ethnoses.
The difference also is that in the West, especially in anthropology and language practice, the term “ethnicity” (e.g. ethnical dances, ethnical cuisine...),
as a rule, refers not to the basic population but to so called ethnical minority,
exotic groups. The scientific explanation of it (S. Arutinov) is that Americans or
American identity was formed not long ago; while in the ancient world both
major and minor nations had the long history of existence. For us, all peoples of
the world are a special unity (cultural unity) whether they are big or small,
regardless the length of their history, despite the stage of their development:
primitive, agrarian or industrial, whether they have written language or not.
Thus, the above discussion laid special emphasis on the heterogeneousness
of ethnography/ethnology and anthropology. To support this opinion, we
should refer to some famous scientists as well. Radcliffe-Brown wrote:
“Ethnology studies culture according to the method of historical reconstruction,
whereas social anthropology researches and studies common laws which are
beyond the cultural events”. Radcliffe-Brown points out that the aim of
sociological anthropology is the study of primitive society. Malinowski also
shared the same opinion; he considered sociological anthropology, which
investigates primitive societies, as a branch of sociology. Ernest Gellner shared
similar views, too. Confronting anthropology with sociology, he wrote that
anthropology studies primitive societies, while sociology researches developed
ones. Anthropology is an empiric science and sociology is a theoretical
discipline. Thereby, anthropology, especially social anthropology, gives the
preference to “primitive” societies and small groups of contemporary societies.
In fact, the “primitive” societies are obviously preferential. The Generally
acknowledged representative of 20th century British anthropology E. Evans-
Pritchard emphasized that social anthropology is the humanitarian discipline
oriented to understanding the meaning of other cultures. Under these other
cultures, he certainly meant the societal culture of non-European (primitive)
people. However, since 1950 E. Evans-Pritchard had advocated the synthesis of
the social anthropology and history. Because of this, some scientists were
pointing to his shifting on the theoretical positions of hermeneutics. No one
reproached ethnology about intrusion in the scopes of study of other scientific
disciplines, while anthropology had been getting such kind of reproaches all the
time. One of the USA leading sociologists, T. Parsons wrote: “It is difficult to
characterize the special position taken by anthropology, as to some degree … it
has assigned the sphere even wider than the sphere of sociology itself, whereas
on the other hand, it had concentrated its attention on the cultures in illiterate societies” Thus, despite the fact that ethnology and anthropology have too much in
common, they are two different sciences with different understandings about
their objects of study. Initially, the ethnology/ethnography also studied the
primitive people. But later on, it began to study the European and other people’s
peasant and traditional cultures. And traditional culture greatly differs from
primitive, savage culture for sure. It also worth noting that in the Scandinavian
countries, particularly, in Sweden, anthropology was called the science studying
cultures of undeveloped societies, and ethnology – the science studying the
European peasant cultures. According to Hans Fisher, studying the Europeans
through sociological methods (as anthropology does it), is absurd.
It is true, that the Georgians do not belong to Europe geographically, but
according to the civilized development, we consider ourselves as a part of
Europe. At least, the Georgian ethnic culture is not at the lowest primitive stage,
and this can be confirmed by any non-Georgian scientist. The long history of
Georgian statehood, the intellectual culture based on the Christianity, and the
original Georgian written language could serve as enough evidence to prove
above mentioned.
In the XIX-XX centuries, Georgia was part of the Russian Empire. The
scientific model of Russia was similar to the German model. The development
of ethnological sciences also took place according to that model. Naturally, the
Georgian ethnology became the part of that model. Georgian ethnology was
formed as a science of historical approach studying the Georgian people and its
ethnic (traditional) culture. It was, and still is, in the service of maintaining the
Georgian consciousness.
The certain part of Georgian ethnologists believe that ethnology, as a
scientific discipline, became obsolete, and is more limited in comparison with
anthropology, i.e. they are inclined to rename ethnology into anthropology.
What will the science benefit from changing the name? As we talked above,
ethnology and anthropology have different aspects and trends of study.
Apparently, the supporters of renaming (and in reality, supporters of
changing the direction) see the way out only by changing the name. In our
opinion, substituting the title and direction will only be harmful and is not
correct.
Description
https://geohistory.humanities.tsu.ge/ge/procedings/83-shromebi/136-shromebi-4.html
Keywords
ეთნოლოგია, ეთნოგრაფია, ანთროპოლოგია
Citation
ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის საქართველოს ისტორიის ინსტიტუტის შრომები, IV, თბილისი, 2011, გვ. 376-399 / Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Institute of Georgian History Proceedings, IV, Tbilisi, 2011, pp. 376-399