РЕВИЗИОНИСТИЧКА ИДЕОЛОШКА МАТРИЦА. СПОЉНИ ИЛИ УНУТРАШЊИ НЕПРИЈАТЕЉ АНТРОПОЛОШКОГ ПРОМИШЉАЊА СТВАРНОСТИ?
Ključne reči:
autonomy of science, (non)scientific politics, quantity, ethnology/anthropology, updating, relevancy, useApstrakt
Autonomy of science and arts is the ideal of every civilized society. How distant is a society from such an ideal depends on a number of parameters, among which the most important could be the cultural enlightenment and consciousness of main actors in these two areas. Unfortunately, Serbia cannot pride itself with high level of democratization of creative processes. Formally, they are presently more independent from the state ideology, but at the same time, they are basically and vitally bounded by it. One must bear in mind that the term autonomy does not entirely fulfill itself with financial, or even ideological independence of free and creative thinking from official institutions. That term primarily refers to possibilities and space that science and arts open up for creation of universal values, i. e. values that transcend the present moment and, as such, strive to contribute to world cultural and nonmaterial heritage. (Non)scientific politics of science in Serbia heavily determines the fact that scientific papers are almost exclusively becoming commentaries of current political and social occurrences. Evaluation of results of scientific work by simply summing up the number of published papers and points they carry, leaves no time for substantial analysis and thoughtful insights into scientific problems of today. Even though the scientific dwellers (in this case ethnologists/anthropologists) agreed to participate in these (non)scientific Olympics, creators of this Olympic discipline are publically stating that humanities have "failed" in the last project period. Issues being raised in this paper are: what is the real ethnologic/anthropologic production in this period, and are the consequences of the current policy of the Ministry of Science already visible in the contents of this production.
Reference
Антоловић, Михаел. 2008. Постмодернизам и/или историјографија. Токови историје 3-4: 177-197.
Assman, Jan. 2006. „Kultura sjećanja”. U Kultura pamćenja i historija, prir. Maja Brkljačić i Sandra Prlenda, 45-78. Zagreb.
Baćević, Jana. 2006. Od trga do tržnice: Antropologija, kritike savremenog obrazovanja i njihov značaj za Srbiju. Etnoantropološki problemi 1 (2): 209-230.
Гавриловић, Љиљана. 2008. Тужни тропи: могућности другачијих антропологија. ГЕИ LVI (1): 7-18.
Žikić, Bojan. 2008. Escape from Ethnos, Tradition in Transition and the battle for Anthropology, Restructuring the Curriculum in Belgrade Academia. Studia Ethnologica Croatica 20 (1): 127-147.
Kovačević, Ivan. 2006. Individualna antropologija ili antropolog kao lični guslar. Etnoantropološki problemi 1 (1): 17-34.
Ковачевић, Иван. 2008. Однос државе према хуманистичким наукама у Србији почетком 21. века, Цитатометрија као покушај убиства српске антропологије. Етноантрополошки проблеми 3 (2): 27-43.
Nora, Pjer. 2006. „Izmedju pamćenja i historije. Problematika mjesta”. U Kultura pamćenja i historija, prir. Maja Brkljačić i Sandra Prlenda, 21-44. Zagreb.
Pešić, Zagorka. 1958. Marksističko shvatanje slobode ličnosti. Beograd: Institut društvenih nauka.

ERIH PLUS - European Reference Index for the Humanities
CEEOL - Central and Eastern European Online Library
The DOI Foundation