Bakalaki_2006

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

1/28

A Different Kind of Knowledge? Learning Anthropology in the

Greek University System

Bakalaki, Alexandra.

Journal of Modern Greek Studies, Volume 24, Number 2, October

2006, pp. 257-283 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: 10.1353/mgs.2006.0016

For additional information about this article

Access Provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam at 01/11/12 10:11AM GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mgs/summary/v024/24.2bakalaki.html
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mgs/summary/v024/24.2bakalaki.htmlhttp://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mgs/summary/v024/24.2bakalaki.html

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

2/28

A Different Kind of Knowledge?Learning Anthropology in the

Greek University SystemAlexandra Bakalaki

bstract

Students drawn to anthropology value it more as a discourse providing a critical

perspective on nationalist, ethnocentric representations o Greek society than as

a source o knowledge about others. They appreciate the highly-regarded theo-

retical discourse o modern anthropology that promises to enlighten them about

their own society and enable them to assume a cosmopolitan perspective that

validates their own modernity and objecties their distance rom underdevelop-

ment and tradition. The teachers o anthropology need to transcend bureaucratic

notions such as the cost-eectiveness and marketability o knowledge in order

to reclaim teaching as a process that involves them and their students as ethi-

cal and political subjects. In addition to turning the attention o students to

study other societies and to document diversity in Greece in an eort to redress

the problematic confation o anthropology in Greece with the anthropologyoGreece, anthropologists should also combat a tendency among students toessentialize cultural dierences, to culturalize social inequalities that result

rom exclusionary practices, and to assume that it is natural or anthropologists

to seek others among the less powerul and privileged.

Discussions about the status and prospects o anthropology in Greecehave mainly ocused on the disciplines prole and history in the Greekuniversity system and on the drawbacks or challenges o eldwork athome because Greece has been the specialty ocus o most Greekanthropologists (Bakalaki 1997; Geou-Madianou 1993a, 1993b, 1998,2000; Panopoulos 2003; Papataxiarchis 1999; saoussis 1985). his

paper will contribute to these discussions by slightly shiting the ocusonto another substantive issue o teaching and learning anthropologyin Greecenamely, the notions about the nature, aims, and relevanceo anthropological knowledge among university students.

here are several university departments that oer undergradu-ate and graduate degrees in anthropology as well as elective courses

Journal o Modern Greek Studies24 (2006) 257283 2006 by he Johns opkins niversity Press

257

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

3/28

258 lexandra Bakalaki

or students who do not major in anthropology. hese anthropologydepartments vary in terms o their curricula and overall theoretical andepistemological orientations (Geou-Madianou 2000:264; Panopoulos2002:198200; Papataxiarchis 1999:233241).1 owever, despite thesedierences and the dierences arising rom gender, class, and otherdistinctions among students, it is still possible to cautiously generalizeabout the anthropological knowledge made available to the students andtheir response to it. My generalizations here are not based on empiricalresearch. hey are based on my experience as an anthropology instructorand the experience o other colleagues in Greece.2 My initial premise isthat teaching and studying anthropology is a challenging but productive

process. Misunderstandings that occur in the classroom can be as rustrat-ing and instructive as any misunderstandings that occur in the eld.

he dissemination o disciplinary knowledge is essential or thegrowth and reproduction o academic disciplines, such as anthropology.owever, as disciplinary knowledge and its theories travel, they are otentransormed in ways that are unintended or unbeknown to their carri-ers (ang 1996:96). When anthropologists design a course syllabus, theyace some hard choices over the selection o topics and texts, but also

over the question o adapting the course to the local mindset/traditionsand student expectations (c. Cliords 1998:191). But plan as one may,operations [] inevitably entail eects that could never be anticipatedin the planning (trathern 2002:xvii). What teachers plan to commu-nicate in the classroom does not always get across. tudents interpretthe inormation that they receive in the context o their own concerns,and they evaluate its relevance according to criteria that may vary romthose o their proessors. n turn, the proessors understanding o local

conditions and student needs or expectations may dier rom that o thestudents. ttending to the ways in which anthropology is disseminatedand (re)produced in the Greek university system may revitalize teachingpractices in higher education in Greece, but it may also contribute torethinking teaching as a coordinate o anthropological praxis.

Relevant irrelevances

Concernswhich were prevalent in the 1980sabout the relation

between anthropological representations and the people or processesrepresented, are being superseded by concerns about the sel-representa-tions and uture prospects o anthropology itsel. t has been increasinglytaken or granted that these prospects are being undermined by a crisiso relevance rom which the discipline is suering. he discipline, ocourse, subsumes a wide variety o theoretical perspectives and practices

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

4/28

259 Dierent ind o nowledge?

that are pursued by people rom dierent social settings and institu-tions with dierent proessional identities and goals (Moore 1996:1).elevance is a term that can be vague or conusing unless it is used toask specically: elevant or whom? nd relevant or what? But also,relevant in what sense? (Melhuus 2002:73).

diomatic Greek has no equivalent synonym or relevance, but ithas an equivalent antonym. Aschetosni(), aschetla(,)and kama schsi( ) are part o the everyday language. he rsttwo words could be translated as irrelevance or unrelatedness, andthe last one as no relation. ll o them are colloquialisms; they have abroad range o meanings and a wide eld o application. owever, they

essentially remain terms o protest. s empty or overfowing signiers,they reer to disagreeable situations, experiences, or qualities displayedby people and things which are meaninglessin the sense that they aretrivial, boring, useless, strange, unpredictable, redundant, or hard tocontextualize. n addition, they are also used to characterize (a) people,especially in positions o power, who are lacking in knowledge, skill orsocial sensitivity; and (b) situations resulting rom the actions o suchpeople. niversity students oten use the word irrelevant (scheto/

) to characterize both the knowledge that they receive and theormal procedures they are subjected to at each level o the educationalsystem. he term implies multiple disjunctures between the ormal andsubstantive aspects o education on the one hand, and the studentsown curiosities and perceptions o what counts as valuable knowledgein the outside world on the other. istening to these students, otenget the sense that they view student lie, i not lie as a whole, as a ritualprocession o irrelevancies.

ver the years have become increasingly empathetic with the stu-dents disillusionment. have grown interested in the processes by whichstudent disillusionment is reproduced and have become concernedabout the ways in which it might be addressed. have also ound thatstudents are more likely to give anthropology a chance when they see it asa way o comprehending their own society rather than when they viewit as knowledge about distant other peoples and places. Clearly, romthis perspective, the understanding that the identication o anthropol-ogyinGreece with the anthropologyoGreece constitutes an imbalance

(Geou-Madianou 2000:270272; Panopoulos 2003:200202; Papataxi-archis 1999:241244) in the students appreciation o anthropology asa source o knowledge about their amiliar social world is disquieting.lthough share this understanding, do not believe that the imbalancemay be addressed or redressed by rhetorical reiterations o the dangerso introversion and parochialism, or by appeals to the sel-evident

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

5/28


values o extroversion and cosmopolitanism. ather, nd that itis important to think deeper on the implicit meanings and values oknowledge about the sel, and on the processes and conditions whichreinorce its primacy over knowledge about others.

A new and modern discipline

istorically speaking, the introduction o anthropology to Greek univer-sities was part o a broader shit toward the diusion o the disciplinein developing and third-world countrieswhich had previously been ointerest only as objects o anthropological attention. rom a local per-

spective, it has been a symbol o modernity, serving the most advancedversions o . . . an ambiguous Westernization (Papataxiarchis 1999:233).he political, economic, administrative, and socio-cultural change whichmodernized the Greek university system began ater the all o the juntain 1974 and accelerated ater Greece was integrated into the uropeanCommunity in 1981, and ater the passing o the 1982 eormatoryaw or igher ducation nstitutions (Geou-Madianou 1993:163166,2000:258). s in other developing countries to which anthropology was

introduced relatively recently, the aculty who worked or its establishmentin the Greek university system were mainly natives who had specializedin the study o their own society, and had returned home ater havingstudied abroad at universities outside o Greece.

Despite current misgivings about introversion, it must be acknowl-edged that, or most Greek senior anthropologists trained in Westernurope and in the nited tates, home research was a prospect to whichthey turned with enthusiasm. ndertaking it enabled them (a) to posi-

tion themselves both as witnesses o and as participants in the political,social, and economic transormations o Greece in the 1970s, and (b)to engage in the emergent anthropological discussion concerning thedichotomy between sel and other (Bakalaki 1997:506509; Geou-Madianou 1993a, 2000:254). ng suggests that the kinds o theoriesscholars deploy secure them membership in particular modernities(1996:84). urely, modernities sometimes change in unpredictableways, and some proponents o modernization may eel betrayed by themodernity to which they aspired. But this is hindsight.

he Greek western-trained anthropologists who started return-ing to Greece in the 1980s had, in Geou-Madianous phrase (1993a)mirror[ed] ourselves on western texts. he personal pronoun reersboth to our eldwork sites as parts o our own society inhabited byellow natives, and to our own intellectual and proessional proles.inancial constraints, the unavailability o job opportunities in Greece or

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

6/28


anthropologists specializing in areas outside the home state, and otherpractical considerations notwithstanding, our decision to undertakehome eldwork was also motivated by our disillusionment over theethnocentric discourses then dominant in Greece, and by our desireto see our own history and society in a new light and rom a mod-ern perspective. ter all, more than any other discipline involved inModern Greek studies, anthropology can take well-deserved credit or acontinuous line o refection and reormulation, and a quite consistenttradition o debate and dissent (ambropoulos 1989:16). ar rom unique,our commitment to what isweswaran (1994:101104) has aptly calledhomework was common among ellow students rom the developing

world. not actively encouraged, it was also at least tolerated by ourteachers, who were quite eager to accept home research dissertationproposals rom oreign students. ter all, our own society was notowned by our teachers or anthropology. t was largely through theprism o anthropological conceptualizations o cultural dierence, thatwe became aware o the otherness o our society and o our ownstatus as natives (Bakalaki 1997; hahrani 1994).

rained abroad, involved in the study o our own society, which,

however, had already been subject to the gaze o important westernethnographers, and having undertaken the introduction o anthropol-ogy to the Greek university, we have cast ourselves as heirs to prestigiousdisciplinary traditions, as representatives o a native counter-perspectiveand as rebellious contesters o the conservative academic establishment.hese contextual identities have rested on our status as junior acultyvis--vis those in whose ootsteps we ollowed, or whose authority wechallenged. t the same time, concentrating on the study o our own

society, a eld shared by long-established traditional disciplines likeolklore or history, seemed an eective strategy by which we might chal-lenge the hegemony o these disciplines. inally, deploying the relevanceo the anthropological study o our own society enabled us to negotiatethe skepticism o conservative academics about anthropology, but alsoto substantiate our own claims o access to the academic establishmentas innovators.

he anthropology we envisioned introducing to Greece was, likeourselves, young, and new and modern (na,). ven when we

began to age, we kept deploying practically every positive meaning thesemetaphors may have. We have imaged anthropology as emergent and,thereore, delicate, and in need o support rom the academic establish-ment, but also as vigorous, exciting, innovative, and potentially subver-sive. Commenting on views o anthropology widely shared among Greekolklorists and historians, Papataxiarchis (2002:7172) has isolated three

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

7/28


stereotypes: he rst stereotype confates anthropology with olklore;the second construes it as complementary to olklore and other disci-plines, especially history, and a third one represents it as a seductress(xelogistra/). ntroducing a rench textbook translated intoGreek, sibiridou (2003:14) likens anthropology to a journey in thecourse o which one meets a witch o our times. hese metaphors arerichly ambiguous. hey portray anthropology as attractive and tempting,but also as subversive, liminal, marginal, or even illegitimate in relationto older, more established, or harder disciplines. s Papataxiarchis(2002:72) notes, the seductress metaphor reduces anthropology to avariety o post-structuralism or to a sot antidote to hard positivistic

paradigms (see also Geou-Madianou 2000:264266; Papataxiarchis1999:234). n addition, these images also invite us to think about theencounter with anthropology as a catalyst or departures or escapes romamiliar environs and recommended straight but narrow paths.

When addressing younger people, it is common among olderones to bracket the memory o their own youth. ikewise, it is com-mon among teachers to emphasize the dierences between themselvesand their students and to resist comparisons which may question such

dierences. Despite the years that have passed and the now dierentconditions under which Greek students get an education, think thattheir responses may be comparable to the responses o the ormerstudents who were attracted to anthropology several decades ago. o alarge extent they viewed anthropology as a discourse that promised aperspective rom which they might question ocial hegemonic narrativeson Greek culture and society, and to criticize the institutional practicesby which these narratives were reproduced. he students sense that the

educational system subjects them to a great variety o irrelevances makessome o them susceptible to the charms o anthropology as a dierentkind o knowledge and practice.

Discredited myths and ailed expectations (rom bracelets to toilet paper)

ike any university student population, the Greek one is not homoge-neous. owever, students do share certain characteristics which, apartrom their age, are traceable to their having been raised with the ideal

o obtaining a university degree, and to their having been processed bythe same rigid bureaucratic education system. lthough higher educa-tion is tuition-ree in Greece, it is still quite expensive. or example,students need at least two years o private tutoring in order to prepareor the university entry examinations which are administered annually

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

8/28


by the Ministry o ational ducation and eligion. hose who passthe entry exams and are admitted to various university departmentsaway rom their home towns incur living and travel expenses to attendschool.3 evertheless, despite the cost and the high rates o unemploy-ment among graduates, university is still considered a necessary interimstep in the course o a long process that begins with elementary schooland ideally leads to ones employment or accommodation (taktopoisi/), which is preerably a permanent white collar job (Geou-Madianou 2000:274, n.8, with reerences to soukalas 1986:119, 128 and1996:31). xcept or elds like medicine, where competition is very high,the departments in which students are nally placed are those in which

they manage to meet the entry exams grade point average and or whichthey may have little or no interest. ot surprisingly, they view this as acompromise. owever, the male students who include the humanitiesand the social sciences in the sliding scale o their preerred elds, areewer than the emale students. n all Greek universities women are themajority o enrolled students in anthropology courses.

he policy o the Greek government, which is uropean-orientedand, to a large extent, unded by the uropean nion, aims at broaden-

ing both the scope and the base o Greek higher education. his policyhas largely been promoted in the name o the need to establish closerlinks between higher learning institutions and the market.4 evertheless,the market value o university degrees in well-established elds has beensteadily diminishing. s or the employment prospects o anthropologygraduates, they have been poor rom the beginning. Commonly calledharti()meaning documents or papersuniversity diplomasare also reerred to as toilet paper (kolharta/). he meta-

phor points out that these diplomas, instead o testiying to marketableknowledge or skill, document the ailed expectations o those who haveinvested money, time, and eort to obtain them. his metaphor alsocontrasts sharply with the now pass metaphor o the university degreeas a bracelet (vrahili/), an inalienable, valuable possessionwhich marks status and upward mobility.

he integration o new elds o study in the university system hasalso been accompanied by a liberal rhetoric which presents education asthe road to sel-ulllment and personal growth. owever, the bureau-

cratic constraints imposed on university institutions remain hard andrigid, and the inrastructure necessary or their unction is oten limited.he sense o disjuncture between this modern rhetoric and the reality inmost Greek universities, reinorces the students sense that the universitycaters mainly to the accommodation o its gate-keepers, and that or

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

9/28


themselves, higher education is a transitional phasecomparable tomilitary servicein which dratees are temporarily trapped.

Between cultural critique, common sense, and grand theory

Casting the university in terms o the experiences they have gone through,more o the same (mi ap ta dhia/ ), rst year undergradu-ate students usually resort to the strategies by which they managed tomeet the demands o high school and university entry exams. Doing aslittle reading as possible during the semester, they cram beore the nalstrying to memorize as much as they can. When presented with questions

that do not request actual data but some kind o interpretation, theyall back on a wide range o taken-or-granted essentialisms, inculcatedduring their primary and secondary education. long with various ormso geographic, biological or psychological determinism, and assumptionsabout the nature o progress that increases with civilization, studentsresort to clichs concerning the superiority o the ellenic civilizationand the continuities between ncient and Modern Greek culture. hisis hardly surprising, given the persistent ethnocentrism o the Greek

education system, a longstanding orientation that played a signicantrole in obstructing the emergence o anthropology and social science ingeneral (Geou-Madianou 1993a:163164, 2000:257258; Papartaxiarchis1999:232233).5

owever, apart rom refecting the education to which they havebeen exposed, the students recourse to ethnocentric, nationalist clichsalso refects their experience-grounded understanding that academicknowledge is as irrelevant to them as their own responses are to what

they were taughtrom the perspective o the ormal approach o schooltextbooks and the requirements o the exam-oriented education system(ondogiannopoulou-Polydorides, ottoula and Dimopoulou 2000). student said the ollowing in a class: course, we know we are notreally the direct descendents o Pericles and ocrates; but up to now weassumed thats what we were supposed to say, and i saying it has madeour lie easier, whats the harm? nother student who ailed an exam saidthe ollowing: personally disagree with the idea that tradition runs inour blood. dont believe its true. But thought that in a ormal exam

that was what was supposed to write.ooner or later students realize that ethnocentric clichs will not

earn a passing grade or them. ome students replace clichs with ideasthat may seem equally irrelevant to them, but they believe that theywould at least get them a passing grade. owever, some o these studentswere shocked when their common sense notions were challenged and

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

10/28


subjected to critique. n that case, initial disbelie at being encouragedto question truths that were taken or granted was transormed intoexpectant curiosity. tudents are attracted to anthropology because theyperceive it as a radical, subversive discourse, which empowers them toquestion dominant representations o Greek society and history, andperhaps to understand the processes o their construction and theirideological unctions. n short, they appreciate anthropological think-ing as a cultural critique. owever, their interest in their own societyis not necessarily accompanied by interest in learning about othersocieties. ssuming that such knowledge is auxiliary rather than essen-tial to understanding themselves, they are content with reducing the

relevance o the cross-cultural perspective to bare and abstract anti-ethnocentric principlesrom the perspective o which they may criticizethe ideological underpinnings o other disciplines also represented inthe curriculum.

n part, the oering o elective courses in anthropology refectsthe conservative image o anthropology being tied to long-establishedand better-known disciplineslike history, archaeology, and olklore. Butthese electives also appear legitimate rom the perspective o contempo-

rary epistemological and institutional developments toward interdiscipli-narity or multidisciplinarity (Panopoulos 2003:196197; Papataxiarchis1999:233234). owever, representatives o the disciplines with whichanthropology coexists, are oten doubtul about the value o cross-culturalstudy. s Geou-Madianou (2000:269) notes, [e]ven in the classroom,material concerning rican, Melanesian, outh merican ethnographyis criticized by many non-anthropologists as irrelevant. he act thatanthropologys cross-cultural or comparative perspective is superfuous

rom the point o view o other disciplines, undermines the prospects ointerdisciplinary exchanges. Moreover, it misleads students to think thatthe relevance o anthropology lies in its potential to contribute to thesel-evidently relevant prospect to which more established disciplines arecommittedi.e., the study o Greek history, society, and culture.

hese diculties are compounded by the act that the termino-logical vocabulary o anthropology overlaps in part with the vocabularyo other disciplines, but also with that used in everyday language (seetrathern 1987; Bakalaki 1997:512514). otions like culture, society,

individual, social relations, or identity are common in all threecontexts, but both their meanings and the purposes to which they areused may be very dierent. owever, at least initially, students tend toassume that these notions reer to social realities modeled ater the hereand now that they are amiliar with. or example, they tend to confateculture with civilizationboth can be rendered as politisms

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

11/28


() in Greekto assume that cultures are bounded entitiesco-extensive with nations, or that society and the individual reerto two entities which are inherently oppositional.

he most obvious way to subvert these assumptions is by oeringcourses o a comparative orientation. With the exception o Greek ethnog-raphy, it is standard practice or most courses to integrate cross-culturaldata in the context o topics like kinship, gender, religion, or politics.owever, ethnographic courses on areas other than Greece are ew,and they concentrate mainly on geographical subdivisions within whichGreece itsel is situatedthe Mediterranean, urope, or the Balkans.mong the reasons or this are the specializations and interests o Greek

anthropologists, but, more importantly, the shortage o ethnographictexts in Greek.6 his shortage means that students have to make dowith the ethnographic data presented in the classroom. n the contexto thematic courses, such data serve the purpose o illustrating culturalvariation, or o exempliying theoretical points, but their presentationis usually ragmentary. n addition, because they are orally transmitted,they also seem somewhat arbitrary, or lacking in objectivity. Disconnectedrom any actual context, they seem distant, abstract, and academic,

in other words, irrelevant. nder these conditions, many proessorsresort to showing ethnographic lms. owever, lm screenings are notalways easy to t in the course schedule and the acilities or showinglms are oten lacking. Moreover, no matter how useul lms may be,they cannot substitute or the reading o texts on ethnography (seeirth 1992:221).

he diculties involved in eectively presenting ethnographicmaterial reinorce the assumption that ethnography and theory are

two dierent enterprises, the ormer being handmaiden to the latter.or many students the prospect o being presented with theoreticalgeneralizations is part o a positive expectation that they have romanthropology, namely that it will provide them with answers to broaderquestions, like those concerning, or example, the constitution o humannature, the causes o social change and inequality, or the emergenceand reproduction o cultural dierence. aced with what they take to berepetitive illustrations o cultural variation, they grow impatient: Whatis the point o learning that the X-group does this and the -group does

that, i this knowledge does not lead to any denite conclusion, and itwo interpretations cancel each other out?7

student who enrolled in my course on conomic nthropologysaid to me recently:

o oense, but Dimitris and have decided not to attend your lectures.We will do the required reading, and also read some additional texts on

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

12/28


political economy. We are interested in theoretical perspectives, especiallythe theory o transormation [o modes o production]. What you give usin class is ne, but there is too much detail, too much specic inormation

on who does what. We would rather concentrate on theory.

heory is oten shorthand or causal explanations and patternswhich students take to be politically relevant. or example, those studentswho are closer to the Communist Party are both curious and suspiciousabout the reason why anthropologists are generally hostile to uni-linearevolutionary schemes. hose students who are closer to eminism arecurious about universal accounts concerning the roots or the oppres-sion o women. uch students, who are ew and usually above averagein terms o aptitude, are oten disappointed by the ragmentary natureo anthropological knowledge and the emphasis on the partiality andposition o ethnographic accounts.

owever, students who perceive anthropology as a primarily theo-retical discourse oten develop an interest in contemporary perspectives,which question ethnographic authority and ocus on the contexts andconventions o the production o anthropological representations. nor-tunately, the students lack o amiliarity with classical, conventional

approaches and realist ethnography intereres with their ability to putcontemporary theoretical viewpoints in perspective, and to appreciate theways in which they build on older models and/or challenge, transorm,or re-invoke them in dierent guises. he emergent impression is thatthe history o anthropology constitutes a linear trajectory, whereby olderideas are being replaced by new more interesting ones.

tudents generally complain that theoretical texts are dicult toread even in translation. owever, this does not necessarily mean that

they think these texts are irrelevant in the sense o uninteresting orindierent. have oten ound that the impenetrability o the anthro-pological jargon inspires not only avoidance, but also respect, becauseit is seen as emblematic o a highly specialized, prestigious discourse.eiterating sophisticated theoretical terms gives some students pleasureand even a sense o power, precisely because they eel that these theoreti-cal terms are beyond their grasp (see arim 1996:130).

Studying others is a luxury we cannot aord

ime and again, when trying to impress on students that anthropologyis a cross-cultural discipline, am aced with the retort: nd you, wheredid you do eldwork? he act that have not practiced what preachis only one o the reasons why it is dicult to subvert their notions aboutthe value o anthropology as sel-knowledge. tudents oten explicitly state

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

13/28


that they have little interest in learning about peoples who are backward,marginal, parochial, peripheral to the modern world, who are excludedrom it, or who are simply becoming extinct. owever, this is not becausethey situate their own society at the center o the modern world. rst-year student rom a arming amily in central Macedonia, who wasattending my introductory anthropology course at the niversity o theegean in Mytilini conded:

When go back to the village am embarrassed to tell people that studyanthropology, because they dont even know the meaning o the word.

When they ask me what it is about, tell them that we learn about tribesand things and then get even more embarrassed.

nd he added in sel-irony:

ot only am putting eort, time, and money into a degree that is worth-less rom the point o view o the job market, but make a ool o mysellearning about primitivesas i our own village were Paris.

nother student who had taken three o my courses in at the ni-versity o hessaloniki and was preparing or graduate study in history

in Denmark said:Greece is not a large country, nor is it modern and developed like the.., ngland, rance or Germany. he people in these countries haveeasy access to the rest o the world. hey can be interested in what is hap-pening in ndonesia, but the people in places like ndonesia cannot aordto become interested in the liestyles o other third world countries. heyhave problems o their own, they have to look ater themselves rst. We arestill at that stage. Plus, it is interesting to learn about Greece, because somuch here has changed. During class, when you mentioned things about

rural or traditional ways, remembered my grandmother; have heard a lotrom her about what lie in the village was like. think to mysel, we havecome a long way, but then think there is still a long way more to go.

he above students question the value o learning about primi-tive or third world peoples on the basis o the understanding thatnding such knowledge interesting is the prerogative o those peoplewho are securely situated in modernity. nterestingly, they both claim amodern perspective or themselvesa perspective rom which they can

discern the distance between their own society and the modern world.he rst student assumes an outsiders position rom which his villageseems parochial, while the second student assumes the perspective o asubsequent developmental stage rom which Greece lags behind. serzeld (1982, 1987, 1991, 1997) and other ethnographers have noted(Bakalaki 1994, 1992; Cowan 1992, 1998), among Greeks refexivity about

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

14/28


the nation-state, society, and various aspects o everyday lie has beenpredicated on comparisons between Greece and the modern west, aswell as on perceptions o the ways in which modern westerners perceiveand evaluate Greeks and their ways. While or students Greek ethnogra-phy is relevant because o its subject matter, it is also attractive because itis part o a modern, western discourse which is still new to the Greekacademia. he idea that the study o others is relevant rom the per-spective o modern, developed societies enables them to construe theirown society as not having reached that stage. t the same time, viewingtheir own society as an object o anthropological study, allows them toassume an outsiders position by distancing themselves rom underde-

velopment. n other words, the cultural sel about whom students areeager to learn, is a sel they would rather leave behind.

owever, the prospect o such distancing can be disquieting whenit is interpreted as a sign o estrangement rom ones cultural roots.he religiously minded and the politically conservative are not the onlyones who express worry. he student who posed the ollowing question,described himsel as a Marxist:

we really manage to get used to what you call relativism, and we get tosee other people as they see themselves, and we also get to see the worldas they doassuming such a thing is possiblewont this mean that we

will have orgotten who we are, that we will have become alienated romour own culture?

he question implies that commitment to the ways o ones ownculture and appreciation or the ways o others are mutually exclusive.his is exactly the contradiction which a giant poster issued by the Ministry

o Culture celebrating the upcoming 2004 lympics aimed to redress. teatured three artiacts rom Greece, sia, and rica, under the sloganoward a civilization o civilizations (Gia nan politism ton politismn/ ). nterestingly, the presentation othese tokens o cultural dierence as objects o appreciation restedon the same assumption as the ear o cultural alienation voiced bymy student. amely, it deployed the idea that the world is made up odiscreet, bounded cultures.8

ardly a local construct, the representation o a culture as a person

writ large is a longstanding metaphor. otwithstanding the unease thisrepresentation causes among anthropologists and the critiques o theanthropological concept o culture to which it has given rise (e.g. erzeld2001:28; uper 1999; tolcke 1995), it is being increasingly popular-ized and vigorously politicized in urope and the nited tates. partrom glossing international conficts as cultural clashes, the reication

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

15/28


o cultural dierence legitimates the commodication o products andperormances as tokens o distinct cultural heritages. ather than an indexo parochialism, commitment to ones cultural heritage is predicated onthe understanding that this national estate is o value in the context oan international market. n this sense the students eagerness to learnabout their own culture has more to do with the act that tourism isone o the ew viable industries in Greece than with the traditional eth-nocentrism o the educational system.9

Dierent relevances and relevant dierences

s mentioned beore, Greek anthropologists have looked up to themodernization o the university as a prospect that would encouragethe growth o the discipline. owever, although modernization is stillvalued as a process that undermines traditionalist ethnocentrism, thereis an emergent disillusionment over the promotion o measures aimingat subjecting university institutions to international standards o pro-ductivity. ccording to Geou-Madianou (2000:259), the aspirations oGreek anthropologists to establish an outwardly-oriented, cosmopolitan

anthropological tradition are being disappointed, as research and teach-ing practices are increasingly oriented toward the production o useul,practical, cost-eective, and marketable knowledge. n this context, itis not parochialism, isolation, or distance rom metropolitan academiccenters that threatens the prospects o Greek anthropology, but thesubjection o the Greek university system to the policies o the uropeannion about higher education.

Greek anthropologists are not the only ones worried about these

policies. n urope and beyond, there is an emergent solidarity acrossdisciplines among academics who eel that aligning the university withthe job market poses a threat to the academic integrity and autonomy.he debate concerning the applicability o a market approach tohigher education centers on the concept o relevance. hose who avorextending the corporate ethos to the university, dene the relevance oacademic knowledge in terms o marketability and cost-eectiveness.hose who oppose the corporate mentality conceive relevance as thecapacity o academic disciplines to generate knowledge, which may be

used toward addressing contemporary issues in ways that are both criticaland meaningul to the wider public (Melhuus 2002:7374). hese twonotions o relevance, which are both sel-evidently benign (c. trathern2002:xv), appear to subsume a major confict o principle and interestwith implications or practically every aspect o higher education. But,perhaps the relation between them is more complex.

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

16/28


n the context o anthropological theorizing, the relevance oknowledge and its marketability are, i not mutually exclusive, at leastunrelated. owever, although relevance is assessed by qualitative criteria,it is also conceptualized as a value amenable to maximization and thusto quantitative measurement. Despite widely shared agreement amonganthropologists that the audience o anthropology should be broadened,the non-specialists (among whom the relevance o anthropology isindexed) are largely aculty in other disciplines that also compete orpublic attentionin addition to the increasing number o postcolo-nial or subaltern cultural critics (nglund and each 2000:225). heconcerns o these highly qualied academics are oten perceived as

refections o the concerns o the oppressed and dispossessed victimso western hegemony (ahn 1995:134). ll too oten, the act thatanthropology has an audience o non-specialists which mostly consistso students, is orgotten.

ike the tendency to see resistance everywhere, which, according toMaddox (2001:186) is a symptom o an alienating and repressive subli-mation, the idealization o relevance oers a way o casting conormityto ever-rising standards o productivity as an index o disciplinary growth

and commitment to critical or counter-hegemonic perspectives. owever,there is (a) a growing skepticism about the actory conditions to whichanthropologists must adapt in order to rescue their careers, and (b) anincreasing awareness that the pressures these conditions impose detracttime and energy rom refecting about the substantive aspects o academicendeavors, including teaching (mit 2001; nglund and each 2000:239;ilitz 2001:250, 252; Giri 2001; arries-Jones 1996; arim 1996:135;trathern 1997). rom the perspective o these misgivings, it seems

that the prospect o (re)claiming the university as a place o learningrequires that anthropology teachers also (re)claim themselves as ethicaland political subjects. his means that rather than merely accommodat-ing the students needs or relevant knowledge, they must ace up to theresponsibility o infuencing the criteria on the basis o which studentsassess relevance (Melhuus 2002:76; Moore 1996:1314).

he anthropologists have ailed to recognize the others amongwhom they do eldworkas producers o knowledge that is coeval withanthropological knowledgeis a common orm o sel-criticism (Moore

1996:6; arim 1996:135). owever, although anthropological knowl-edge is as social in character as any other kind o knowledge (erzeld2001:2134), it is dangerous to confate the classroom with the eld.wareness o the ways in which students contextualize and interpret theknowledge addressed to them is necessary, insoar as it enables teachersto be more eective in guiding students to distance themselves rom

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

17/28


common sense notions, and in providing insights into new ways o look-ing at the world. acing up to this task requires that teachers themselvesassume a critical distance rom the hyper-proessional criteria accordingto which ones interlocutors are limited to ellow academics. But it alsorequires equal distance rom the liberal vision o academic knowledgeas a commodity, tailored to compete successully with other equivalentcommodities, also designed according to the needs o prospective con-sumersa vision which may become all the more pernicious i disguisedas anthropological relativism. n Greece, audit procedures, which subjectacademic teaching to student evaluations and to assessments regardingthe marketability o knowledge in university settings, are not yet standard

practice. hose opposing the institution o such procedures, draw oncriticisms by academics working in higher education institutions bothwithin and outside the uropean nion, where such procedures arermly established. he latter point out that the enranchisement ostudents as consumers or customers encourages the bureaucratizationo the educational process, its purication rom risks, innovations, andintellectual challenges, and reinorces indierence i not aversion tocritical thinking (Giri 2001; McDonald 2001; imoldi 2001; hore and

Wright 2001; trathern 2001a, b).n addition, many anthropologists have also argued that the insu-

lated, hierarchical, exclusionary, and alienating language o much anthro-pological theorizing constitutes an inherent, intra-disciplinary constraint,which also limits the relevance o such theorizing among non-specialistsand students (bu-ughod 1991:143, 152; Bakalaki 1997:515; Giri 2001;arries-Jones 1996:158; arim 1996:129130). he idea that jargon isincompatible with egalitarian language politics is sel-evident, but the

assumption that the extent to which a discourse is inviting or challengingdepends on its accessibility, is not. n the basis o my own teaching expe-rience, have already suggested that students oten regard sophisticatedterms as metonymic representations o prestigious discourses, preciselybecause they depart orm everyday language. aving gone through theGreek educational system, students have internalized the notion thatknowledge is a thing, the possession o which upgrades ones status, aswell as the skill o deploying ormulaic language or writing or speakingwithout thinking. s a teacher, oten eel that perhaps the eagerness

o some to jump on the wagon o prestigious modern discourses, is asublimation o their rustrated capacity or sel-expressionrom whichthey have been dispossessed. Clearly, jargon can be mystiying. But,perhaps, a modicum o mystication or etishization uels desire orknowledge. so, the question is how much and what kind o mystica-tion is advisable?

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

18/28


Pierre Bourdieu, an author whose writing style is notoriouslycomplex, has repeatedly reiterated his commitment to critical thinkingwhich challenges common sense notions and his aversion or the kindo discourse which is easily accessible and well received because it tellsits audience only what they want to hear (1995:viii). t the same time,Bourdieu has analyzed the ways in which university instruction in rancemysties and reproduces the privilege o proessors with exceptional clar-ity (Bourdieu and Passeron 1985). e has also addressed the politicalimplications o the use o ready-made ormula, automatic, autonomouslanguage, the ritual word in which those o whom one speaks and orwhom one speaks no longer recognize themselves (Bourdieu 1995:90, my

emphasis). he apparent contradiction is resolved i, rather than reerringto a xed identity, one thinks o sel recognition as a dynamic processwhich implicates not only experience, but also antasy, desire, and perhapsalso earthat is, notions and emotions about who one wants to identiywith, and what kind o identications one wants to avoid.

ndeed, the idea that ones sel-recognition is transormed throughexposure to the ways o others has been a common assumption amonganthropologists. owever, this idea and the concomitant aith in the

deployment o the ways o others as a perspective rom which toengage in the cultural critique o ones own society (see Marcus andischer 1986), have recently been problematized rom two very dier-ent points o view. ome anthropologists have argued that the searchor counterpoints, rom which to deconstruct western hegemony, hascontributed to the establishment o an inward looking tendency wherebythe study o others is legitimized as a means o understanding o thecultural sel (e.g. ng 1996:6162; rtner 1984:143; ahlins 1999:v;

ang 1996:107108). n the other hand, it has been pointed out thatcultural critique as mediated by exposure to the ways o others, encagesanthropologists into thinking in terms o dichotomies like here andthere, home and abroad, or us and them. his detracts themrom problematizing the unity o the us and the otherness o the otherand question[ing] the radical separation between the two (Gupta anderguson 2001:43; see also bu-ughod 1991; Cliord 1997; Gupta andeguson 1997; Malkki 1997; arayan 1993).

t is important to take into account the act that both o these

positions are being put orth at a time when anthropological practiceis undergoing considerable transormations. ising nancial, bureau-cratic, and governmental constraints are making traditional long-termeldwork in distant places dicult even or anthropologists aliatedwith prestigious metropolitan institutions (Cliord 1997:217; nglundand each 2000:238). lthough the ensuing obstacles are being elt in

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

19/28


the uro-merican academic centers where cross-cultural research is alongstanding practice, the question o how are theseethnographers tomake their ther is still addressed primarily to anthropologists who,by choice or necessity, research their own kind (Weston 1997:170). otsurprisingly, Greek anthropologists are concerned that their heretooreailure to seek their others elsewhere will continue.

lthough there is some hopeul evidence o an emergent trendamong younger anthropologists to carry out eldwork abroad, it is tooearly to tell whether it will outbalance the prevalent tendency or homeeldwork. Meanwhile, the standard anthropological strategy whereby theother is sought out within ones own society (rgyrou 1999, 2000)

is continuing to be a popular option, and one which has oten yieldedexcellent results. here is a growing body o ethnographic work on ethnicgroups and minorities and an emergent interest in the study o immi-grants living in Greece. ieldwork among these non-Greek populationsis a means o transcending the mono-culturalism o Greek anthropology(Panopoulos 2003:201202; Geou-Madianou 2001:269270) and aninvaluable resource o ethnographic material, which may be evoked inorder to destabilize the hegemonic representation o Greece as a homo-

geneous societyin erzelds terms, a household writ large.evertheless, turning students attention to dierences within

may entail some dangers. amely, it may reinorce reied and essentialistnotions o cultural dierence and identity. ter all, in Greece the ideathat immigrants are culturally dierent and that their otherness is bothreadily discernible and problematic is largely viewed as a sel-evident truth(Bakalaki 2003). Counting themselves among the majority and situatingthemselves in the mainstream o social lie, students oten assume that

the cultural identities o immigrants, minority or local people are morexed, unitary, authentic, and consequential in terms o social practicethan their own. s arakasidou (2000) notes, this perspective is all butabsent rom ethnic or minority studies. More generally, attributing cultureto others empowers one to claim a bias-ree, objective perspective, anda place in mainstream society (Douglas 1992:321; osaldo 1988). hus,undermining the students tendency to culturalize others requires notonly enabling them to question their own assumptions about the natureo cultural identity, but also presenting them with a critical view o the

mainstream anthropological practice whereby the people studied are lesspowerul and more marginal than those studying them (ader 1974; seealso Bakalaki 1997:513516; Maddox 2001:288289).

lthough enlargement o the geographic range within which Greekanthropologists do eldwork, and ethnographic research documentinginternal diversity are promising strategies toward the enrichment o

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

20/28


anthropological practice in Greece, neither one o them in itsel promotesthe de-naturalization o studying down. hus, think it is importantto interest students in research among the urban middle class, and thepropertied and educated elite, and to remind them that mainstream,ordinary practices, and unmarked identities, and hegemonic ideas o thesensible at home and abroad are no less cultural than the ways o thepoor, the minorities, and the socially excluded. n other words, alongwith encouraging students to learn about others, it is important to helpthem unlearn idioms o privilege, which render the value o hegemonicperspectives and practices transparent by naturalizing them as a-cultural(isweswaran 1994:98). he prospect may not necessarily be conducive

to disciplinary respectability. But commitment to respectability and com-mitment to the understanding that anthropology can be and should besubversive, or at least uncomortable, as irth (1992:218) would haveit, are not necessarily compatible.

ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI

Acknowledgements. dedicate this paper to iz ennedy, my teacher, with gratitudeand love. thank my colleagues and students who, over the years, shared with me theirviews on anthropological education in Greece. hope that my views will interest them.Many thanks to Costas Douzinas and Michael otiadis or their insightul comments onearlier drats o this paper. am also indebted to the anonymous reviewers o theJournalo Modern Greek Studieswho were very thorough with their comments on my paper. ts nalversion owes a lot to the editing o atasa sagarakou.

1 or a preliminary exploration o some o the issues presented here see Bakalaki2002. he history o anthropology in the Greek university goes back to the early 1980s,when anthropology courses were included in the curriculum o the Department o ociol-ogy at the Panteion chool and in the aculty o istory and rchaeology at the ristotleniversity o hessaloniki. he Department o ocial nthropology at the niversity othe egean admitted its rst graduate students in 1987 and its rst undergraduates twoyears later; in 2001, it was renamed Department o ocial nthropology and istory.n 1990 the Panteion chool o Political and ocial ciences in thens established theDepartment o ocial Policy and ocial nthropology. n 2004 the two disciplines weredivided and the Department o ocial nthropology, now part o Panteion niversity, isthe only stand-alone anthropology department in Greece. he Department o istoryand thnology at the niversity o hrace was established in 1991. he most recent jointdepartment was established at the niversity o hessaly in olos in 1999. n 2001 itsname was changed rom Department o istory, rchaelogy, and olkore to Department

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

21/28


o istory, rchaeology, and ocial nthropology. everal older university departmentsalso oer anthropology courses as electives. mong them are the Department o Modernand Contemporary istory, olklore, and ocial nthropology in the aculty o istory

and rchaeology at the ristotle niversity o hessaloniki; the Program o olklore inthe Department o istory and rchaeology at the niversity o oannina; the Departmento Philosophy and ocial tudies in the chool o Philosophy at the niversity o Crete;and the Department o ociology in the chool o ocial ciences o the same university.inally, anthropology courses are also taught in the Department o Cultural echnologyand Communications at the niversity o the egean, established in 2000; and in theDepartment o istory, rchaeology, and Cultural eritage Management at the niversityo the Peloponese, established in 2003.

2 taught in the Department o ocial nthropology at the niversity o the egeanin Mytilini between 1987 and 2000. ince then have been teaching in the Department

o Modern and Contemporary istory, olklore, and ocial nthropology at the ristotleniversity o hessaloniki.

3 n the regional background variation among Greek university students see tamelosand ivri 1995.

4 or a review o the perennial debate on the state o Greek education seePsacharopoulos 1995. n developments which took place in the Greek university aterthe implementation o the 1982 eormatory aw or igher ducation nstitutions, andon the establishment o anthropology as an academic discipline see Geou-Madianou2000:257263. or critical views on the Greek university see Gavroglou 1981, ambropou-los and Psacharopoulos 1990, and Petralias and heotokas 1999. ilitzs (2000) excellent

account o the structural problems and policy inconsistencies in ustrian higher educationprovides a perspective or comparison.

5 aving studied both the content o history and the teaching methods used espe-cially in primary school, vdela (1995:61) concludes that what students end up with is anexceptionally traditional, event-oriented, and linear historical narrative, which is intenselyethnocentric, and which leaves no room or critical thinking (see also vdela 2000).istorians and social scientists, who participated in a research program indexing concep-tions about history among adolescents, also arm that young people have an ethnocentricorientation toward the Greek nation, which they perceive as an a-historical, transcendental,and homogeneous entity (skouni 2000; Metaxas 2000; oulgaris 2000). he act that this

orientation by no means precludes positive attitudes toward urope as a cultural entityand toward Greeces integration in the uropean Community (Dragonas and Bar-n 2000;antzi and bakumkin 2000; Prodromou 2000), suggests that ethnocentrism is not a vestigeor a survival rom the past that will disappear on its own in the ace o modernization. nact, Metaxas (2000) points out that the intensity, the rhetorical haughtiness by whichGreek youth express their ethnocentrism, may be a unction o their need to deend Greeceagainst actual or putative criticisms by others, including ellow uropeans.

6 he curriculum o the newly established Department o Balkan, lavic, and rientaltudies o the niversity o Macedonia includes several comparative ethnography coursesocusing on the Balkans and astern urope. en years ago, the publisher o the Greek

translation o Danorths book on rewalking (1995) included the part on the nastenaria,but omitted the part on the merican irewalking (see Paradellis 1995). Presumably theomission was due to the assumption that the Greek public is not interested in books aboutother cultures, and investing in such books would be risky. ince then, the market oranthropology books has increased as the number o anthropology students has grown.niversity students are entitled to a ree copy o the one or two books assigned as textbooksin each o the courses in which they enroll. sually the anthropology books translated

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

22/28


are recommended to publishers by anthropologists who also oversee the translations andprovide introductions to the texts. o ar, priority has been given to theoretical works whichsupply a rame o reerence or more than one area o anthropological study, rather than to

texts reerring to specic cultures. here is also a substantial body o Greek ethnography,which includes books by Greek anthropologists as well as translations. n the limited avail-ability o anthropology texts in the Greek language, and the challenges involved in writinganthropology in Greek see also Bakalaki 1997:513516 and Papataxiarchis 1999:242.

7 ccording to arim (1996) anthropology students in the ar ast also search oranswers to contemporary social issues, as they are experienced and conceptualized bypeople in the street (1996:129130). o them and to general public, debates and con-troversies between anthropologists are oten disappointing because they are inconclusiveand also because they seem to indicate a lack o criteria o truth and validation (Melhuus2002:70).

8

he slogan is the title o a book by vangelos enizelos who, at the time, was Min-ister o Culture. he author denes the culture o cultures as one o peace and socialsolidarity, based on the principle o cultural equivalence (2001:13),and advocates intercul-tural exchange as a means o transcending cultural isolation, combating the prejudicesit generates. e also criticizes amuel untington or his views on the cultural roots oconfict, and especially or his analysis o the infuence o rthodox ideology on Greekoreign policy (2001:87100).

9 or a discussion o recent anthropological perspectives on the production, manage-ment, and consumption o cultural heritages, especially in the context o tourism, seeMouta 2002:4552. or an annotated bibliography o sources on tourism and culture

in Greece and Cyprus see Mouta 2002:211221. n the commercialization o culturalknowledge at both the local and the global level, and specically, on the role o localanthropologists and non-academically trained, petty cultural experts as cultural brokersin Malaysia see arim (1996:123125).

C CD

bu-ughod, ila1991 Writing gainst Culture. n ichard ox ed., Recapturing Anthropology: Working

in the Present, 137162.anta e: chool o merican esearch Press.

mit, ered2000 he niversity as Panoptikon: Moral Claims and ttacks on cademic

reedom. n Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics andthe Academy, edited by Marylin trathern, 215235. ondon and ew ork:outledge.

rgyrou, assos1999 ameness and the thnological Will to Meaning. Current Anthropology 40:

2941.2000 el-accountability, thics and the Problem o Meaning. n Audit Cultures:

Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy, edited by Marylintrathern, 196212.ondon and ew ork: outledge.

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

23/28


vdela, 1995 , .thens: issos.2000 he eaching o istory in Greece. Journal o Modern Greek Studies 18(2):

239253.

skouni, elly2002 Greek dolescent Perceptions o ocial Change: n historical nterpretation

o ociety.Journal o Modern Greek Studies18(2):255268.

Bakalaki, lexandra1994 Gender-related Discourses and epresentations o Cultural pecicity in

ineteenth-century and wentieth-century Greece. Journal o Modern GreekStudies12:75112.

1997 tudents, atives, Colleagues: ncounters in cademia and in the ield.

Cultural Anthropology112(4):502526.2002 , ,

: -

. n Moraitis chool oundation or the tudy o Modern GreekCulture and General ducation, : , ,

, pril 1921, 2002, 287306. thens: Moraitis chooloundation or the tudy o Modern Greek Culture and General ducation.

2003 ocked into ecurity, eyed into Modernity: he election o Burglaries asource o isk in Greece.Ethnos68(2):209229.

Bourdieu, Pierre1995 Sociology in Question.ondon: age Publications.

Bourdieu, Pierre and Claude Passeron1985 Les Hritiers: Les Etudiants et la Culture. Paris: ditions de Minuit.

Cliord, James1997 patial Practices: ieldwork, ravel, and the Disciplining o nthropology.

n Anthropological Locations: Boundaries o a Field Science, edited by khil Guptaand James erguson, 185222.Berkeley: niversity o Caliornia Press.

Cowan, Jane

1992 . n vthymiosPapataxiarchis and heodoros Paradellis eds.,

, 127150. thens: astaniotis, Panepistimio gaiou.1998 Dance and the Body Politics in Northern Greece. Princeton: Princeton niversity

Press.

Danorth, orring1995 . . thens:

Plethron.

Douglas, Mary

1992 Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. ondon and ew ork: outledge.

Dragonas, halia and Dan Bar-n2000 ational dentity among a eighbouring Quartet: he Case o Greeks, urks,

sraelis and Palestinians.Journal o Modern Greek Studies18(2):335353.

nglund, arri and ames each2000 thnography and the Meta-narratives o Modernity. Current Anthropology41(2):

225248.

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

24/28


ilitz, homas2000 cademia: ame Pressures, ame Conditions o Work? n Audit Cultures:

Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy, edited by Marylin

trathern, 236255.ondon and ew ork: outledge.

irth, aymond1992 uture or ocial nthropology? n Contemporary Futures: Perspectives rom

Social Anthropology, edited by andra Wallman, 208224. ondon and ew ork:outledge.

Galani-Mouta, assiliki2002 -, o:

. thens: Propombos.

Gavroglou, ostas1981 Certain eatures o igher ducation in Greece and the ailure o ttempts

to eorm t.Journal o the Hellenic Diaspora8:95108.

Geou-Madianou, Dimitra1993a Mirroring urselves hrough Western exts: he imits o n ndigenous

nthropology. n The Politics o Ethnographic Reading and Writing: Conron-tations o Western and Indigenous Views, edited by enk Driessen, 160181.aarbrucken and ort auderdale: erlag Breitenbach Publishers.

1993b -, : .223:4451.

1998 , : .n : , edited by DimitraGeou-Madianou, 365436. thens: llinika Grammata.

2000 Disciples, Discipline and efection: nthropological ncounters and ra-jectories. n Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics andthe Academy, edited by Marylin trathern,256278. ondon and ew ork:outledge.

Giri, nanta2000 udited ccountability and the mperative o esponsibility: Beyond the Pri-

macy o the Political. n Marylin trathern ed., Audit Cultures: AnthropologicalStudies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy,173195. ondon and ew ork:outledge.

Gupta, khil and James erguson1997 Discipline and Practice: he ield as ite, Method and ocation in nthro-

pology. n Anthropological Locations: Boundaries o a Field Science, edited by khilGupta and James erguson, 146.Berkeley: niversity o Caliornia Press.

2001 Culture, Power, Place: thnography at the nd o an ra. n Culture, Power,Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology, edited by khil Gupta and Jameserguson, 132. Durham and ondon: Duke niversity Press.

antzi, lexandra and bakoumkin Georgios2000 ational dentication and thnocentric Bias mong Greek dolescents: n

earch o Correlates.Journal o Modern Greek Studies18(2):321333.

arries-Jones, Peter1996 terword. n The Future o Anthropological Knowledge, edited by enrietta

Moore, 156172.ondon and ew ork: outledge.

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

25/28


erzeld, Michael1982 Ours Once More: Folklore, Ideology and the Making o Modern Greece. ustin: ni-

versity o exas Press.

1987 Anthropology Through the Looking Glass: Critical Ethnography in the Margins oEurope.Cambridge: Cambridge niversity Press.

1991 A Place in History: Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town. Princeton:Princeton niversity Press.

1997 Cultural Intimacy: Social Poetics in the Nation-State. ew ork and ondon:outledge.

2001 Anthropology: Theoretical Practice in Culture and Society. Malden and xord:Blackwell Publishers.

ahn, Joel .1995 Culture, Multiculture, Postculture. ondon: age Publications.

arakasidou, nastasia2000 ssential Dierences: ational omogeneity and Cultural epresentation

in our ecent Works on Greek Macedonia. Current Anthropology 41(3):415425.

arim, Wazir Jahan1996 nthropology Without ears: ow ocal ees the ocal and the Global.

n The Future o Anthropological Knowledge, edited by enrietta Moore, 115138.ondon and ew ork: outledge.

ondogiannopoulou-Polydorides Georgia, Mary ottoula and elly Dimopoulou2000 Citizen ducation: ilencing Crucial ssues. Journal o Modern Greek Studies

18(2):287303.

uper, dam1999 Culture: The Anthropologists Account. Cambridge: arvard niversity Press.

ambropoulos, assilis1989 Modern Greek tudies at the Cross-roads: he Paradigm hit rom mpiri-

cism to kepticism.Journal o Modern Greek Studies7:139.

ambropoulos, X. and G. Psacharopoulos1990 . . , -

: , .

77:172209.

Maddox, ichard2001 Bombs, Bikinis, and the Popes o ockoll: efections on esistance, the

Play o ubordinations, and iberalism in ndalusia and cademia, 19831995.n Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology, edited by khil Guptaand James erguson, 277290. Durham and ondon: Duke niversity Press.

Marcus, George and Michael ischer1986 Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences.

Chicago: niversity o Chicago Press.

McDonald, Maryon2000 ccountability, nthropology and the uropean Commission. n Audit Cul-

tures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy,edited byMarylin trathern, 106132. ondon and ew ork: outledge.

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

26/28


Melhuus, Marit2001 ssues o elevance: nthropology and the Challenges o Cross-cultural

Comparison. n Anthropology by Comparison, edited by ndre Gingrich and

ichard G. ox, 7092.ondon and ew ork: outledge.

Metaxas, .-J. D.2000 hetorical aughtiness and the eed or el-assurance: n nalysis o Greek

tudent esponses.Journal o Modern Greek Studies18(2):375379.

Moore, enrietta1996 he Changing ature o nthropological nowledge: n ntroduction.

n The Future o Anthropological Knowledge, edited by enrietta Moore, 115.ondon and ew ork: outledge.

ader, aura1974 p the nthropologist: Perspectives Gained rom tudying p. n Reinventing

Anthropology, edited by Dell ymes, 284311.ew ork: Pantheon Books.

arayan, irin1989 ow ative is the ative nthropologist? American Anthropologist 95(3):

1934.

ng, ihwa1996 nthropology, China and Modernities: he Geopolitics o Cultural nowl-

edge. n The Future o Anthropological Knowledge,edited by enrietta Moore,6092.ondon and ew ork: outledge.

rtner, herry1984 heory in nthropology ince the ixties. Comparative Studies in Society and

History26:126166.

Panopoulos, Panayotis2003 Between el and thers. he cademic stablishment o Greek nthropol-

ogy. nEducational Histories o European Social Anthropology, edited by dwardDrackl et al., 193205. ew ork: Berghan Books.

Papataxiarchis, thymios

1999 , -

: . n Department o ociology,niversity o Crete ed.,

, 227246. ethymnon: niversity o Crete.2002 , , : . n Moraitis chool oundation

or the tudy o Modern Greek Culture and General ducation, : , , , pril 1921, 2002,6575. thens: Moraitis chool oundation or the tudy o Modern GreekCulture and General ducation.

Paradellis, heodoros1995 , : oring Danorth,

: .

57:110.

Petralias, . and . heotokas1999 . . , .

60:1825.

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

27/28


Prodromou, lizabeth .2000 ormation o istorical Consciousness among Greek dolescents: ome nsights

or Political cience heory.Journal o Modern Greek Studies18(2):305319.

Psacharopoulos, George1995 ducation in Greece oday: Contributions to the Perennial Debate.Journal

o Modern Greek Studies13:169178.

imoldi, leanor2000 Generic Geniusow Does t ll dd p? n Audit Cultures: Anthropological

Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy, edited by Marylin trathern,90105. ondon and ew ork: outledge.

osaldo, enato1988 deology, Place and People Without Culture. Cultural Anthropology 3(1):

7787.

ahlins, Marshall1999 What s nthropological nlightment? ome essons o the wentieth Cen-

tury. Annual Review o Anthropology28:ixxiii.

hahrani, M. azi1994 onored Guest and Marginal Man: ong-term ield esearch and the

Predicaments o a ative nthropologist. n Others Knowing Others: Perspec-tives on Ethnographic Careers, edited by Don owles and John ardesty, 1568.Washington D.C.: mithsonian nstitution Press.

hore, Chris and usan Wright2000 Coercive ccountability: he ise o udit Culture in igher ducation. n

Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy,edited by Marylin trathern, 5789. ondon and ew ork: outledge.

tamelos, George and Chrisanthi ivri1995 egional Dimensions o ntrance xaminations to igher ducation nstitu-

tions in Greece.Journal o Modern Greek Studies13:215230.

trathern, Marylin

1987 he imits o uto-anthropology. n Anthropology at Home, edited by nthonyJackson, monograph 25, 1637. ondon and ew ork: avistockPublications.

1997 mproving atings: udit in the British niversity ystem.European Review5(3):305321.

2000a ntroduction: ew ccountabilities. n Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studiesin Accountability, Ethics and the Academy, edited by Marylin trathern, 119.ondon and ew ork: outledge.

2000b terword: ccountability . . . and thnography. n Audit Cultures: Anthro-

pological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy, edited by Marylin

trathern, 279304. ondon and ew ork: outledge.2002 oreword: ot Giving the Game way. n Anthropology by Comparison, edited

by ndre Gingrich and ichard G. ox, ixxvii. ondon and ew ork:outledge.

tolcke, erena

1995 alking Culture: ew Boundaries, ew hetorics o xclusion in urope.Current Anthropology36(1):124.

7/30/2019 Bakalaki_2006

28/28


saoussis, Dimitris1985 , K A . ntroductory

note in G. ienhardt, Social Anthropology, 1148.thens: Gutenberg.

sibiridou, otini2003 , . n, , edited

by Philippe aburthe-olra and Jean-Pierre Warnier, 1314. thens: ritiki.

soukalas, Constantinos1986 , , , .

thens: hemelio.1996 : -

. n : 19691996, edited byConstantinos soukalas. thens: Plethron.

enizelos, vangelos2001 , : -

. thens: astaniotis.

isweswaran, amala1994 Fictions o Feminist Ethography. Minneapolis: niversity o Minnesota Press.

oulgaris, annis2000 he Political ttitudes o Greek students: nternal ensions o n thnocentric

Democratic Culture.Journal o Modern Greek Studies18(2):269285.

Weston, ath1997 he irtual nthropologist. n Anthropological Locations: Boundaries o a Field

Science, edited by khil Gupta and James erguson, 163184. Berkeley: ni-versity o Caliornia Press.

ang, Mayair1996 radition, raveling heory, nthropology and the Discourse o Modernity in

China. n The Future o Anthropological Knowledge, edited by enrietta Moore,93114. ondon and ew ork: outledge.

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	flip-lindo
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Bakalaki_2006

Documents