Anthropologies

This program aims to initiate a cross-disciplinary reflection on the conditions of anthropological comparison, as it can be practiced in an academic setting, but also as it can be observed in Asia, using the methods of history or ethnography, within the framework of systems of thought that theorize the place of humankind in the world. It also proposes to explore the diversity of epistemologies in the humanities and social sciences and the richness of ethnographic research methods.

1/ Social Anthropology, Participant Observation, and Fieldwork Practices

The presence within the Mongol Studies Team of a contingent of anthropologists who have based their descriptive work on the continuous practice of participant observation provides an opportunity to examine the specificity of this method in relation to other approaches to “fieldwork” (in sociology, cultural geography, architecture, or, more recently, philosophy), and even to consider the variability of inductive methods in the social sciences.

This research group will also be a forum for collective reflection on the diversity of methods in social and cultural anthropology, particularly in the field of images and new digital technologies. Mongol peoples, for example, have long been iconophiles and, since at least the mid-20^th century, have made multiple uses of photography. On social media, especially Facebook, many Mongols regularly publish or share images, videos, and texts, which require empirical analysis using a specific methodology. Visual anthropology and netnography thus offer almost indispensable research tools in the Asian context. More broadly, this approach proposes to examine both the unity and diversity of the ethnographic method in anthropology: what constitutes its specificity on the one hand, and how it adapts to the changing circumstances of our social and cultural lives on the other.

Finally, current geopolitical circumstances call for a collective reflection on the accessibility of ethnographic fieldwork, in a context of restrictions imposed by certain states on access to or movement of foreign researchers, and in an environment where control over research conditions is increasing. The ethical question of protecting the populations being studied, when the data collected by the ethnographer is likely to endanger them, also deserves to be discussed collectively among specialists in the field.

2/ Social Anthropology, Historical Anthropology, Anthropology of Law

The joint presence at the CRCAO of representatives from different branches of anthropology offers an opportunity to reflect on the epistemological foundations of the discipline. What do the “anthropology” of historians, jurists, and ethnologists have in common? Are there shared methods, structuring concepts, epistemologies, or even bibliographic references that provide a common ground for social and cultural anthropology, historical anthropology, or anthropology of law? Or must we simply accept that these different “anthropologies” only share a relationship of homonymy?

This theme will also allow us to revisit the question of the specificity of the methods of social and cultural anthropology. While it is clear that ethnography has never been limited to participant observation—since ethnologists also examine textual or iconographic documents that are not collected in this way (see section 1)—it is more difficult to characterize what is distinctive in the analysis of materials that other disciplines consider their specialty. For example, anthropologists (when they focus on history, like Marshall Sahlins) and historians (when they claim to be doing anthropology, like Jean-Pierre Le Goff) each approach archival documents in their own way, without ever clearly defining what unites or distinguishes them. Similarly, legal anthropology and the anthropology of law essentially address the same object of study, without really discussing the boundaries between their disciplines.

It will also be necessary to examine the methodological permeability of the humanities in general. Social anthropology is one of the youngest branches of the humanities and social sciences; its foundations and methods owe much to the disciplines from which it emerged. But its distinctive methods nonetheless come to be adopted by its elders: what becomes of ethnography, for example, when it is used by sociology or geography? Conversely, it is interesting to note that even more recent disciplines (such as cultural studies, gender studies, or decolonial studies) in turn influence how knowledge is produced in anthropology. By fully grasping the dynamic integration of the various branches of anthropology within the epistemological landscape of the humanities, we will therefore examine the intersecting movements of knowledge dissemination that allow us to study the variability of ways of living in society today.

Asia offers an ideal – and already classic – setting for the different ways of doing anthropology (as an ethnologist, as a historian, as a jurist), making the CRCAO the perfect institution to discuss these issues.

3/ Vernacular Anthropologies in an Asian Context

Doing anthropology in an Asian context cannot be reduced to applying observation protocols theorized in Europe and the United States at the turn of the 20^th century to non-Western populations. Japan, in particular, stands out with its own anthropological school, which developed under the influence of its American and French counterparts but whose unique epistemological positioning, illustrated notably by the continuous coexistence of ethnography at the closest and ethnography at the most distant, has been neglected for too long by the Euro-American schools of social and cultural anthropology. China, as well as Mongolia, have also developed an academic practice of anthropology whose specificity deserves to be better understood, and whose history remains largely to be written.

Meanwhile, in their respective research sites, anthropologists and historians frequently encounter vernacular theories of the place of humankind within the cosmos. For purely contingent reasons, these vernacular anthropologies have been studied primarily in Amazonian contexts by ethnographers, and in medieval Christian contexts by historians. Yet, it seems evident that the Asian world provides the framework for numerous theoretical (and practical) attempts to think about humanity in general and comparatively. Tibetan-inspired astrological systems, which spread throughout the region with the various Buddhist schools that promoted their use, are one of the most obvious examples of the (de)composition of the world into a multiplicity of elements whose variations, around and through a human subject, can be modelled and coordinated for the benefit of that subject.

Furthermore, Eastern epistemologies place great importance on non-humans and their inter- and extra-specific relationships within an environment that is itself often considered an agent in various interactions. In the Mongol world, the relationships between humans and animals, both domestic and wild, occupy a central place in worldviews and in various anthropological approaches. They play a major role in both vernacular and academic epistemologies. Consequently, these conceptions offer interesting perspectives for a broader comparative study within Asian anthropology.

The CRCAO thus appears to be the ideal structure for initiating a history and anthropology of academic and vernacular Asian anthropologies—in short, a comparison of methods of comparison.

Activities

— Diploma in the “Anthropology of Mongol Worlds”: an inter-university diploma program between the École Pratique des Hautes Études (Paris), the National University of Mongolia (Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia), the National Museum of Ethnology (MINPAKU, Osaka, Japan), and the University of Tartu (Estonia) for international postgraduate students planning to begin a doctorate in anthropology specializing in Mongol societies and cultures. Each year, a cohort of four to eight students spends time in Paris (December-January), Tartu (February-March), Osaka (April-May), and Ulaanbaatar (June-July).

— Bi-monthly Mongol studies seminar, organized by Isabelle Charleux, Anna Dupuy and Isaline Saunier (all disciplinary approaches combined). The seminar is held in person on the Campus Condorcet and remotely, and represents the activities of the three programs: https://etudesmongolesetsiberiennes.fr/seminaires/.