The speech in time of presentation of the diploma and the mantle of honorary Doctor Honoris Causa of High Anthropological School in Moldova
My awarding by Your Council with the Honoris Causa degree I perceive as a great honor. The fact that your school is young doesn’t belittle (minimize, humiliate) this honor. The Plato’s Academy H.A.S. been existing for 900 years, but now it’s clear that the most interesting for science are its first figures and deeds (works and workers?) though then, during the first steps, nobody even suspected this.
Your school H.A.S. occupied a significant place in Moldavian educational system and is perhaps the most interesting university in Moldova. The archaeological magazine published by you from its very foundation became a leading one, the main and the best archaeological magazine of the post-Soviet area, forcing «Russian archaeology», which H.A.S. been publishing during more then 50 years in Moscow, and Saint-Petersburg «archaeological news» out of the first place. I was reading lectures in the leading world universities and without paltering can say that in this audience I see a level which can be quite compared with the student’s audience of other capitals if not even higher, and energy, enthusiasm and readiness to work are obviously higher.
It’s the second time now when I’ve arrived here with the lectures on the history of anthropological ideas.
Denoting the subject of the studies as the history of anthropology or anthropological doctrines, ideas or anthropological thought we’re immediately facing an extreme vagueness of the term «anthropology».
In the USSR it was referred only to the physical anthropology – a discipline about human races and the origin of man. However it was long since the German tradition of philosophical anthropology, a doctrine about the place and the role of the human beings in the world, was also admitted here. There are also books on history of philosophical anthropologism.
In Anglo-Saxon region anthropology is considered to be a whole complex of disciplines aiming to study the human being from his different sides. It includes physical anthropology, ethnology with ethnography, psychology, theoretical linguistics, prehistory or prehistorical archaeology. But as the first of included here branches is connected tightly with the biology and the last ones with the linguistics and history it’s impossible to embrace all of them into a single course without its practical transforming into the science description in general and especially after adding here philosophical anthropology as well.
In the frames of nowadays specialization and the volume of knowledge it’s practically impossible for a person to comprehend all these branches.
Even if to narrow the circle to the cultural or social anthropology everything won’t be clear as well. It isn’t easy to determine if social and cultural anthropology are different or identical (that is in USA they rather call this branch cultural and in England – social, but as a matter of fact it’s a question of sociocultural anthropology).
If these disciplines are identical and comprise sociocultural anthropology, then traditionally about the same as coming to this discipline in the West, in Russia ethnology and ethnography are engaged in, and moreover, they are understood at one moment as identical, at another as different disciplines (descriptive and explanatory). In addition in the West the «ethnology» term is used and the science it indicates differs very little from the sociocultural anthropology.
About the same write those who call their discipline ethnology or ethnography and those who consider themselves specialists on cultural anthropology.
If social and cultural anthropology differ it’s very difficult to restrict the first one to culturology and the second one to sociology.
From one point of view the difference between these branches of anthropology and those ones as culturology and sociology consists in the point that anthropological disciplines traditionally are focused on the studying of colonial and primitive (?) nations and those disciplines – on the modern civilized societies. According to another point of view to which I adhere the model for conception is physical anthropology in subject of which there is no vagueness. As anatomy with physiology it studies the human body, but differs from anatomy and physiology with the fact that they study the norm in contradiction to pathology, and anthropology studies the variance (?) of mankind, the plurality of forms.
Likewise we also can understand the difference of sociocultural anthropology from culturology, sociology and ethnology. They study the norm, and sociocultural anthropology studies the variality (?) of culture, sociality and ethnos. In this sense it’s very close (if not identical) to the comparative culturology, sociology and ethnology.
Such a conception liberizes and helps to overlap the anthropologist’s classification schemes on the modern forms. In a well known sense this science is a relativist one by its nature. But the traditional point of view also H.A.S. importance and sense, because it’s a part of comparative science giving it evolutional depth.
Building anthropological education it’s necessary to proceed from this conception. As anthropology is a comparative science, it’s clear that it should be based on a great number of languages and cultures. An anthropologist is first of all polyglot and internationalist. Possessing languages gives him not only an opportunity to assimilate a vast range of literature, but also helps to understand better the variety of mentalities.
If anthropology comprises biological aspects in studying mankind it should master the idea of science in English concept, that is strict mathematically based methods. One of the last discoverings in anthropology are the maps of distribution of genetical structures in world populations which help to reconstruct ancient migrations. These maps are based on the mathematical procession of a multitude of DNA analyses. And sociology if to view it as a comparative one also belongs to that cycle of disciplines. Technical means of the modern science – computers with their particularly logical language bring an additional rigor. Computers, the foundations of logics and mathematics form the basis of anthropological education.
Anthropology though H.A.S. also a humanitarian aspect. First it is connected with the fact that anthropology studies not only socium, but culture as well, not only its general laws, but also concrete demonstrations which are unique. Unique phenomena are difficult to compare otherwise then valuably from the point of personal and collective spiritual values, intentions, goals. But humanitarian approach doesn’t mean vagueness and randomness of decisions. In the anthropology’s problems its initial relativism can’t be solved with the mathematical methods, but setting hopes just on the intuition doesn’t work as well. To be scientific the humanitarian aspect is in need of serious thoughts (meditations) over criteria and the definition of initial principles, it needs a responsible chose.
That is the reason why in the anthropological education important places should be occupied by the subjects which develop the breadth of mind, independence of opinion and intelligent (intellectual) attitude to values. These are literature, art, their critics and the history of human thought, the participation in the social movements of the country and the world, in social and cultural practise.
Finally there is one more aspect in the anthropology. Being a comparative and relativist discipline it’s naturally connected with the studying of the development, progress, evolution and therefore history. Historic anthropology is a French and Russian branch. Being interested in unique phenomena such a branch sees in the history a key for their evaluation. It perceives history in its mostly unfolded and extensive way – from its origins. Serving this aspect archaeology gives it well-foundation and ethnography – vitality.
In anthropologist’s approach to history there is another side, a more professional one. It’s impossible to be an anthropologist-researchaer without examination with all the wealth of ideas, theories, methods and facts accumulated by the previous and modern generations of anthropologists. Only assimilating them one can sensibly move forward. I know some figures of culture who excuse their ignorance by having no desire to read not to get under another impact and loose the freshness of view. But how about being afraid to talk then? They’re always under an impact. The only question is under which one. The process of socialization and enculturation is inevitable and anthropological education is its final part, that one which is not for everybody.
Those who successfully passed it become specialists on comparative studying of nations and cultures. Their knowledge is to be claimed in the intercultural and international relations’ spheres. Not diplomacy (relations between authorities) but namely relations between nations – contacts and interactions, and also in the sphere of studying their personal nation, its place among the others, its links, composition, character and perspectives. It’s a very vital discipline and a very important specialty in the post-Soviet area where in the frameworks of new independent states new independent nations on the base of heterogeneous populations are formed. Yes, it’s still not very usual to have in the stuff of state institutions and big firms an anthropologist, but recently nobody even thought to hire sociologists. The number of anthropologists grew in dozens of times for the last few decades in America. It’ll grow here as well. Every university there H.A.S. an Anthropological department . Your school is a sprout of future.
And I’m happy to have part in its cultivation. And I do my best to water it.