Antropologinė karo analizė: mikrolygmens perspektyva etnografijoje

LTStraipsnio tikslas yra analizuoti mikrolygmens perspektyvą etnografijoje, išryškinant pagrindinius antropologinės karo analizės bruožus. Pagrindinis dėmesys šiame tekste yra skiriamas lenkų ir anglų antropologo Bronislawo Malinowskio diskursams, kurie yra pritaikomi bendrame antropologijos disciplinos kontekste ir karo tyrimuose individo lygmeniu. Šis straipsnis atskleidžia, kad karas yra kompleksiškas, nuo visuomenių kasdienio gyvenimo neatskiriamas procesas. Tai atsispindi teoriniame lygmenyje ir praktiniame antropologų veikime, kuriame plėtojamas akademinis žinojimas ir taikoma antropologija politiniams tikslams. Galiausiai mikrolygmens perspektyva yra tarpdisciplininio mąstymo pavyzdys, kuris sujungia antropologinį, sociologinį ir istorinį požiūrius. Raktiniai žodžiai: antropologija, etnografija, individas, mikrolygmuo, karas. [Iš leidinio]

ENThe micro-level perspective in ethnography reflects general features of the anthropological analysis of war. This perspective not only provides theoretical insights into war research, but also allows for empirical research, collecting data to delve into individual experiences and record them. The micro-level perspective is relevant to scholars studying wars and conflicts, especially those working in the sphere of political science (Balcells; Justino 2014; Kalyvas, Kocher 2009; Kalyvas 2012; King 2004). This approach focuses on violence, and the impact of violence on individuals and societies. Anthropological analyses of war at the micro-level allow war to be studied through a slightly different prism, forming an understanding of war through a direct relationship with the individual. The aim is to highlight the importance of applied war anthropology, which reflects not only (1) the practical work of academics, but also (2) the anthropological knowledge applied in the historical context to achieve political goals, and (3) to show the comparative interdisciplinary approach. In this article, applied anthropology is discussed based on the insights of the Polish-English anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski (Malinowski 1922; 1936; 1941). He argued that a combination of theoretical and practical knowledge is needed. This is reflected in his notion of in situ, which highlights clearly the perception that different nations must be explored locally, in a certain position, with observation and participation on the ground. In his journey as an ethnographer, Malinowski laid the foundations for research that allows researchers to collect data through direct communication with subjects, being in the field and in the cultural context of the subjects. This, on one hand, reveals and establishes his identity as a practical ethnographer.On the other hand, it allows one to look at war, the understanding and formation of war, directly through the micro-prism of the individual. Malinowski, like the other disciplines mentioned, inevitably attributes this to violence when it comes to war. Malinowski distinguishes between different groups of violence, from private violence to war between two different cultural entities. It is worth mentioning that Malinowski’s ideas of violence reflect another very important feature of the anthropological analysis of war: understanding war culturally, involving many areas of human life. Malinowski said that war is a culturally determined phenomenon. This means that people’s reason for war is based on tradition, or ideological or value imperatives. In this way, he confirmed clearly the already-mentioned idea that war is a complex process, inseparable from the internal processes of societies, and involves different elements of human life. The history of applied anthropology has shown that a knowledge of anthropological science has been applied not only for academic but also for political purposes. During the First World War and the Second World War, anthropologists worked in academia and state military organisations and institutions. They sought to help learn about other powers, cultures and their practices. Researchers inevitably build up relationships with individuals, blending into their environment and living space. Approaches emerged to emic and etic perspectives and an element of reflexivity that defines the relationship between the researcher and the research subject. It is not just about politics, but also about a relationship through culture. While a micro-level perspective allows war to be viewed from an individual perspective and provides a more objective understanding of war, it however poses some challenges.How does the data collected at the individual level explain the broader processes taking place at the state level? Can it be applied to several different cases? Sociological and historical disciplines help to overcome the shortcomings of this micro-level approach. Sociologists are interested in the impact of war on societies, and the interaction of group and individual levels. Historians pay close attention to the relationship between war and the state, to the historical processes that help to understand how states formed during war, to what the impact of the violence was, and to what the broader relationship is between the state, the armed forces and ordinary citizens. To sum up, this reflects the idea of Malinowski that war is a complex process that needs to be explored more broadly, encompassing as many different elements as possible. The microlevel perspective provides a strong foundation for an initial understanding of war, and its meaning in an interdisciplinary context helps to answer questions that remain open when exploring individual perspectives. Finally, the changing structure of wars, the ways in which warfare takes place, and the involvement of different actors, force us to think globally, and combine different but interrelated approaches. [From the publication]