CHAPTER5(fromACompaniontotheAnthropologyofEurope)

THEETHNOANTHROPOLOGYOF(POST)SOCIALISM

MichaBuchowski

WritingaboutanthropologyinpostsocialistEuropeisnoteasy,sincethemultiplicityof
1
researchpracticesiscomplicatedbyintradisciplinarypolitics. Divergenttraditionsof
doinganthropologyhavebeenpracticedintheregionfordecades.Ontheonehand,
anthropologyisawellestablishedmultilingualtradition,comprisingbothethnologyand
folklore.Ontheother,anthropologyisadisciplinepracticedbypeoplefromtheWest.
Although no single mainstream socialist ethnological enterprise could have been
consideredempirebuilding(cf.Stocking1982),arichtraditionofdoingresearchon
other continents in countries like Poland, Czechoslo vakia, and Yugoslavia must be
mentioned. Moreover, a surprising feature of ethnography(ethnology)in...
CentralandEasternEuropeancountriesisthatthere has never been an absolute dichotomy
between home investigations and research on distant territories (Srkny 2002:562).
Though Eastern European scholarship is still perceived by some as descriptive and
nationalist(seeKuper1996:192),theanthropologizationofethnology,thatis,the
practice of conducting fieldwork outside ones own culture and applying recent
anthropologicaltheories,wasinfullswinginthe1970sand1980s.Thus,themythof
nationalistethnologyin(post)socialistCentralandEasternEuropemustbedispelled.
Thiskindofethnoanthropologythatcombinesanthropologyathome,history,and
ethnology,appearslesscommonlyintheAngloAmericanworld,butisquitecommonin
severalcontinentalcountries.Thesestudiesshouldtodaybeseenasmatchinginquiries
carriedoutbyEasternEuropeananthropologicalluminariescomingfromtheWest,who
conducted research that was revealing, insightful, and referred to the ideas of local
historians,sociologists,andpoliticalscientists(seeHann1994:232237).

In what follows,I tryto paint apicture that takes into account the achievements of
scholarspracticingethnologyandanthropologyofpostsocialismbothasoutsidersand
insiders.ItisanattempttotakeasteptowardbridgingthedichotomyofUsversus
Themandlooseningtheboundariesoftheworldshierarchicaldivisionintoareastudies.
Fosteringanequalityoflearningandsharingbythetwogroupsshouldbreakdownthe
offensive borders of postSoviet and Western anthropology (Buyandelgeriyn
2009:241).Sofar,despitemanydeclarationslikethis,inallpastandrecentsummariesof
postsocialistanthropology(cf.Hann2002;Brandtstdter2007;Buyandelgeriyn2008;
HrschelmannandStenning2008),CentralEuropeanscholarscontributionshavebeen
systematicallyignored.

Thekeyquestionregardingpostsocialismis:whatmakesitaspecificphenomenonand
anthropologicalstudiesonitadistinctfieldofstudy?Onecansaythatanolddiagnosisof
Bettelheims has apparently become true in Central Europe today: Inside social
formationsinwhichcapitalismispredominant,thisdominationmainlytendstoexpand
reproductionofthecapitalistmodeofproduction,thatistodissolutionoftheother
modesofproduction...(1969:297).Theintroductionofcapitalisminformersocialist
countriesintheeraofglobalizationiscomplexandaffectsnotonlymodesofproduction,
butalsodifferentlyinfluencesvariousspheres oflifeandcategories ofsocialactors.
Peopleconfrontedwithcapitalismreactaccordingtotheirownconceptionsofitthatare
partiallyrootedintraditionallydefinedmeanings.Inotherwords,implementedstrategies
become transformed by the capitalist relation ships of production, but also alter
capitalismatthelocallevel,leadingtowhatMarshallSahlinscallstheindigenizationof
modernity(1999:410)inresponsetoglobalization.

Thevarietyofphenomenaaddressedinpostsocialiststudiesforcesustofocusonselect
issuesandtochoosekeynotionsaroundwhichtoweavethestory.First,Iwilldiscuss
conceptsofsocialismandpostsocialisttransition.Second,Iwillattempttodeconstruct
orientalizing occidental views on CentralEastern Europe, such as an image of civil
society, nationalism, and anthropological scholarship, and to follow a thread of
transformingidentitiesinthesphereofproperty,labor,class,andgenderrelations.Third,
Iwillalsoshowthatpostsocialistchangesaremostoftenrenderedwithinaparadigmthat
contrasts East to West, or in other words, always considers (post)socialism in its
relationshiptoanddivergencefromWesternmodels.TomakereadingeasierIfollowthis
strategyofrepresentation,althoughinunderminingdominantimagesadeconstructive
accentispresent.Fourth,Iwillarguethatinalltheseissues,culturaldeterminisminthe
formofpostsocialistmentalitiesandhabitsdoesnotexplainhistoricalprocessesthat
arepropelledbycurrentlyemergentrelationsofpower.Finally,Iwillshowthatinthese
powerdependentworlds,individualandcollectiveactorsareactivesocialagents.
WHATWASSOCIALISM?ANDWHATISPOSTSOCIALISM?

The very term postsocialism evokes controversy. Within contemporary public and
scholarlyrhetoric,thenotionisconfinedinpracticetothepre1989Sovietbloccountries
characterizedbyreallyexistingsocialism(Bahro1977).Therefore,Iwilladdressthe
stateofanthropologicalartintheEuropeanspaceoftheseformersocialistcountries,
comprisingmostofCentralEuropeandstretchingfromtheBalticSeatotheBalkans.
CarolineHumphrey(2002:12)justifiesuseofthetermpostsocialismbyarguingthat
socialismrelatedpracticesweredeeplyembeddedinthesesocieties,andhavenotbeen
replaced by new ones overnight. Just as there were commonalities in the socialist
experience, it follows that there must be some degree of unity in the postsocialist
experience.

However, these socialist and postsocialist unities are simultaneously relative and
ambiguous(Buchowski2001a:913).Communistcountries,forinstance,haddistinct
systems ofpropertyrelations,rangingfromcollectivizedagriculturallandinmostof
themtoprivatelyownedfarmsinYugoslaviaandPoland.Whilestatepropertydominated
in the industrial sector, in the Yugoslav model cooperative companies and workers
councilswerecommon.Inboththesecountries,andinHungary,privateentrepreneurship
was encouraged in late socialism. Political regimes exercised dif ferent forms of
authoritariandominationandideologicalhegemony.Ingeneral,andespeciallysincethe
1970s,allthreecountriesenjoyedvariousformsoffreedom.Restrictionsontravelwere
systematicallylifted;freedomofreligiouspracticeinPolandwaspracticallyunhindered.
Arelativefreedomofspeech,culture,andsocialscientificpublicationensued.

AsHumphreywrites,thedivergencesbetweentheformersocialistcountrieshavebeen
accentuated over the last decade (2002:12). These differences become visible when
comparingCentralEuropeantoCentralAsianorCaucasianvariantsofpostsocialism.In
Central Europe itself, some regions (e.g. the northern tier) experienced smooth
sociopolitical transformation, while in others (i.e. former Yugoslavia) bloody wars
erupted.Still,thecombinationofthemoderncapitalistglobalregimewithpastformshas
broughtaboutsomedegreeofunity,ashasthecurrentmembershipoftenpostsocialist
countriesintheEuropeanUnion.Theserealitiesfindtheirreflectioninanthropological
production.

POSTSOCIALISTTRANSFORMATIONS
ThementaldivisionofEuropeintoEastandWesthasalongtraditionthatreachesback
to the Enlightenment (Wolff 1994; Todorova 1997). Historians (cf. Chirot 1989)
reassuredthepublicthatthepartitionofthecontinentintocenterandperipheryreflected
real phenomena. Such dualism was strengthened during Cold War. For many, the
collapseofstatesocialismmeanttheendofhistory,ortheinevitabletransformationof
postsocialistnationsintomodern,Westernlikesocieties,andtheuniversaldominationof
capitalism.Indeed,newspacesopenedforcapitalandtransnationalconnectionshave
beenintensified.Butthisdoesnotimplyahomogenizationofsocialformsorthemodes
ofthoughtnurturedbythem.Thereisnoendtohistory.

Inordertonaturalizetransformationprocesses,neoliberalexpertsinventedtheoriesto
fitthesemasterimages.KatherineVerderyswritingbestdescribesthesituation:

AnumberofthestoriesofpostsocialismhavetheknightsofWesternknowhowrushing
torescuethedistressedEasternEurope....Therescuescenariohastwocommonvari
ants:shocktherapyandbigbang.Thefirstcomparestheformersocialistblocwitha
personsufferingfrommentalillnessthatis,socialismdrovetheminsane,andourjobis
torestoretheirsanity.Thesecondimpliesthat...historyisonlynowbeginning...
(1996:205)

ThecategoryoftheWestisgiven,fixed,andtranshistorical,whileallotherpossible
formsaretreatedasaberrant.TheEastshouldbeabsorbedbytheWestforitsownand
thegreatergood.

Theseschemesarereminiscentof1960smodernizationtheories.Thisprogressiveview
alsorecallscommunistleadersfaithinthesuperiorityofsocialismtocapitalism,which
now paradoxically appears as a prefiguration of post1989 Western trium phalism.
Besides, the idea of transition . . . responds to a unilinear, evolutionary vision
expoundedbyComteandSpencer.Societiesarepurportedtodevelopaccordingtoa
universal law of stages or, in other words, to a preestablished succession deemed
inevitable...(ConteandGiordano1999:6).Currenttransformationspresentakindof
reversalofhistory,thankstowhich,societiesareputbackonthelegitimatetrackof
development.Fromanotherperspective,transformationcouldbeseenasariteofpassage
from socialism to capitalism, in which the transitory stage is analogous to a liminal
period in Victor W. Turners (1967:93111) scheme. However, history is again
conceptualizedasproceedingfromoneclearlydefinedjuncture,socialism,toanequally
determineddestination,capitalism(Buchowski2001a:100116).
Anthropologistsprefertounderstandpostsocialismasthatwhichemergesattheinterface
ofthesocialstructuralframework,whichisproducedbyvarioussocialactors,andthose
individualsactingwithinsuchstructures.Graspingallthesephenomenaisastrenuous
task.Meanwhile,readymadeneoliberalmodelshaveengenderedtheacademicindustry
of transitology. Anthropologists should contest analyses that explain failures of
transformationbysocialistlegaciesorculture.Repeatedly,wefindthatwhatmay
appearasrestorationsofpatternsfamiliarfromsocialismaresomethingquitedifferent:
directresponsestothenewmarketinitiatives,producedbythem,ratherthanremnantsof
anoldermentality(BurawoyandVerdery1999:12;emphasesinoriginal).Because
ethnographersunderstandgrassrootsperspectivesandlocalmeaningstobecentral,
theyanalyzepeoplesexperiencesinanattempttounderstandnativeconceptualizations
andhowtheyareconditionedbyrelationsofpowerbetweensocialactors.

Anthropologistshavealsoarguedagainstneoliberalviewsthathistorycanbeerasedby
applyingshocktherapy,whichdemolishesoldinstitutions,andthateconomicproblems
are caused by the malfeasance and intransigence (Lampland 2002:36) of ordinary
people.Suchneoliberalperspectivescanleadtopathdependencytheory(cf.Starkand
Bruszt1998),aversionofwhichistheinstitutionaleconomistsviewthatdestroying
previous institutions caused difficulties in absorption of postso cialist reforms. This
argumentalsodemonstratesthatpathdependentcausation...isnotjustretrospective.
Priorconditions...shapetoolsforimprovisationincontemporarydailypractice,in
hereandnowofanunmappedandinsecureterrainthatjoinspastwithpossiblefuture
(Kalb2002:323).Thereforeweshouldconceptualizepostsocialismwithinananalytic
perspective that connects local reactions and places to global processes. Moreover,
postsocialism should be viewed in a wider context of postCold War geopolitical
economicpowerrelationsinwhichstrandsof(post)socialism,(post)colonialismand
(neo)imperialismareinterconnected(ChariandVerdery2009).

Thus,anthropologistshavetriedtounderminestereotypicalaccountsoftransformation.
TwoscholarsfromHungaryandtheCzechRepubliccriticallywrite:Assumptionsthat
allsocioeconomicandpoliticaldifficultiesareattributabletothetransitionalperiodhave
sopermeatedresearchonEastCentralEurope,thatitisdifficulttobreakfreewiththeir
premises and legacies . . . it is timely that these assumptions were rigor ously and
entirelydeconstructed(KrtiandSkalnk2009:2).Therefore,anthropologistsmust
contesttheviewthatundesiredphenomena,suchaspoverty,unemployment,andother
collectiveandindividualafflictionsthatemergedinpostsocialismcanbeeitherattributed
totheheritageofsocialismitselfordeficienciesofcapitalism.Inevaluatingtheoutcomes
of transformation some differences are visible between foreign and domestic
perspectives.MostWesternanthropologistshavebeenextremelycriticalaboutthesocial
consequencesofeconomicreforms.AsKrtiandSkalnkargue,certainly,thereare
many social groups that have lost out during transformation, and anthropologists
shouldunmaskthemechanismsbywhichtheyhavesufferedandbeenmarginalized.
However,notallchangeshavebroughtpovertyanddissatisfaction.

Anthropologistsdeconstructionofclichdimagesofpostsocialismcanbeseenacross
variousdomainsofpracticeandanalysis.Next,Iwillconsidersuchattemptstodispel
stereotypesregardingthepoliticalsphere.

CIVILSOCIETY

ThefirstWesternanthropologistswhoventuredintoCentralEuropeduringthesocialist
periodwantedtodenyentrenchedanddistortedrepresentationsofsocialism.Thiswasa
difficult task, since phenomena there were sometimes incomprehensible even to
anthropologists.Todenyethnocentrism,theyattemptedtopresentlocallifeascomplex
andoftenhighlysociable,evenifnotallWesternliberalnotionshadtheircounterpartsin
thesocialistEast.

OnesuchmistakenideaheldbymanyintheWestwasthatcivilsocietydidnotexist
duringsocialism.Therefore,intherushtoimplementanewWesternlikesocialorder,a
whole civilsocietybuilding industry developed. Consultants flooded the region and
helpedtoorganizeNGOs.Theyplayedasignificantroleinassistingpeopleundergoing
turbulent changes and many engaged in civic organizations out of benevolence;
simultaneously,individualsandgroupsonbothendsofthisNGOchainprofited.The
efforttobuildcivilsocietyfromscratchwasbasedontheerroneousassumptionthat
socialist societies were atomized or even in a state of anomie. This image excluded
various institutions that were not considered civic in the Western context, but had
functions similar to civil society under socialism, such as networks of families and
friends,religiousinstitutions,tradeunions,aswellasstatesponsoredorganizationslike
sports clubs, womens leagues, and professional unions (Kubik 2000; Buchowski
2001a:117136).Thesegroupsmobilizedpeopletoactivitiesthatfacilitatedtheirlives
bothlocallyandnationally,counterbalancedthestatesubiquitouspower,andopposed
totalpenetrationofpublicspacebyideologicalpolitics.Civilsocietyshiftsitsplace
in various polities according to circumstances. Anthropological studies on emerging
formsofcivilsocietyinthepostsocialistworldsupportthisconclusionbyshowingthat
these forms depend on historical experiences of collective actions, but also on the
particularsocialsituationinagivencommunityatacertainmomentandofteninrelation
tointernationalagentsandagencies(HannandDunn1996;especiallySampson1996b).

PROPERTYRELATIONS

PropertyisoneofthemostdebatedtopicsinCentralEuropeanpostsocialiststudies,and
was particularly popular in the 1990s, when anthropologists were influenced by the
socialistperiodtofavorresearchinruralissues.Thesheerquantityofstudiesonthe
radicalconsequencesofsystemicchangeinpropertyrelationsimpresses;eachcountry
hasitsexpertsinthisfield:Romania(Verdery2003),Bulgaria(Creed1998),Slovakia
(Danglov2003;Torsello2003),andRussia(Humphrey1998).Thisphenomenonhas
alsobeenputinacomparativeperspective(e.g.LeonardandKaneff2002;Hannetal.
2003).Anthropologists insistthatdecollectivizationandprivatizationoflandinthe
postsocialistworldcannotbereducedtoeconomicprocesses,sincepropertyisabout
socialrelations.Theseincludebothrelationsamongpersonsandthepowerrelationsin
whichpeopleact(Verdery1998:180).Therefore,ownershipchangesimplyenormous
socialandculturaltransformations,andanthropologistscontinuetostudythewaythatthe
materialorder,orinthiscaseland,correlatestopeoplesidentities,values,andthesocial
order.

Perhapstheleastobviouscasecanbestillustratethispoint.InPoland,therevolutionin
agriculture was not as radical as elsewhere, since agriculture was not collectivized.
However, my fieldwork in Dziekanowice, Poland, where private and state properties
coexisted, reveals connections between material and social transfor mations. Private
property,thenaturalnessofwhichneoliberalspropagate,andanthropologistssorightly
criticize,isneverthelessperceivedexactlyasnaturalbymostordinarypeople.This
ownership system has started to shape social relations in a new way. Unlike in the
socialistpast,property,oreconomiccapital,nowgaugesindividualssocialcapital.This
conversionofeconomicintosymbolicvalueiseagerlyacceptedbythosewhoownland.
Thelandlessopposesuchaculturalorderbecauseitdemotesthemtoalowerstatus
withinthecommunity.Theprivatizationofsocialistpropertyalsomeansthatthestate
partiallyabandoneditsliabilitytowardthosewhoworkedonit;privatizationofland
meansalsoprivatizationofsocialsecurity.Formerstatefarmworkersarecommonly
consideredbyothersandthemselvestobethewretchedoftheearthofpostsocialism.
Nowtheyhavetoworkforruralentrepreneursandthishascausedchangesinsocial
structure,relationshipsandidentity.Byretreatingfromthepropertysystem,thestatealso
privatizedsocialaffairsinthesensethatpersonalitiesareconstructedonthebasisof
direct,nonstatemediatedrelationstoothercommunitymembers.Subjectiveindividual
and group identities have been redefined alongside changes in objective property
relations based onthehegemonic ideaofprivate ownership (Buchowski2009).Like
otherpostsocialistprocesses,thesechangesareoftenriddledwithemotionsandworries
aboutlosingoneseconomicandsocialstatus(cf.Svaek2006).

However,ruraldevelopmentcanalsogeneratepositiveemotionsandconsequences.For
example,foreigninvestmentinagribusinessdoesnotnecessarilyinvolveadoomsday
scenario(Krti2009:153).ThecommunityofLajosmizseinHungaryhasundergone
everytypicalagriculturaltransformation,thatis,thecollapseofcollectivizedfarms,
reprivatization, and a change in ownership of companies. Swiss investment in this
community, already known for its rabbit production, was carried out with care and
attentionratherthanexploitationanddestruction(Krti2009:180)andhaschangedthe
communitysinternalsocialrelations.Therabbitprocessingcompanyhasgivenjobsto
many people and suppliers, has proven to be environmentally sensitive, and has
introduced new farming techniques that have made the whole regional industry
successfulandabletocompeteoninternationalmarkets.Thiscaseprovestheabove
mentionedmoreoptimisticviewonpostsocialisttransformationheldbyinsiders.

VANISHINGANDEMERGINGCLASSES

Forneoliberals,therestructuringofclasscompositionhasbecomeanimportantpartof
transformation.DuetothemodernizationoftheagriculturesectorandEuropeanUnion
policies,thereprivatizationoflandshouldnot,accordingtopolicymakers,ultimately
leadtotheruralizationofsociety,buttoanemergenceofruralentrepreneurs.Perceived
by communists as an awkward class that impedes progress, peasants have again
becomeanobsoletesocialgroup,thistimeforcapitalistreformers.Intheireyes,the
reconstructionofindustryshoulddiminishtheimportanceoftheworkingclassthatwas
putonapedestalbycommunistparties,andinmanycountriesactuallybecamealeading
anticommunist force. David Kideckel concludes that today workers are beset by
multidimensional onslaught which leads to and makes visible labors decline in
postsocialismandWesterninfluenceonthatdecline(2008:31).Inthenewsystem,the
middleclasswereexpectedtakethelead,andbuildingitbecameanurgentandlargely
ideologicaltask.

Focusingonthecreationofamiddleclass,consideredsovitalformoderncapitalist
societybyneoliberalreformers,willrevealnotonlythedogmaticnatureofclasssystem
reconstruction,butalsothefragilityofclassasalabel.Forinstance,ifwecombine
EdmundMokrzyckis(1996:193194)andStevenSampsons(1996a:99101)accounts,
thelistofcandidatesforanewmiddleclasswasquitelong:privateentrepreneursand
craftsmenowningsmallventuresundercommunism,formercommunistmanagerswho
skillfullyprivatizedstateassetsintotheirhands,formerwageworkers,peopleactivein
thesecondeconomy,aswellasformerstateemployeeswithtechnicalskillsand
culturalcapitalthatcanbeconvertedintoeconomiccapital,andmembersoftraditional
liberal professionals. To Mokrzycki, the last two groups form a declassed
intelligentsia, an already qualified knowledge class indispensable to a modern
Westerntypesociety.Doallthesegroupsconstituteasocialcategorywecancallclass?
AccordingtotheMarxistcriterionofpropertyrelations,entrepreneursconstituteaclass,
sincetheyownthemeansofproduction.Variousstudiesinthepostsocialistregionsshow
thattheyemployalaborforce,whichmakesthemproducersofcapital(cf.Schrderand
Vonderau2008).However,inmakingsocialdistinctionsoneshouldalsoconsidersocial
and symbolic capital. From this perspective, entrepreneurs comprise a diversified
collectionofpeoplewhohaverootsinvarioussocialmilieusthatspantheworkingclass,
peasantry, intelligentsia, and craftsmen, and whose educa tion ranges from the
elementarytotheuniversitylevel.Somedowellfinancially,whileothersmembershipin
thisclassispersistentlyinfluxastheystruggletomaintaintheireconomicwellbeing.

Ifculture,understoodasnegotiatedreality,helpsustodefineaclass,thenwecansay
thatarenegotiationofculturalmeaningsandnewpatternsofsocialrelationstakeplace
and can potentially lead to the emergence of the new postsocialist middle class
(Buchowski2001b).Entrepreneurspartlyinternalizedtheirnewidentities,butinherited
culture still creates distinctions within this group, which is united by its location in
relation to the means of production and by belonging to the knowledge class.
Consumption, often understood as a unifying factor, cannot forge a sociologi cally
meaningfulcategoryofclassbasedondistributionofwealth,sinceitcanbepracticedby
even more diversified societal groups. Until now, the middle class in postsocialist
societieshasbeenneithergroundedinthesubjectivityofthosewhomightidentifywith
it, nor in the objective conditions of social life economic, social, and cultural
impliedbythenotionofclass.
Thisdiscussiononclassformationordissolutionallowsinsightsintotheroleofculture
duringperiodsofrapidchange.SlobodanNaumovic scasestudyofaSerbiantechnocrat
whoturnedtoprivateentrepreneurshipshedlightonthecomplexitiesofandrelations
between class and culture. People can skillfully use the cultural resources at their
disposal,suchasnetworkoffamilyandfriends,experienceduringcommunismthatgave
them knowledge about the way business actually functions, and acquired economic
educationonfreemarketprinciples.However,suchfindingsshouldnotleadtocultural
determinism, in which culture becomes a shaping factor of human relations and
practices.Tothecontrary,thisresearchshowsthatactionsundertakenbyindividualsin
postsocialistcontextsarecopingstrategiesthatoccurwithinthestructuralframeworkof
postBalkanWarsSerbia,whichNaumovic describesascharacterizedbyconspicuous
corruption, politicking, lack of state protection, inadequate legal frames, and lack of
capitalandcredits.Moreover,thiscasesupportsEricWolfs(1999)viewthatculture
should be treated as rather a resource for than source of economic and other
activities. Thereby the functioning of socioeconomic culture(s) is properly
contextualized,linkedtoactualperiods,processes,andpersons,thenithastobeseenas
neither the only, nor the principal factor that can explain observable behaviour,
particularlyinrapidlychangingpolitical,economic,institutional,andlegalsettings
(Naumovic 2006:119).Culturemattersaslongasitworkstogetherwithsocialevents,
structuralorinstitutionalframeworks,andwithactorsconceptualizationsofevents.In
postsocialism as in any other system people should be not seen as ossified
individuals,butratherasactiveagentswholiveincertainhistoricalcircumstancesthat
determinetheirbehaviorsandwhosimultaneouslycoshapethecontextinwhichthey
live.

TRANSFORMATIONSOFLABORANDPERSONHOOD

MarthaLamplandsresearchonthecommodificationoflaborinHungarydemonstrated
that several processes associated with capitalism also developed under socialism. It
impliedtheconflationoflaborsobjectificationinparticularactsofproductionwithit[s]
moregeneralstatusasthesourceandarbiterofvalue(1995:11).Suchanalogiesbetween
thestructureandfunctioningofcapitalistandsocialistsocietiesenabledanthropologists
totakefurtherstepsinunderminingethnocentricnotions.

However,itistruethatlaborrelationswereredefinedinsocialistcountries.Asalready
mentioned, in postsocialist Dziekanowice, existing social relations prevented rural
workersfromworkingforfarmersforalongtimeaftertheendofsocialism.Thiswas
againsttheirdignitybecauseitviolatedtheirunderstandingofindependenceandequality.
Atthegrassrootslevelthestatehadbeenananonymousemployerandthereforedeemed
superiortoaprivateone.InHungary,accordingtoLampland,thestatefiguredas a
personalizedsubjectincontrasttothedepersonalizedhiddenhandofafreemarketof
todayscapitalism.ThiswasalsothecaseinsocialistPoland,butmoreatthepolitical
level,whereindustrialworkersdirectlyprotestedagainstthepersonalizedPartystate.
However, now, the free market remains incomprehensible and mysterious for rural
proletarians in both Poland and Hungary, while an employer, a farmer or rural
entrepreneur,isavisibleperson,comingoftenfromthesamecommunity.Inthepast,
managersofstatefarmsmerelyactedforthesocialiststateandwereregardedassimilar
tootherworkersthatithired.Nowtheinvisiblemarketisnotthatinvisible,sinceitis
embodiedinatangibleemployer,owner,andmanagerallinone.Forworkersitishard
to appreciate the capitalist model of production relations, incurring further
commodificationoflaborandunfavorablereclassificationofsocialrelations.

Theseissuesalsoariseforfarmers,whohavealwaysgaugedapersonsvaluethrough
work.Forfarmers,workisamaterialpropertyofhumanactors,bearingphysical,
nearlytangiblequalities.Itisalsothetouchstone,thefoundation,ofsubjectivityand
morality(Lampland1995:11).Therefore,laborhasbeenthecornerstoneoffarmers
identity, prosperity, reputation, and merit, and constitutive of their personhood. As
owners,theyfeelindependent andopposetheappropriation oftheir labor.However,
theseconnectionsbetweenlaborandpersonhoodhavebeenweakenedbythefreemarket
relations penetrating economic relationships. The amount of work input no longer
correlates to earnings; the moral capital of a diligent person does not translate into
economic capital. Consequently, effort and labor do not determine consumption
possibilities.Themeritoflaborasmeasureofapersoncollideswithinvisiblemarket
forces.Forfarmersthismeansthedepreciationofthecoreoftheiridentity,thatis,hard
work.

Theprivatizationandmarketizationoftheeconomyisequallyintenseintheindustrial
sector.Socialismwasasystemcharacterizedbyashortageeconomy,andashavinga
shortageoflabor,politicizedconsumption,withstatedictatorshipoverneeds,softbudget
constraintsforcompanies,andclientelism(Verdery1996:1938).Italsoproducedcertain
kindofpersonsthatinretrospectaredescribedbyanthropologistsaspartible,ora
compositeofmultiplerelations,whoareinextricablyembeddedintheirsocialrelations.
Suchpersonscontainageneralizedsocietywithinandarefrequentlyconstructedat
the plural and composite site of the rela tionship that produced them (Strathern
1988:13). (In)dividuals identityis defined bytheir position inthenetworkofsocial
relations.ZnmostiinCzechoslovakia,blatinRussia,protekciinHungaryorznajomo
sci in Poland (Wedel 1986)are conceptual ized as connections toother people that
smoothed everyday life and established persons as composites of social relations. In
capitalismpeopleare perceivedas indi viduals whoare owners oftheirparts,or
qualities(Dunn2004:126).Ofcourse,itshouldbearguedthatintheWestindividuals
functionalsoasdivisible,butpopulardiscourseclaimsthateveryonecanbemeasured
accordingtohisorherintrinsicworth.InthepostFordistsystem,employeesontheshop
flooraregroupedaccordingtotheiraptitude,andworkperformanceismeasuredwith
scientific methods. Persons become detached from social settings and their
classificationbecomeslegitimizedbysupposedlyobjectivegauges.ButasDunnshows
in her ethnography of afoodproducing plant bought bya multinational company in
Poland,femaleworkersresistsuchclassificationbyreferringtotheirsocialconceptionof
theperson.BirgitMllerarrivedatasimilarconclusioninherstudyoftheEastGerman
transformationoflabor.Facedwiththeindividualisticmodelofthemarketeconomy,
whichemphasizedcompetitionandresponsibility,theemployeestriedtoapplyaWe
modelthatprovidedthemwithauthentication(2007:228).

Thisfindingleadstotheissueofhowpoweroperates,sincethecontroloflaborisapart
ofabroadercontrolofpeople.Theindividualizationofpersonsweakensthepowerof
collective actors, so it is not surprising that people defy such redefinition. Under
socialism,powerwasevidentbothinthepoliticaldomainandontheshopfloor.Today,
byshiftingpowerfromthepoliticaltothesupposedlyscientificandrationaldomain,
powercomes fromthe creationofan acceptedversionofreality rather thanfrom
exhortations,overtideologicalformations,orbruteforceandishencelessvisibleand
moredifficulttochallenge(Dunn2001:278).Butthisacquiescenceisnotsoobvious
andpeopleopposesuchcontainmentinvariousways,notonlybyoutwardprotestsand
strikes,butalsoindailypractices.

RESISTANCE

Aswehaveseen,peopleareconstantlyclassifiedbyothers.Theelevationofworkersand
peasants under communism did not necessarily converge with the actual hegemonic
culturalorder.Capitalistreclassificationdealswiththeunemployedanduneducated,too,
whoaremadeaccountablefortheirownpoorpositionandforobliteratingreformsthat
otherwisewouldbringprosperitytoall.Opinionsliketheoneexpressedbyaleading
Polisheconomisthavebecomecommon:ItisnotPolishcapitalismthathasbeenslowed
downinitsdevelopment,butratherthepeoplewhogrewupinthelumpenproletariat
milieu whose lack of standards stopped the process of evolution in the direction of
capitalistnormality!(Winiecki2001).

Social relations always create hierarchies in which some are considered to be more
powerful.Intheprocessofpostsocialisttransformations ithasbecomeapatternthat
victimsofeconomicdownturn,mainlyformerstateandcollectivizedfarmworkersas
well as industrial workers, are held to blame for that same downturn (Kideckel
2002:115) and their own misfortune. The strategy of blaming the victims has been
successfullyimplemented.Such(de)classificationoftherebydeclassedgroupsputsthem
in an inferior position. They are treated as remnants of the past, Homo sovieticus,
immobilizedandexcludedfromhistory.JohannesFabians(1983)ideaofallochronism
that places contemporaneous tribal societies in the times of yore finds its full
implementationinEuropeattheturnofthetwentyfirstcentury.Suchimmobilizationof
socialactorsdeniesthemagency.

Itisnowonderthatthesedegradedgroupsopposethesystemthatisperceivedbythemas
alien, as fitting of the others be they local businessman, national politicians or
international agents of capitalism. In their selfdefense, new outcasts turn to similar
rhetoric of blaming their oppressors, hence reversing the flow of accusations.
Postsocialistsubalternsovertlyreproachelites forthetransformations hardships.But
suchmobilizeddefiancelaborandhungerstrikes,streetdemonstrationsandroad
blockadesexposesthemtofurthercriticism,becausebyprotestingtheypurportedly
provetheirinabilitytounderstandcapitalismandlackofcreativitythroughusingcertain
symbolsepitomizingcollectivesolidarity.Theseactionsandsymbolsareimmediately
described by those more powerful as outmoded postcom munist reactions, thereby
enablingelitestoclassifyresistinggroupsasbackward,populist,andculturallyinferior.
Aparadoxicalconclusionfollows:struggleandresistancearethemselvesimplicatedin
the reproduction of culturally based class dif ferences (Kearney 2004:309). By
opposing the new social order subalterns actively participate in their subordination
engenderedbymaterialrelationsofproductionandlegitimizedbyhegemoniccultural
order(Buchowski2006).Unfortunately,thedisenfranchisedandpoorwhoappearin
mostsocialscientistsworksarepresentedasunabletoadapt,backwards,dependantand
deviant.

Ananthropologicalshiftcanmakethisapparentresignationaproofofculturalactivity;
aproofthatmanypeopleinafullytensewayexperiencewhathappenedafter1989live
it in a way adequate to their culture (Rakowski 2009:17). Rakowskis thorough
monograph,inwhichheempathizeswithhisprimarilypoorresearchparticipantsand
presents their points of view, proves that such a perspective is both humane and
innovative. His research also critiques academic studies of postsocialist deprived
groups for relying on the 1960s notion of a deviant subculture of poverty that
reproduces its ownvalues (cf. Lewis 1959),and, despite its apparent compassion, is
exclusionary,patronizing,anddehumanizingbydenyingagency.

GENDERANDRELIGION

Genderisinherentlyintertwinedwithpowerstructuresandsocialimagesanalytically
placedoutsideofit.Althoughundersocialismgenderequalitywasanofficialpolitical
tenet,thisdidnotmeanthatthisparityexistedintheculturalorderorpractice.Gender
relationshavebeenespeciallywellanalyzedinRomania,whereGailKligman(1998)
showedthatwomenweretreatedbypatriarchalcommunistleadersasconstitutingthe
reproductivemeans,ifnotvessels,ofthenationbuildingproject.Therefore,forexample,
abortionwasillegalthere.Butthiskindofnationalistcommunistpolicywasuniversal.
Despitechurchesprotests,inmostcountriesabortionwaspermitted,butsocialbenefits
forpregnantwomenandmothersofinfantswerealsorelativelygenerous.Thechangeof
regimehasreducedsocialbenefitsandinPoland,abortionrightshavebecomestrictly
restricted.Theendofsocialismhascausedmultipleredefinitionsofgenderrelations;
there is no single path for the whole region. Discourses and politics regarding the
reproductiverealmespeciallyinfluencewomensprofessionalcareers,positionsintheir
familiesandcommunities,engagementinpoliticallife,relationswithmen,andfinally,
theirsubjectivities(cf.GalandKligman2000).

Theseissuesofgender,womensemancipation,andfeminismmustbecontextualized.
Western feminist models do not apply universally, though they were initially and
incorrectlyappliedtophenomenainpostsocialistEurope.Anthropologicalcasestudies
demonstratethatemancipation,inthiscontext,oftenrequiresdifferentactionsthanthose
assumedbyWesterners.AnikaKeinz(2008)showsthatinPoland,womenfirsthaveto
dissociate their cause from the socialist past, which is almost universally denied as
antinational,andreappropriatetheirstruggleforemancipationinotherspheresofpublic
discourse,suchasfamily.Thesedevelopmentsarecontingentuponmanyfactors,suchas
international influences, local understandings of normalcy and womens
understandings of possible courses of action. It turns out that many ideologies and
clandestine,unconsciousscriptsinformnotionsoffeminismandgender.Inotherwords,
postsocialistnotionsoffeminismandgenderarealwaysparticulartotheirlocalcontext.

Such particularity can assume various forms. Monika Baer (2003) studied a busi
nesswomensclubandrightlyconnecteditwiththeissueofclass.Whatonthesurface
looks like women engaging in emancipatory activity proves to be more a class
exclusionaryselfdefinitionanddistinction.However,actualemancipationcanassume
entirelyunexpectedformsthataremarkedlydifferentfromWesternsecularandliberal
feminism.AgnieszkaKos cian ska(2009)publishedanethnographyofhighlyreligious
women,practitionersofaBrahmaKumariscult.Throughsilenceandretreatfromsocial
andsexuallifewiththeirlifepartners,theygainpersonalemancipation.Thesepractices
encourageunderstandingsofwomanhood,agency,andfeminismitselfashavingmultiple
forms that can vary according to context. Though classical feminism does not
recognizesuchreligiouslymotivatedbehaviorasconstitutingemancipation,itisexactly
emancipation that these women achieve through rejecting Westerntype feminism,
perceivedbythemtobeaggressive.Suchradicalreligiosityrepresentsitsownformof
feminism through expressing dissatisfaction in private, rather than public, spaces.
Religion,whichfordiversereasonsissoimportantinthelivesofsomanypeoplein
postsocialistEurope(foranoverviewseeHannetal.2006),functionshereinanentirely
unexpectedway.

MEMORYANDNATION

Memoryisakeyissueinthepostsocialistcontext.Postsocialistpopulationshavebeen
habituallydescribedbymanypoliticalcommentatorsasnostalgic,as Homosovieticus
longingforagloriousandcozybygonelifeworld;thisapproachiscapturedbythe

wellknownGermanterm Ostalgie.However,thisviewrunsafoulofanthropologists
findingsdemonstratingthatthepastismadeinthepresent.

Images of the past are constructed at several levels and by many actors. First, the
constructionofmemoryrelatestohowthenewpost1989politicalauthorities settled
accountswiththeirpredecessors.AccordingtoBorneman(1997:9),bythemid1990s
onecouldobserve(i)aradicalapproachwitharatherweakinsistenceonretributive
justice, that is, only some recognition of the victims and no persecution for the
communistfunctionaries(Poland,Hungary,theCzechRepublic,Slovakia,andSlovenia);
(ii)aminimalchangeintheregimeandvirtuallynoretributivejustice(Serbia,Croatia,
Romania, Russia, and other Soviet Republics excluding the Baltic States); and (iii)
significant regime change, compensation for the victims and persecu tion of the
wrongdoers(Estonia,Latvia,Lithuania,Bulgaria,Albania,andGermany).Suchofficial
policiesvaryaccordingtoanyonecountryspoliticalrelationsandlegalsystem,which
hasitsrootsinpoliticalphilosophy.

Second, initial enthusiasm for change caused an erasure of the past in most Central
European countries. Examples of such erasure include changes in street names, the
removal of communist monuments, erection of new memorials, changes of national
emblems,theexchangeofbanknotesandcoins,theintroductionofnewstateholidays,
thereburialofpreviouslydeniedheroes(remnantsofwhomwereoftenbroughthome
fromabroad),andtherewritingofhistoryintextbooks,documentaryfilms,andpublic
ceremonies.Throughsuchactions,thepoliticsofremembrancebecomessponsoredby
politicalauthoritiesorvarioussocietalgroups;itisinthiscontentiouscontextthatpeople
createandevokememories,whileanthropologiststrytograspthesechangingmeanings.
Peopleexperiencedcommunism,theiractswereembeddedindailylife,andnowthese
encountersareobjectified.Thisisacollectiveprocess,butvariousgroupshavedifferent
rationales for their actions and construct disparate meanings that can vary from the
glorification of the past and the validation of ones youth or life course to total
condemnationandrejectionofcommunism.Overall,thisisatenseprocessduringwhich
bothpastandpresentareinherentlyentwined(cf.Watson1994;Haukanesetal.2004;
Kaneff2004).

Thepoliticsofmemoryisdirectlyrelatedtothequestionofnation.Nationalismand
minorityissueshavealmostbecomehallmarksofpostsocialisttransition,duetothewars
informerYugoslaviaandthecauseoftheRomapeople.Nationalismstudiescomprisea
regionaldisciplineinitself.AdiscussionaboutthepeculiarityofEasternnationalism,
anideathatreachesbackatleasttoHansKohnsbook(1944),andwastoacertainextent
upheldbyErnestGellner(1983),hasbeenunderminedbycontemporarystudies(for
instance,Brubaker1998;Kuzio2001),whichagreewithanthropologistsargumentsthat
inbothpublicdiscoursesandmanyacademicstudies,nationalandethnicidentitiesare
essentializedandpostsocialistsocietiesexoticized.Moreattentionmustbepaidtothe
localcontextsthatmadeethnicatrocitiespossible,especiallyintheBalkans(cf.Halpern
andKideckel2000).Suchessentializingpracticesascribepeopletoonefixed,primordial
ethnonationalidentity.However,identitiesdonotexistoutthere,somehowpreceding
collective practices or deter mining cultural configurations. Additionally, the
significanceofboundariesbetweencommunitiesistoalargeextentnegatedbyactual
practices, through which national and ethnic identities are constantly produced and
recreated. Essentializers ignore multiple forms of social life, the multivocality of
statements,andthemulticulturalcontextsorrangeofsocialsettingsinwhichpeopleact.
These phenomena are espe cially visible in the context of migration, another major
researchquestionthatIcannotaddressduetospace(butseeWallaceandStola2001;
Keough2006).Peoplemanipulatetheiridentitiesaccordingtocircumstances,interestor
eventransitoryfeelings.Manyexperts(e.g.Stewart1997)haveshownthatRomatendto
beflexibleinthusmanipulatingtheiridentities,thoughtheyareatthesametimesubject
tomanydiscriminatorypractices,andtheirpositionhasactuallydeterioratedsincesocial
isttimes.

Inthiscontext,whereidentitiesarefluidandintimatelylinkedtothepastandtothe
nation,warethnographyhasbecomeahotlydiscussedtopic.Croatiananthropologists
triedtogiveanaccountoftheviolenteventsinwhichtheybecameunavoidablyinvolved.
Theirradicalformofanthropologyathomepresentedareactiontointernationallack
ofunderstandingofthewarinCroatia(Capomegac2002:104).Theywereeven
accusedbysomeWesternersofpracticingnationalpropaganda(Greverus1995).The
point Croatian anthropologists tried to make in twoimportant books (Feldman et al.
1993;Jambreic KirinandPovrzanovic 1996)wasthatthelivedexperienceofviolence
isrecognized...asahighlyundesirablebutalmostinevitableessentializingcategory
whichdecisivelydefinesidentitiesinspatial/territorialterms(Povrzanovic 2000:154,
emphasis in original). Sensitive to issues of shifting identities, anthropological
representation, ethnographic author ity, engaged anthropology, and autoethnography,
theyconveyedamessagethatgavevoicetopeoplewhoexperiencedviolence.However,
their own voice was immediately classified as disguised nationalism always already
presentintheBalkans(Bowman1994),asifthisphenomenonwasmiraculouslyinherent
interritoryandpeople,includinganthropologists.InesPricaironicallycommentedthat
thesescholarscriticismrecreatedthegeneral,criticalanddeconstructiveparadigmof
imagined national identity which, supported by precivilized forms of consciousness,
turnsintobloodshedbearsthetracesofthesamemythicconsciousnessitissoeagerto
proscribe (Prica 1995:10; emphasis in original). In other words, Western scholars
attemptstounmaskthehiddennationalismofCroatianscholarswhogaveaninsiders
viewofthewarturnedouttobesuffusedwithentrenchedimagesaboutthechauvinist
East, as rep resented by local anthropologists. It is as if the Western scholars said:
Whateveryoudo,youcannotescapeyournatureanddestiny.

CONCLUSION

Pricas point brings us back to the issue of Central and Eastern European ethno
anthropologists assumed preoccupation with national issues, and hierarchies of
knowledge produced in centers and on peripheries. The orientalization of the
postsocialistregionhardensdiscoursessodeeplythateventhosewhotrytodeconstruct
them, that is, local anthropologists, are accused of contributing to their hard ening,
simplybecausetheyareseenasEasternersthemselves.Itishightimetobreakwiththe
sheerinequalityofthismodel,orelseanthropologywillremainamerepartofwider
relations ofpowerbetweenEastandWest.Therefore,inthis chapterIhavetriedto
mergethesehorizonsofcenterandperipherybyconsideringtheseperspectiveswith
equalweight.Ialsohopethatbyshowingseveralanthropologicalcasestudiesithas
becomeclearthatthedeeplyentrenchedexoticizationofpostsocialistEuropeisnotonly
ethnocentric,butalsofabricatedandmisleading.Popularimagesaboutsocialisthabits
andculturalpatterns(ofteninventedandstereotypicalthemselves)donotdojusticeto
thepotentialofpeopletobesocialagents.Globaltransformationshavecauseddramatic
changes at both individual and societal levels and have transformed identities and
practices; these changes are practiced and lived by actual individuals in these
postsocialist contexts, and as such, their voices must be heard, including those of
postsocialistanthropologists.Towardthisend,itisnecessarytomergeperspectives
fromtheEastandWestinordertocreateatrulyequalandinnovativeanthropology
inCentralandEasternEurope.

NOTES

1IwouldliketothankJessicaRobbinsforhervaluablecommentsandhelpinwriting
thistextincomprehensibleEnglish.IwrotethispaperasaseniorfellowatCollegium
BudapestInstituteforAdvancedStudy,whereinspring2010Iworkedontheproject
AnthropologyofEuropeanPostsocialism:ModesofInventionandRepresentation.

REFERENCES
Baer,Monika2003WomensSpaces:Class,Gender,andtheClub.AnAnthropological
Studyofthe

TransitionalProcessinPoland.Wrocaw:UniwersytetWrocawski.Bahro,Rudolf

1977ZurKritikdesrealexistierendenSozializmus.Cologne:BundVerlag/Frankfurtam
Main:EuropischeVerlagsanstalt.

Bettelheim,Charles1969AppendixI.Theoreticalcomments. In UnequalExchange.A
StudyoftheImperial

ismofTrade.ArghiriEmmanuel,ed.pp.271322.NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress.
Borneman,John

1997SettlingAccounts:Violence,Justice,andAccountabilityinPostsocialistEurope.
Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Bowman, Glen1994 Xenophobia, Phantasy, and the Nation: The Logic of Ethnic
ViolenceinFormer

Yugoslavia.InTheAnthropologyofEurope:IdentityandBoundariesinConflict.Vic

toriaA.Goddard,JosepR.Llobera,andCrisShore,eds.pp.143171.Oxford:Berg.
Brandtstdter,Susanne

2007TransitionalSpaces:PostsocialismasaCulturalProcess.CritiqueofAnthropology
27:131145.

Brubaker,Rogers1998MythandMisconceptionsintheStudyofNationalism. In The
StateoftheNation.

John S. Hall, ed. pp. 272306. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buchowski,
Micha

2001aRethinkingTransformation:AnAnthropologicalPerspectiveonPostSocialism.
Poznan:Humaniora.

ANTHROPOLOGYINPOSTSOCIALISTEUROPE83

2001bEncounteringCapitalismataGrassRootLevel:ACaseStudyofEntrepreneursin
WesternPoland. In PolandBeyondCommunism:TransitioninCriticalPerspective.
MichaBuchowski,EdouardConte,andCaroleNagengast,eds.pp.281305.Fribourg:
FribourgUniversityPress.

2006 The Spectre of Orientalism in Europe: From Exocitized Other to Stigmatized

Brother.AnthropologicalQuarterly79:463482.

2009PropertyRelations,Class,andLabourinRuralPoland.In PostsocialistEurope:
AnthropologicalPerspectivesfromHome.LszlKrtiandPeterSkalnk,eds.pp.51
75.NewYork:Berghahn.

Burawoy, Michael, and Katherine Verdery, eds.1999b Uncertain Transition:

EthnographiesofChangeinthePostsocialistWorld.

Lanham,MD:RowmanandLittlefield.Buyandelgeriyn,Manduhai

2008PostPostTransitionTheories:WalkingonMultiplePaths.AnnualReviewof
Anthropology37:23550.

Capomegac,Jasna2002PetrifiedModelsand(Dis)Continuities:CroatianEthnologyin
the1990s.InDie

WendealsWende?OrientirungenEuropischerEthnologiennach1989.KonradKstlin,
PeterNiedermller,andHerbertNikitsch,eds.pp.94109.EuropischeEthnologie23.
Vienna:VerlagdesInstitutsfrEuropischeEthnologie.

Chari,SharadandKatherineVerdery2009ThinkingBetweenthePosts:Postcolonialism,
Postsocialism,andEthnographyafter

theColdWar.ComparativeStudiesinSocietyandHistory51:634.Chirot,Daniel,ed.

1989TheOriginsofBackwardnessinEasternEurope:EconomicsandPoliticsfromthe
MiddleAgesuntiltheEarlyTwentiethCentury.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Conte,Edouard,andChristianGiordano1999PathwaysofLostRurality:Reflectionson
PostSocialism.InEswareinmal

dieWende...SozialerUmbruchderlndlichenGesellschaftenMittelundSdosteu
ropas.EdouardConteandChristianGiordanoeds.pp.533.Berlin:CentreMarcBloch.

Creed, Gerald1998 Domesticating Revolution: From Socialist Reform to Ambivalent

Transitionina

BulgarianVillage.UniversityPark:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress.Danglov,Olga
2003DecollectivizationandSurvivalStrategiesinaPostSocialistCooperativeFarm.
AnthropologicalJournalonEuropeanCultures12:3156.

Dunn,Elizabeth2001Carrots,Class,andCapitalism:EmployeeManagementinaPost
SocialistEnter

prise. In Poland Beyond Communism. Transition in Critical Perspective. Micha

Buchowski, Eduard Conte, and Carole Nagengast, eds. pp. 259279. Fribourg: Uni
versityPress.

2004PrivatizingPoland:BabyFood,BigBusinessandtheRemakingofLabor.Ithaca,
NY:CornellUniversityPress.

Fabian,Johannes1983TimeandtheOther:HowAnthropologyMakesItsObject.New
York:Columbia

UniversityPress.Feldman,LadaCale,InesPrica,andRenataSjenkovic ,eds.

1993Fear,Death,andResistance:AnEthnographyofWar,Croatia19911992.Zagreb:
InstituteofEthnologyandFolklore,MatrixCroatica,XPress.

84MICHABUCHOWSKI