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

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

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

A Different Kind of Knowledge? Learning Anthropology in the Greek University System

Alexandra Bakalaki

Abstract
Students drawn to anthropology value it more as a discourse providing a critical perspective on nationalist, ethnocentric representations of Greek society than as a source of knowledge about others. They appreciate the highly-regarded theoretical discourse of 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 objectifies their distance from underdevelopment and tradition. The teachers of anthropology need to transcend bureaucratic notions such as the cost-effectiveness and marketability of knowledge in order to reclaim teaching as a process that involves them and their students as ethical and political subjects. In addition to turning the attention of students to study other societies and to document diversity in Greece in an effort to redress the problematic conflation of anthropology in Greece with the anthropology of Greece, anthropologists should also combat a tendency among students to essentialize cultural differences, to culturalize social inequalities that result from exclusionary practices, and to assume that it is natural for anthropologists to seek others among the less powerful and privileged.

Discussions about the status and prospects of anthropology in Greece have mainly focused on the disciplines profile and history in the Greek university system and on the drawbacks or challenges of fieldwork at home because Greece has been the specialty focus of most Greek anthropologists (Bakalaki 1997; Gefou-Madianou 1993a, 1993b, 1998, 2000; Panopoulos 2003; Papataxiarchis 1999; Tsaoussis 1985). This paper will contribute to these discussions by slightly shifting the focus onto another substantive issue of teaching and learning anthropology in Greecenamely, the notions about the nature, aims, and relevance of anthropological knowledge among university students. There are several university departments that offer undergraduate and graduate degrees in anthropology as well as elective courses
Journal of Modern Greek Studies 24 (2006) 257283 2006 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

257

258

Alexandra Bakalaki

for students who do not major in anthropology. These anthropology departments vary in terms of their curricula and overall theoretical and epistemological orientations (Gefou-Madianou 2000:264; Panopoulos 2002:198200; Papataxiarchis 1999:233241).1 However, despite these differences and the differences arising from gender, class, and other distinctions among students, it is still possible to cautiously generalize about the anthropological knowledge made available to the students and their response to it. My generalizations here are not based on empirical research. They are based on my experience as an anthropology instructor and the experience of other colleagues in Greece.2 My initial premise is that teaching and studying anthropology is a challenging but productive process. Misunderstandings that occur in the classroom can be as frustrating and instructive as any misunderstandings that occur in the field. The dissemination of disciplinary knowledge is essential for the growth and reproduction of academic disciplines, such as anthropology. However, as disciplinary knowledge and its theories travel, they are often transformed in ways that are unintended or unbeknown to their carriers (Yang 1996:96). When anthropologists design a course syllabus, they face some hard choices over the selection of topics and texts, but also over the question of adapting the course to the local mindset/traditions and student expectations (cf. Cliffords 1998:191). But plan as one may, operations [] inevitably entail effects that could never be anticipated in the planning (Strathern 2002:xvii). What teachers plan to communicate in the classroom does not always get across. Students interpret the information that they receive in the context of their own concerns, and they evaluate its relevance according to criteria that may vary from those of their professors. In turn, the professors understanding of local conditions and student needs or expectations may differ from that of the students. Attending to the ways in which anthropology is disseminated and (re)produced in the Greek university system may revitalize teaching practices in higher education in Greece, but it may also contribute to rethinking teaching as a coordinate of anthropological praxis. Relevant irrelevances Concernswhich were prevalent in the 1980sabout the relation between anthropological representations and the people or processes represented, are being superseded by concerns about the self-representations and future prospects of anthropology itself. It has been increasingly taken for granted that these prospects are being undermined by a crisis of relevance from which the discipline is suffering. The discipline, of course, subsumes a wide variety of theoretical perspectives and practices

A Different Kind of Knowledge?

259

that are pursued by people from different social settings and institutions with different professional identities and goals (Moore 1996:1). Relevance is a term that can be vague or confusing unless it is used to ask specifically: Relevant for whom? And relevant for what? But also, relevant in what sense? (Melhuus 2002:73). Idiomatic Greek has no equivalent synonym for relevance, but it has an equivalent antonym. Aschetosni (), aschetla (,) and kama schsi ( ) are part of the everyday language. The first two words could be translated as irrelevance or unrelatedness, and the last one as no relation. All of them are colloquialisms; they have a broad range of meanings and a wide field of application. However, they essentially remain terms of protest. As empty or overflowing signifiers, they refer to disagreeable situations, experiences, or qualities displayed by people and things which are meaninglessin the sense that they are trivial, boring, useless, strange, unpredictable, redundant, or hard to contextualize. In addition, they are also used to characterize (a) people, especially in positions of power, who are lacking in knowledge, skill or social sensitivity; and (b) situations resulting from the actions of such people. University students often use the word irrelevant (scheto/ ) to characterize both the knowledge that they receive and the formal procedures they are subjected to at each level of the educational system. The term implies multiple disjunctures between the formal and substantive aspects of education on the one hand, and the students own curiosities and perceptions of what counts as valuable knowledge in the outside world on the other. Listening to these students, I often get the sense that they view student life, if not life as a whole, as a ritual procession of irrelevancies. Over the years I have become increasingly empathetic with the students disillusionment. I have grown interested in the processes by which student disillusionment is reproduced and I have become concerned about the ways in which it might be addressed. I have also found that students are more likely to give anthropology a chance when they see it as a way of comprehending their own society rather than when they view it as knowledge about distant other peoples and places. Clearly, from this perspective, the understanding that the identification of anthropology in Greece with the anthropology of Greece constitutes an imbalance (Gefou-Madianou 2000:270272; Panopoulos 2003:200202; Papataxiarchis 1999:241244) in the students appreciation of anthropology as a source of knowledge about their familiar social world is disquieting. Although I share this understanding, I do not believe that the imbalance may be addressed or redressed by rhetorical reiterations of the dangers of introversion and parochialism, or by appeals to the self-evident

260

Alexandra Bakalaki

values of extroversion and cosmopolitanism. Rather, I find that it is important to think deeper on the implicit meanings and values of knowledge about the self, and on the processes and conditions which reinforce its primacy over knowledge about others. A new and modern discipline Historically speaking, the introduction of anthropology to Greek universities was part of a broader shift toward the diffusion of the discipline in developing and third-world countrieswhich had previously been of interest only as objects of anthropological attention. From a local perspective, it has been a symbol of modernity, serving the most advanced versions of . . . an ambiguous Westernization (Papataxiarchis 1999:233). The political, economic, administrative, and socio-cultural change which modernized the Greek university system began after the fall of the junta in 1974 and accelerated after Greece was integrated into the European Community in 1981, and after the passing of the 1982 Reformatory Law for Higher Education Institutions (Gefou-Madianou 1993:163166, 2000:258). As in other developing countries to which anthropology was introduced relatively recently, the faculty who worked for its establishment in the Greek university system were mainly natives who had specialized in the study of their own society, and had returned home after having studied abroad at universities outside of Greece. Despite current misgivings about introversion, it must be acknowledged that, for most Greek senior anthropologists trained in Western Europe and in the United States, home research was a prospect to which they turned with enthusiasm. Undertaking it enabled them (a) to position themselves both as witnesses of and as participants in the political, social, and economic transformations of Greece in the 1970s, and (b) to engage in the emergent anthropological discussion concerning the dichotomy between self and other (Bakalaki 1997:506509; GefouMadianou 1993a, 2000:254). Ong suggests that the kinds of theories scholars deploy secure them membership in particular modernities (1996:84). Surely, modernities sometimes change in unpredictable ways, and some proponents of modernization may feel betrayed by the modernity to which they aspired. But this is hindsight. The Greek western-trained anthropologists who started returning to Greece in the 1980s had, in Gefou-Madianous phrase (1993a) mirror[ed] ourselves on western texts. The personal pronoun refers both to our fieldwork sites as parts of our own society inhabited by fellow natives, and to our own intellectual and professional profiles. Financial constraints, the unavailability of job opportunities in Greece for

A Different Kind of Knowledge?

261

anthropologists specializing in areas outside the home state, and other practical considerations notwithstanding, our decision to undertake home fieldwork was also motivated by our disillusionment over the ethnocentric discourses then dominant in Greece, and by our desire to see our own history and society in a new light and from a modern perspective. After all, more than any other discipline involved in Modern Greek studies, anthropology can take well-deserved credit for a continuous line of reflection and reformulation, and a quite consistent tradition of debate and dissent (Lambropoulos 1989:16). Far from unique, our commitment to what Visweswaran (1994:101104) has aptly called homework was common among fellow students from the developing world. If not actively encouraged, it was also at least tolerated by our teachers, who were quite eager to accept home research dissertation proposals from foreign students. After all, our own society was not owned by our teachers or anthropology. It was largely through the prism of anthropological conceptualizations of cultural difference, that we became aware of the otherness of our society and of our own status as natives (Bakalaki 1997; Shahrani 1994). Trained abroad, involved in the study of our own society, which, however, had already been subject to the gaze of important western ethnographers, and having undertaken the introduction of anthropology to the Greek university, we have cast ourselves as heirs to prestigious disciplinary traditions, as representatives of a native counter-perspective and as rebellious contesters of the conservative academic establishment. These contextual identities have rested on our status as junior faculty vis--vis those in whose footsteps we followed, or whose authority we challenged. At the same time, concentrating on the study of our own society, a field shared by long-established traditional disciplines like folklore or history, seemed an effective strategy by which we might challenge the hegemony of these disciplines. Finally, deploying the relevance of the anthropological study of our own society enabled us to negotiate the skepticism of conservative academics about anthropology, but also to substantiate our own claims of access to the academic establishment as innovators. The anthropology we envisioned introducing to Greece was, like ourselves, young, and new and modern (na, ). Even when we began to age, we kept deploying practically every positive meaning these metaphors may have. We have imaged anthropology as emergent and, therefore, delicate, and in need of support from the academic establishment, but also as vigorous, exciting, innovative, and potentially subversive. Commenting on views of anthropology widely shared among Greek folklorists and historians, Papataxiarchis (2002:7172) has isolated three

262

Alexandra Bakalaki

stereotypes: The first stereotype conflates anthropology with folklore; the second construes it as complementary to folklore and other disciplines, especially history, and a third one represents it as a seductress (xelogistra/). Introducing a French textbook translated into Greek, Tsibiridou (2003:14) likens anthropology to a journey in the course of which one meets a witch of our times. These metaphors are richly ambiguous. They portray anthropology as attractive and tempting, but also as subversive, liminal, marginal, or even illegitimate in relation to older, more established, or harder disciplines. As Papataxiarchis (2002:72) notes, the seductress metaphor reduces anthropology to a variety of post-structuralism or to a soft antidote to hard positivistic paradigms (see also Gefou-Madianou 2000:264266; Papataxiarchis 1999:234). In addition, these images also invite us to think about the encounter with anthropology as a catalyst for departures or escapes from familiar environs and recommended straight but narrow paths. When addressing younger people, it is common among older ones to bracket the memory of their own youth. Likewise, it is common among teachers to emphasize the differences between themselves and their students and to resist comparisons which may question such differences. Despite the years that have passed and the now different conditions under which Greek students get an education, I think that their responses may be comparable to the responses of the former students who were attracted to anthropology several decades ago. To a large extent they viewed anthropology as a discourse that promised a perspective from which they might question official hegemonic narratives on Greek culture and society, and to criticize the institutional practices by which these narratives were reproduced. The students sense that the educational system subjects them to a great variety of irrelevances makes some of them susceptible to the charms of anthropology as a different kind of knowledge and practice. Discredited myths and failed expectations (from bracelets to toilet paper) Like any university student population, the Greek one is not homogeneous. However, students do share certain characteristics which, apart from their age, are traceable to their having been raised with the ideal of obtaining a university degree, and to their having been processed by the same rigid bureaucratic education system. Although higher education is tuition-free in Greece, it is still quite expensive. For example, students need at least two years of private tutoring in order to prepare for the university entry examinations which are administered annually

A Different Kind of Knowledge?

263

by the Ministry of National Education and Religion. Those who pass the entry exams and are admitted to various university departments away from their home towns incur living and travel expenses to attend school.3 Nevertheless, despite the cost and the high rates of unemployment among graduates, university is still considered a necessary interim step in the course of a long process that begins with elementary school and ideally leads to ones employment or accommodation (taktopoisi/ ), which is preferably a permanent white collar job (GefouMadianou 2000:274, n.8, with references to Tsoukalas 1986:119, 128 and 1996:31). Except for fields like medicine, where competition is very high, the departments in which students are finally placed are those in which they manage to meet the entry exams grade point average and for which they may have little or no interest. Not surprisingly, they view this as a compromise. However, the male students who include the humanities and the social sciences in the sliding scale of their preferred fields, are fewer than the female students. In all Greek universities women are the majority of enrolled students in anthropology courses. The policy of the Greek government, which is European-oriented and, to a large extent, funded by the European Union, aims at broadening both the scope and the base of Greek higher education. This policy has largely been promoted in the name of the need to establish closer links between higher learning institutions and the market.4 Nevertheless, the market value of university degrees in well-established fields has been steadily diminishing. As for the employment prospects of anthropology graduates, they have been poor from the beginning. Commonly called harti ()meaning documents or papersuniversity diplomas are also referred to as toilet paper (kolharta/). The metaphor points out that these diplomas, instead of testifying to marketable knowledge or skill, document the failed expectations of those who have invested money, time, and effort to obtain them. This metaphor also contrasts sharply with the now pass metaphor of the university degree as a bracelet (vrahili/), an inalienable, valuable possession which marks status and upward mobility. The integration of new fields of study in the university system has also been accompanied by a liberal rhetoric which presents education as the road to self-fulfillment and personal growth. However, the bureaucratic constraints imposed on university institutions remain hard and rigid, and the infrastructure necessary for their function is often limited. The sense of disjuncture between this modern rhetoric and the reality in most Greek universities, reinforces the students sense that the university caters mainly to the accommodation of its gate-keepers, and that for

264

Alexandra Bakalaki

themselves, higher education is a transitional phasecomparable to military servicein which draftees are temporarily trapped. Between cultural critique, common sense, and grand theory Casting the university in terms of the experiences they have gone through, more of the same (mi ap ta dhia/ ), first year undergraduate students usually resort to the strategies by which they managed to meet the demands of high school and university entry exams. Doing as little reading as possible during the semester, they cram before the finals trying to memorize as much as they can. When presented with questions that do not request factual data but some kind of interpretation, they fall back on a wide range of taken-for-granted essentialisms, inculcated during their primary and secondary education. Along with various forms of geographic, biological or psychological determinism, and assumptions about the nature of progress that increases with civilization, students resort to clichs concerning the superiority of the Hellenic civilization and the continuities between Ancient and Modern Greek culture. This is hardly surprising, given the persistent ethnocentrism of the Greek education system, a longstanding orientation that played a significant role in obstructing the emergence of anthropology and social science in general (Gefou-Madianou 1993a:163164, 2000:257258; Papartaxiarchis 1999:232233).5 However, apart from reflecting the education to which they have been exposed, the students recourse to ethnocentric, nationalist clichs also reflects their experience-grounded understanding that academic knowledge is as irrelevant to them as their own responses are to what they were taughtfrom the perspective of the formal approach of school textbooks and the requirements of the exam-oriented education system (Kondogiannopoulou-Polydorides, Kottoula and Dimopoulou 2000). A student said the following in a class: Of course, we know we are not really the direct descendents of Pericles and Socrates; but up to now we assumed thats what we were supposed to say, and if saying it has made our life easier, whats the harm? Another student who failed an exam said the following: I personally disagree with the idea that tradition runs in our blood. I dont believe its true. But I thought that in a formal exam that was what I was supposed to write. Sooner or later students realize that ethnocentric clichs will not earn a passing grade for them. Some students replace clichs with ideas that may seem equally irrelevant to them, but they believe that they would at least get them a passing grade. However, some of these students were shocked when their common sense notions were challenged and

A Different Kind of Knowledge?

265

subjected to critique. In that case, initial disbelief at being encouraged to question truths that were taken for granted was transformed into expectant curiosity. Students are attracted to anthropology because they perceive it as a radical, subversive discourse, which empowers them to question dominant representations of Greek society and history, and perhaps to understand the processes of their construction and their ideological functions. In short, they appreciate anthropological thinking as a cultural critique. However, their interest in their own society is not necessarily accompanied by interest in learning about other societies. Assuming that such knowledge is auxiliary rather than essential to understanding themselves, they are content with reducing the relevance of the cross-cultural perspective to bare and abstract antiethnocentric principlesfrom the perspective of which they may criticize the ideological underpinnings of other disciplines also represented in the curriculum. In part, the offering of elective courses in anthropology reflects the conservative image of anthropology being tied to long-established and better-known disciplineslike history, archaeology, and folklore. But these electives also appear legitimate from the perspective of contemporary epistemological and institutional developments toward interdisciplinarity or multidisciplinarity (Panopoulos 2003:196197; Papataxiarchis 1999:233234). However, representatives of the disciplines with which anthropology coexists, are often doubtful about the value of cross-cultural study. As Gefou-Madianou (2000:269) notes, [e]ven in the classroom, material concerning African, Melanesian, South American ethnography is criticized by many non-anthropologists as irrelevant. The fact that anthropologys cross-cultural or comparative perspective is superfluous from the point of view of other disciplines, undermines the prospects of interdisciplinary exchanges. Moreover, it misleads students to think that the relevance of anthropology lies in its potential to contribute to the self-evidently relevant prospect to which more established disciplines are committedi.e., the study of Greek history, society, and culture. These difficulties are compounded by the fact that the terminological vocabulary of anthropology overlaps in part with the vocabulary of other disciplines, but also with that used in everyday language (see Strathern 1987; Bakalaki 1997:512514). Notions like culture, society, individual, social relations, or identity are common in all three contexts, but both their meanings and the purposes to which they are used may be very different. However, at least initially, students tend to assume that these notions refer to social realities modeled after the here and now that they are familiar with. For example, they tend to conflate culture with civilizationboth can be rendered as politisms

266

Alexandra Bakalaki

() in Greekto assume that cultures are bounded entities co-extensive with nations, or that society and the individual refer to two entities which are inherently oppositional. The most obvious way to subvert these assumptions is by offering courses of a comparative orientation. With the exception of Greek ethnography, it is standard practice for most courses to integrate cross-cultural data in the context of topics like kinship, gender, religion, or politics. However, ethnographic courses on areas other than Greece are few, and they concentrate mainly on geographical subdivisions within which Greece itself is situatedthe Mediterranean, Europe, or the Balkans. Among the reasons for this are the specializations and interests of Greek anthropologists, but, more importantly, the shortage of ethnographic texts in Greek.6 This shortage means that students have to make do with the ethnographic data presented in the classroom. In the context of thematic courses, such data serve the purpose of illustrating cultural variation, or of exemplifying theoretical points, but their presentation is usually fragmentary. In addition, because they are orally transmitted, they also seem somewhat arbitrary, or lacking in objectivity. Disconnected from any actual context, they seem distant, abstract, and academic, in other words, irrelevant. Under these conditions, many professors resort to showing ethnographic films. However, film screenings are not always easy to fit in the course schedule and the facilities for showing films are often lacking. Moreover, no matter how useful films may be, they cannot substitute for the reading of texts on ethnography (see Firth 1992:221). The difficulties involved in effectively presenting ethnographic material reinforce the assumption that ethnography and theory are two different enterprises, the former being handmaiden to the latter. For many students the prospect of being presented with theoretical generalizations is part of a positive expectation that they have from anthropology, namely that it will provide them with answers to broader questions, like those concerning, for example, the constitution of human nature, the causes of social change and inequality, or the emergence and reproduction of cultural difference. Faced with what they take to be repetitive illustrations of cultural variation, they grow impatient: What is the point of learning that the X-group does this and the Y-group does that, if this knowledge does not lead to any definite conclusion, and if two interpretations cancel each other out?7 A student who enrolled in my course on Economic Anthropology said to me recently:
No offense, but Dimitris and I have decided not to attend your lectures. We will do the required reading, and also read some additional texts on

A Different Kind of Knowledge?

267

political economy. We are interested in theoretical perspectives, especially the theory of transformation [of modes of production]. What you give us in class is fine, but there is too much detail, too much specific information on who does what. We would rather concentrate on theory.

Theory is often shorthand for causal explanations and patterns which students take to be politically relevant. For example, those students who are closer to the Communist Party are both curious and suspicious about the reason why anthropologists are generally hostile to uni-linear evolutionary schemes. Those students who are closer to feminism are curious about universal accounts concerning the roots for the oppression of women. Such students, who are few and usually above average in terms of aptitude, are often disappointed by the fragmentary nature of anthropological knowledge and the emphasis on the partiality and position of ethnographic accounts. However, students who perceive anthropology as a primarily theoretical discourse often develop an interest in contemporary perspectives, which question ethnographic authority and focus on the contexts and conventions of the production of anthropological representations. Unfortunately, the students lack of familiarity with classical, conventional approaches and realist ethnography interferes with their ability to put contemporary theoretical viewpoints in perspective, and to appreciate the ways in which they build on older models and/or challenge, transform, or re-invoke them in different guises. The emergent impression is that the history of anthropology constitutes a linear trajectory, whereby older ideas are being replaced by new more interesting ones. Students generally complain that theoretical texts are difficult to read even in translation. However, this does not necessarily mean that they think these texts are irrelevant in the sense of uninteresting or indifferent. I have often found that the impenetrability of the anthropological jargon inspires not only avoidance, but also respect, because it is seen as emblematic of a highly specialized, prestigious discourse. Reiterating sophisticated theoretical terms gives some students pleasure and even a sense of power, precisely because they feel that these theoretical terms are beyond their grasp (see Karim 1996:130). Studying others is a luxury we cannot afford Time and again, when trying to impress on students that anthropology is a cross-cultural discipline, I am faced with the retort: And you, where did you do fieldwork? The fact that I have not practiced what I preach is only one of the reasons why it is difficult to subvert their notions about the value of anthropology as self-knowledge. Students often explicitly state

268

Alexandra Bakalaki

that they have little interest in learning about peoples who are backward, marginal, parochial, peripheral to the modern world, who are excluded from it, or who are simply becoming extinct. However, this is not because they situate their own society at the center of the modern world. A first-year student from a farming family in central Macedonia, who was attending my introductory anthropology course at the University of the Aegean in Mytilini confided:
When I go back to the village I am embarrassed to tell people that I study anthropology, because they dont even know the meaning of the word. When they ask me what it is about, I tell them that we learn about tribes and things and then I get even more embarrassed.

And he added in self-irony:

Not only am I putting effort, time, and money into a degree that is worthless from the point of view of the job market, but I make a fool of myself learning about primitivesas if our own village were Paris.

Another student who had taken three of my courses in at the University of Thessaloniki and was preparing for graduate study in history in Denmark said:
Greece is not a large country, nor is it modern and developed like the U.S.A, England, France or Germany. The people in these countries have easy access to the rest of the world. They can be interested in what is happening in Indonesia, but the people in places like Indonesia cannot afford to become interested in the lifestyles of other third world countries. They have problems of their own, they have to look after themselves first. We are still at that stage. Plus, it is interesting to learn about Greece, because so much here has changed. During class, when you mentioned things about rural or traditional ways, I remembered my grandmother; I have heard a lot from her about what life in the village was like. I think to myself, we have come a long way, but then I think there is still a long way more to go.

The above students question the value of learning about primitive or third world peoples on the basis of the understanding that finding such knowledge interesting is the prerogative of those people who are securely situated in modernity. Interestingly, they both claim a modern perspective for themselvesa perspective from which they can discern the distance between their own society and the modern world. The first student assumes an outsiders position from which his village seems parochial, while the second student assumes the perspective of a subsequent developmental stage from which Greece lags behind. As Herzfeld (1982, 1987, 1991, 1997) and other ethnographers have noted (Bakalaki 1994, 1992; Cowan 1992, 1998), among Greeks reflexivity about

A Different Kind of Knowledge?

269

the nation-state, society, and various aspects of everyday life has been predicated on comparisons between Greece and the modern west, as well as on perceptions of the ways in which modern westerners perceive and evaluate Greeks and their ways. While for students Greek ethnography is relevant because of its subject matter, it is also attractive because it is part of a modern, western discourse which is still new to the Greek academia. The idea that the study of others is relevant from the perspective of modern, developed societies enables them to construe their own society as not having reached that stage. At the same time, viewing their own society as an object of anthropological study, allows them to assume an outsiders position by distancing themselves from underdevelopment. In other words, the cultural self about whom students are eager to learn, is a self they would rather leave behind. However, the prospect of such distancing can be disquieting when it is interpreted as a sign of estrangement from ones cultural roots. The religiously minded and the politically conservative are not the only ones who express worry. The student who posed the following question, described himself as a Marxist:
If we really manage to get used to what you call relativism, and we get to see other people as they see themselves, and we also get to see the world as they doassuming such a thing is possiblewont this mean that we will have forgotten who we are, that we will have become alienated from our own culture?

The question implies that commitment to the ways of ones own culture and appreciation for the ways of others are mutually exclusive. This is exactly the contradiction which a giant poster issued by the Ministry of Culture celebrating the upcoming 2004 Olympics aimed to redress. It featured three artifacts from Greece, Asia, and Africa, under the slogan Toward a civilization of civilizations (Gia nan politism ton politismn/ ). Interestingly, the presentation of these tokens of cultural difference as objects of appreciation rested on the same assumption as the fear of cultural alienation voiced by my student. Namely, it deployed the idea that the world is made up of discreet, bounded cultures.8 Hardly a local construct, the representation of a culture as a person writ large is a longstanding metaphor. Notwithstanding the unease this representation causes among anthropologists and the critiques of the anthropological concept of culture to which it has given rise (e.g. Herzfeld 2001:28; Kuper 1999; Stolcke 1995), it is being increasingly popularized and vigorously politicized in Europe and the United States. Apart from glossing international conflicts as cultural clashes, the reification

270

Alexandra Bakalaki

of cultural difference legitimates the commodification of products and performances as tokens of distinct cultural heritages. Rather than an index of parochialism, commitment to ones cultural heritage is predicated on the understanding that this national estate is of value in the context of an international market. In this sense the students eagerness to learn about their own culture has more to do with the fact that tourism is one of the few viable industries in Greece than with the traditional ethnocentrism of the educational system.9 Different relevances and relevant differences As I mentioned before, Greek anthropologists have looked up to the modernization of the university as a prospect that would encourage the growth of the discipline. However, although modernization is still valued as a process that undermines traditionalist ethnocentrism, there is an emergent disillusionment over the promotion of measures aiming at subjecting university institutions to international standards of productivity. According to Gefou-Madianou (2000:259), the aspirations of Greek anthropologists to establish an outwardly-oriented, cosmopolitan anthropological tradition are being disappointed, as research and teaching practices are increasingly oriented toward the production of useful, practical, cost-effective, and marketable knowledge. In this context, it is not parochialism, isolation, or distance from metropolitan academic centers that threatens the prospects of Greek anthropology, but the subjection of the Greek university system to the policies of the European Union about higher education. Greek anthropologists are not the only ones worried about these policies. In Europe and beyond, there is an emergent solidarity across disciplines among academics who feel that aligning the university with the job market poses a threat to the academic integrity and autonomy. The debate concerning the applicability of a market approach to higher education centers on the concept of relevance. Those who favor extending the corporate ethos to the university, define the relevance of academic knowledge in terms of marketability and cost-effectiveness. Those who oppose the corporate mentality conceive relevance as the capacity of academic disciplines to generate knowledge, which may be used toward addressing contemporary issues in ways that are both critical and meaningful to the wider public (Melhuus 2002:7374). These two notions of relevance, which are both self-evidently benign (cf. Strathern 2002:xv), appear to subsume a major conflict of principle and interest with implications for practically every aspect of higher education. But, perhaps the relation between them is more complex.

A Different Kind of Knowledge?

271

In the context of anthropological theorizing, the relevance of knowledge and its marketability are, if not mutually exclusive, at least unrelated. However, although relevance is assessed by qualitative criteria, it is also conceptualized as a value amenable to maximization and thus to quantitative measurement. Despite widely shared agreement among anthropologists that the audience of anthropology should be broadened, the non-specialists (among whom the relevance of anthropology is indexed) are largely faculty in other disciplines that also compete for public attentionin addition to the increasing number of postcolonial or subaltern cultural critics (Englund and Leach 2000:225). The concerns of these highly qualified academics are often perceived as reflections of the concerns of the oppressed and dispossessed victims of western hegemony (Kahn 1995:134). All too often, the fact that anthropology has an audience of non-specialists which mostly consists of students, is forgotten. Like the tendency to see resistance everywhere, which, according to Maddox (2001:186) is a symptom of an alienating and repressive sublimation, the idealization of relevance offers a way of casting conformity to ever-rising standards of productivity as an index of disciplinary growth and commitment to critical or counter-hegemonic perspectives. However, there is (a) a growing skepticism about the factory conditions to which anthropologists must adapt in order to rescue their careers, and (b) an increasing awareness that the pressures these conditions impose detract time and energy from reflecting about the substantive aspects of academic endeavors, including teaching (Amit 2001; Englund and Leach 2000:239; Filitz 2001:250, 252; Giri 2001; Harries-Jones 1996; Karim 1996:135; Strathern 1997). From the perspective of these misgivings, it seems that the prospect of (re)claiming the university as a place of learning requires that anthropology teachers also (re)claim themselves as ethical and political subjects. This means that rather than merely accommodating the students needs for relevant knowledge, they must face up to the responsibility of influencing the criteria on the basis of which students assess relevance (Melhuus 2002:76; Moore 1996:1314). The anthropologists have failed to recognize the others among whom they do fieldworkas producers of knowledge that is coeval with anthropological knowledgeis a common form of self-criticism (Moore 1996:6; Karim 1996:135). However, although anthropological knowledge is as social in character as any other kind of knowledge (Herzfeld 2001:2134), it is dangerous to conflate the classroom with the field. Awareness of the ways in which students contextualize and interpret the knowledge addressed to them is necessary, insofar as it enables teachers to be more effective in guiding students to distance themselves from

272

Alexandra Bakalaki

common sense notions, and in providing insights into new ways of looking at the world. Facing up to this task requires that teachers themselves assume a critical distance from the hyper-professional criteria according to which ones interlocutors are limited to fellow academics. But it also requires equal distance from the liberal vision of academic knowledge as a commodity, tailored to compete successfully with other equivalent commodities, also designed according to the needs of prospective consumersa vision which may become all the more pernicious if disguised as anthropological relativism. In Greece, audit procedures, which subject academic teaching to student evaluations and to assessments regarding the marketability of knowledge in university settings, are not yet standard practice. Those opposing the institution of such procedures, draw on criticisms by academics working in higher education institutions both within and outside the European Union, where such procedures are firmly established. The latter point out that the enfranchisement of students as consumers or customers encourages the bureaucratization of the educational process, its purification from risks, innovations, and intellectual challenges, and reinforces indifference if not aversion to critical thinking (Giri 2001; McDonald 2001; Rimoldi 2001; Shore and Wright 2001; Strathern 2001a, b). In addition, many anthropologists have also argued that the insulated, hierarchical, exclusionary, and alienating language of much anthropological theorizing constitutes an inherent, intra-disciplinary constraint, which also limits the relevance of such theorizing among non-specialists and students (Abu-Lughod 1991:143, 152; Bakalaki 1997:515; Giri 2001; Harries-Jones 1996:158; Karim 1996:129130). The idea that jargon is incompatible with egalitarian language politics is self-evident, but the assumption that the extent to which a discourse is inviting or challenging depends on its accessibility, is not. On the basis of my own teaching experience, I have already suggested that students often regard sophisticated terms as metonymic representations of prestigious discourses, precisely because they depart form everyday language. Having gone through the Greek educational system, students have internalized the notion that knowledge is a thing, the possession of which upgrades ones status, as well as the skill of deploying formulaic language for writing or speaking without thinking. As a teacher, I often feel that perhaps the eagerness of some to jump on the wagon of prestigious modern discourses, is a sublimation of their frustrated capacity for self-expressionfrom which they have been dispossessed. Clearly, jargon can be mystifying. But, perhaps, a modicum of mystification or fetishization fuels desire for knowledge. If so, the question is how much and what kind of mystification is advisable?

A Different Kind of Knowledge?

273

Pierre Bourdieu, an author whose writing style is notoriously complex, has repeatedly reiterated his commitment to critical thinking which challenges common sense notions and his aversion for the kind of discourse which is easily accessible and well received because it tells its audience only what they want to hear (1995:viii). At the same time, Bourdieu has analyzed the ways in which university instruction in France mystifies and reproduces the privilege of professors with exceptional clarity (Bourdieu and Passeron 1985). He has also addressed the political implications of the use of ready-made formula, automatic, autonomous language, the ritual word in which those of whom one speaks and for whom one speaks no longer recognize themselves (Bourdieu 1995:90, my emphasis). The apparent contradiction is resolved if, rather than referring to a fixed identity, one thinks of self recognition as a dynamic process which implicates not only experience, but also fantasy, desire, and perhaps also fearthat is, notions and emotions about who one wants to identify with, and what kind of identifications one wants to avoid. Indeed, the idea that ones self-recognition is transformed through exposure to the ways of others has been a common assumption among anthropologists. However, this idea and the concomitant faith in the deployment of the ways of others as a perspective from which to engage in the cultural critique of ones own society (see Marcus and Fischer 1986), have recently been problematized from two very different points of view. Some anthropologists have argued that the search for counterpoints, from which to deconstruct western hegemony, has contributed to the establishment of an inward looking tendency whereby the study of others is legitimized as a means of understanding of the cultural self (e.g. Ong 1996:6162; Ortner 1984:143; Sahlins 1999:v; Yang 1996:107108). On the other hand, it has been pointed out that cultural critique as mediated by exposure to the ways of others, encages anthropologists into thinking in terms of dichotomies like here and there, home and abroad, or us and them. This detracts them from problematizing the unity of the us and the otherness of the other and question[ing] the radical separation between the two (Gupta and Ferguson 2001:43; see also Abu-Lughod 1991; Clifford 1997; Gupta and Feguson 1997; Malkki 1997; Narayan 1993). It is important to take into account the fact that both of these positions are being put forth at a time when anthropological practice is undergoing considerable transformations. Rising financial, bureaucratic, and governmental constraints are making traditional long-term fieldwork in distant places difficult even for anthropologists affiliated with prestigious metropolitan institutions (Clifford 1997:217; Englund and Leach 2000:238). Although the ensuing obstacles are being felt in

274

Alexandra Bakalaki

the Euro-American academic centers where cross-cultural research is a longstanding practice, the question of how are these ethnographers to make their Other is still addressed primarily to anthropologists who, by choice or necessity, research their own kind (Weston 1997:170). Not surprisingly, Greek anthropologists are concerned that their heretofore failure to seek their others elsewhere will continue. Although there is some hopeful evidence of an emergent trend among younger anthropologists to carry out fieldwork abroad, it is too early to tell whether it will outbalance the prevalent tendency for home fieldwork. Meanwhile, the standard anthropological strategy whereby the other is sought out within ones own society (Argyrou 1999, 2000) is continuing to be a popular option, and one which has often yielded excellent results. There is a growing body of ethnographic work on ethnic groups and minorities and an emergent interest in the study of immigrants living in Greece. Fieldwork among these non-Greek populations is a means of transcending the mono-culturalism of Greek anthropology (Panopoulos 2003:201202; Gefou-Madianou 2001:269270) and an invaluable resource of ethnographic material, which may be evoked in order to destabilize the hegemonic representation of Greece as a homogeneous societyin Herzfelds terms, a household writ large. Nevertheless, turning students attention to differences within may entail some dangers. Namely, it may reinforce reified and essentialist notions of cultural difference and identity. After all, in Greece the idea that immigrants are culturally different and that their otherness is both readily discernible and problematic is largely viewed as a self-evident truth (Bakalaki 2003). Counting themselves among the majority and situating themselves in the mainstream of social life, students often assume that the cultural identities of immigrants, minority or local people are more fixed, unitary, authentic, and consequential in terms of social practice than their own. As Karakasidou (2000) notes, this perspective is all but absent from ethnic or minority studies. More generally, attributing culture to others empowers one to claim a bias-free, objective perspective, and a place in mainstream society (Douglas 1992:321; Rosaldo 1988). Thus, undermining the students tendency to culturalize others requires not only enabling them to question their own assumptions about the nature of cultural identity, but also presenting them with a critical view of the mainstream anthropological practice whereby the people studied are less powerful and more marginal than those studying them (Nader 1974; see also Bakalaki 1997:513516; Maddox 2001:288289). Although enlargement of the geographic range within which Greek anthropologists do fieldwork, and ethnographic research documenting internal diversity are promising strategies toward the enrichment of

A Different Kind of Knowledge?

275

anthropological practice in Greece, neither one of them in itself promotes the de-naturalization of studying down. Thus, I think it is important to interest students in research among the urban middle class, and the propertied and educated elite, and to remind them that mainstream, ordinary practices, and unmarked identities, and hegemonic ideas of the sensible at home and abroad are no less cultural than the ways of the poor, the minorities, and the socially excluded. In other words, along with encouraging students to learn about others, it is important to help them unlearn idioms of privilege, which render the value of hegemonic perspectives and practices transparent by naturalizing them as a-cultural (Visweswaran 1994:98). The prospect may not necessarily be conducive to disciplinary respectability. But commitment to respectability and commitment to the understanding that anthropology can be and should be subversive, or at least uncomfortable, as Firth (1992:218) would have it, are not necessarily compatible. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI

NOTES Acknowledgements. I dedicate this paper to Liz Kennedy, my teacher, with gratitude and love. I thank my colleagues and students who, over the years, shared with me their views on anthropological education in Greece. I hope that my views will interest them. Many thanks to Costas Douzinas and Michael Fotiadis for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I am also indebted to the anonymous reviewers of the Journal of Modern Greek Studies who were very thorough with their comments on my paper. Its final version owes a lot to the editing of Natasa Tsagarakou. 1 For a preliminary exploration of some of the issues presented here see Bakalaki 2002. The history of anthropology in the Greek university goes back to the early 1980s, when anthropology courses were included in the curriculum of the Department of Sociology at the Panteion School and in the Faculty of History and Archaeology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The Department of Social Anthropology at the University of the Aegean admitted its first graduate students in 1987 and its first undergraduates two years later; in 2001, it was renamed Department of Social Anthropology and History. In 1990 the Panteion School of Political and Social Sciences in Athens established the Department of Social Policy and Social Anthropology. In 2004 the two disciplines were divided and the Department of Social Anthropology, now part of Panteion University, is the only stand-alone anthropology department in Greece. The Department of History and Ethnology at the University of Thrace was established in 1991. The most recent joint department was established at the University of Thessaly in Volos in 1999. In 2001 its name was changed from Department of History, Archaelogy, and Folkore to Department

276

Alexandra Bakalaki

of History, Archaeology, and Social Anthropology. Several older university departments also offer anthropology courses as electives. Among them are the Department of Modern and Contemporary History, Folklore, and Social Anthropology in the Faculty of History and Archaeology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki; the Program of Folklore in the Department of History and Archaeology at the University of Ioannina; the Department of Philosophy and Social Studies in the School of Philosophy at the University of Crete; and the Department of Sociology in the School of Social Sciences of the same university. Finally, anthropology courses are also taught in the Department of Cultural Technology and Communications at the University of the Aegean, established in 2000; and in the Department of History, Archaeology, and Cultural Heritage Management at the University of the Peloponese, established in 2003. 2 I taught in the Department of Social Anthropology at the University of the Aegean in Mytilini between 1987 and 2000. Since then I have been teaching in the Department of Modern and Contemporary History, Folklore, and Social Anthropology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. 3 On the regional background variation among Greek university students see Stamelos and Sivri 1995. 4 For a review of the perennial debate on the state of Greek education see Psacharopoulos 1995. On developments which took place in the Greek university after the implementation of the 1982 Reformatory Law for Higher Education Institutions, and on the establishment of anthropology as an academic discipline see Gefou-Madianou 2000:257263. For critical views on the Greek university see Gavroglou 1981, Lambropoulos and Psacharopoulos 1990, and Petralias and Theotokas 1999. Filitzs (2000) excellent account of the structural problems and policy inconsistencies in Austrian higher education provides a perspective for comparison. 5 Having studied both the content of history and the teaching methods used especially in primary school, Avdela (1995:61) concludes that what students end up with is an exceptionally traditional, event-oriented, and linear historical narrative, which is intensely ethnocentric, and which leaves no room for critical thinking (see also Avdela 2000). Historians and social scientists, who participated in a research program indexing conceptions about history among adolescents, also affirm that young people have an ethnocentric orientation toward the Greek nation, which they perceive as an a-historical, transcendental, and homogeneous entity (Askouni 2000; Metaxas 2000; Voulgaris 2000). The fact that this orientation by no means precludes positive attitudes toward Europe as a cultural entity and toward Greeces integration in the European Community (Dragonas and Bar-On 2000; Hantzi and Abakumkin 2000; Prodromou 2000), suggests that ethnocentrism is not a vestige or a survival from the past that will disappear on its own in the face of modernization. In fact, Metaxas (2000) points out that the intensity, the rhetorical haughtiness by which Greek youth express their ethnocentrism, may be a function of their need to defend Greece against actual or putative criticisms by others, including fellow Europeans. 6 The curriculum of the newly established Department of Balkan, Slavic, and Oriental Studies of the University of Macedonia includes several comparative ethnography courses focusing on the Balkans and Eastern Europe. Ten years ago, the publisher of the Greek translation of Danforths book on firewalking (1995) included the part on the Anastenaria, but omitted the part on the American Firewalking (see Paradellis 1995). Presumably the omission was due to the assumption that the Greek public is not interested in books about other cultures, and investing in such books would be risky. Since then, the market for anthropology books has increased as the number of anthropology students has grown. University students are entitled to a free copy of the one or two books assigned as textbooks in each of the courses in which they enroll. Usually the anthropology books translated

A Different Kind of Knowledge?

277

are recommended to publishers by anthropologists who also oversee the translations and provide introductions to the texts. So far, priority has been given to theoretical works which supply a frame of reference for more than one area of anthropological study, rather than to texts referring to specific cultures. There is also a substantial body of Greek ethnography, which includes books by Greek anthropologists as well as translations. On the limited availability of anthropology texts in the Greek language, and the challenges involved in writing anthropology in Greek see also Bakalaki 1997:513516 and Papataxiarchis 1999:242. 7 According to Karim (1996) anthropology students in the Far East also search for answers to contemporary social issues, as they are experienced and conceptualized by people in the street (1996:129130). To them and to general public, debates and controversies between anthropologists are often disappointing because they are inconclusive and also because they seem to indicate a lack of criteria of truth and validation (Melhuus 2002:70). 8 The slogan is the title of a book by Evangelos Venizelos who, at the time, was Minister of Culture. The author defines the culture of cultures as one of peace and social solidarity, based on the principle of cultural equivalence (2001:13), and advocates intercultural exchange as a means of transcending cultural isolation, combating the prejudices it generates. He also criticizes Samuel Huntington for his views on the cultural roots of conflict, and especially for his analysis of the influence of Orthodox ideology on Greek foreign policy (2001:87100). 9 For a discussion of recent anthropological perspectives on the production, management, and consumption of cultural heritages, especially in the context of tourism, see Moutafi 2002:4552. For an annotated bibliography of sources on tourism and culture in Greece and Cyprus see Moutafi 2002:211221. On the commercialization of cultural knowledge at both the local and the global level, and specifically, on the role of local anthropologists and non-academically trained, petty cultural experts as cultural brokers in Malaysia see Karim (1996:123125).

REFERENCES CITED Abu-Lughod, Lila 1991 Writing Against Culture. In Richard Fox ed., Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present, 137162. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Amit, Vered 2000 The University as Panoptikon: Moral Claims and Attacks on Academic Freedom. In Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy, edited by Marylin Strathern, 215235. London and New York: Routledge. Argyrou, Vassos 1999 Sameness and the Ethnological Will to Meaning. Current Anthropology 40: 2941. 2000 Self-accountability, Ethics and the Problem of Meaning. In Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy, edited by Marylin Strathern, 196212. London and New York: Routledge.

278

Alexandra Bakalaki

Avdela, Efi 1995 , . Athens: Nissos. 2000 The Teaching of History in Greece. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 18(2): 239253. Askouni, Nelly 2002 Greek Adolescent Perceptions of Social Change: An Ahistorical Interpretation of Society. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 18(2):255268. Bakalaki, Alexandra 1994 Gender-related Discourses and Representations of Cultural Specificity in Nineteenth-century and Twentieth-century Greece. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 12:75112. 1997 Students, Natives, Colleagues: Encounters in Academia and in the Field. Cultural Anthropology 112(4):502526. 2002 , , : . In Moraitis School Foundation for the Study of Modern Greek Culture and General Education, : , , , April 1921, 2002, 287306. Athens: Moraitis School Foundation for the Study of Modern Greek Culture and General Education. 2003 Locked into Security, Keyed into Modernity: The Selection of Burglaries as Source of Risk in Greece. Ethnos 68(2):209229. Bourdieu, Pierre 1995 Sociology in Question. London: Sage Publications. Bourdieu, Pierre and Claude Passeron 1985 Les Hritiers: Les Etudiants et la Culture. Paris: Editions de Minuit. Clifford, James 1997 Spatial Practices: Fieldwork, Travel, and the Disciplining of Anthropology. In Anthropological Locations: Boundaries of a Field Science, edited by Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson, 185222. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cowan, Jane 1992 . In Evthymios Papataxiarchis and Theodoros Paradellis eds., , 127150. Athens: Kastaniotis, Panepistimio Agaiou. 1998 Dance and the Body Politics in Northern Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Danforth, Lorring 1995 . . Athens: Plethron. Douglas, Mary 1992 Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London and New York: Routledge. Dragonas, Thalia and Dan Bar-On 2000 National Identity among a Neighbouring Quartet: The Case of Greeks, Turks, Israelis and Palestinians. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 18(2):335353. Englund, Harri and Lames Leach 2000 Ethnography and the Meta-narratives of Modernity. Current Anthropology 41(2): 225248.

A Different Kind of Knowledge?

279

Filitz, Thomas 2000 Academia: Same Pressures, Same Conditions of Work? In Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy, edited by Marylin Strathern, 236255. London and New York: Routledge. Firth, Raymond 1992 A Future for Social Anthropology? In Contemporary Futures: Perspectives from Social Anthropology, edited by Sandra Wallman, 208224. London and New York: Routledge. Galani-Moutafi, Vassiliki 2002 -, o: . Athens: Propombos. Gavroglou, Kostas 1981 Certain Features of Higher Education in Greece and the Failure of Attempts to Reform It. Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora 8:95108. Gefou-Madianou, Dimitra 1993a Mirroring Ourselves Through Western Texts: The Limits of An Indigenous Anthropology. In The Politics of Ethnographic Reading and Writing: Confrontations of Western and Indigenous Views, edited by Henk Driessen, 160181. Saarbrucken and Fort Lauderdale: Verlag Breitenbach Publishers. 1993b -, : . 223:4451. 1998 , : . In : , edited by Dimitra Gefou-Madianou, 365436. Athens: Ellinika Grammata. 2000 Disciples, Discipline and Reflection: Anthropological Encounters and Trajectories. In Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy, edited by Marylin Strathern, 256278. London and New York: Routledge. Giri, Ananta 2000 Audited Accountability and the Imperative of Responsibility: Beyond the Primacy of the Political. In Marylin Strathern ed., Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy, 173195. London and New York: Routledge. Gupta, Akhil and James Ferguson 1997 Discipline and Practice: The Field as Site, Method and Location in Anthropology. In Anthropological Locations: Boundaries of a Field Science, edited by Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson, 146. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2001 Culture, Power, Place: Ethnography at the End of an Era. In Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology, edited by Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson, 132. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Hantzi, Alexandra and Abakoumkin Georgios 2000 National Identification and Ethnocentric Bias Among Greek Adolescents: In Search of Correlates. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 18(2):321333. Harries-Jones, Peter 1996 Afterword. In The Future of Anthropological Knowledge, edited by Henrietta Moore, 156172. London and New York: Routledge.

280

Alexandra Bakalaki

Herzfeld, Michael 1982 Ours Once More: Folklore, Ideology and the Making of Modern Greece. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1987 Anthropology Through the Looking Glass: Critical Ethnography in the Margins of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1991 A Place in History: Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1997 Cultural Intimacy: Social Poetics in the Nation-State. New York and London: Routledge. 2001 Anthropology: Theoretical Practice in Culture and Society. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Kahn, Joel S. 1995 Culture, Multiculture, Postculture. London: Sage Publications. Karakasidou, Anastasia 2000 Essential Differences: National Homogeneity and Cultural Representation in Four Recent Works on Greek Macedonia. Current Anthropology 41(3): 415425. Karim, Wazir Jahan 1996 Anthropology Without Tears: How A Local Sees the Local and the Global. In The Future of Anthropological Knowledge, edited by Henrietta Moore, 115138. London and New York: Routledge. Kondogiannopoulou-Polydorides Georgia, Mary Kottoula and Kelly Dimopoulou 2000 Citizen Education: Silencing Crucial Issues. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 18(2):287303. Kuper, Adam 1999 Culture: The Anthropologists Account. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Lambropoulos, Vassilis 1989 Modern Greek Studies at the Cross-roads: The Paradigm Shift from Empiricism to Skepticism. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 7:139. Lambropoulos, X. and G. Psacharopoulos 1990 . . , : , . 77:172209. Maddox, Richard 2001 Bombs, Bikinis, and the Popes of RockNRoll: Reflections on Resistance, the Play of Subordinations, and Liberalism in Andalusia and Academia, 19831995. In Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology, edited by Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson, 277290. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Marcus, George and Michael Fischer 1986 Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McDonald, Maryon 2000 Accountability, Anthropology and the European Commission. In Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy, edited by Marylin Strathern, 106132. London and New York: Routledge.

A Different Kind of Knowledge?

281

Melhuus, Marit 2001 Issues of Relevance: Anthropology and the Challenges of Cross-cultural Comparison. In Anthropology by Comparison, edited by Andre Gingrich and Richard G. Fox, 7092. London and New York: Routledge. Metaxas, A.-J. D. 2000 Rhetorical Haughtiness and the Need for Self-assurance: An Analysis of Greek Student Responses. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 18(2):375379. Moore, Henrietta 1996 The Changing Nature of Anthropological Knowledge: An Introduction. In The Future of Anthropological Knowledge, edited by Henrietta Moore, 115. London and New York: Routledge. Nader, Laura 1974 Up the Anthropologist: Perspectives Gained from Studying Up. In Reinventing Anthropology, edited by Dell Hymes, 284311. New York: Pantheon Books. Narayan, Kirin 1989 How Native is the Native Anthropologist? American Anthropologist 95(3): 1934. Ong, Aihwa 1996 Anthropology, China and Modernities: The Geopolitics of Cultural Knowledge. In The Future of Anthropological Knowledge, edited by Henrietta Moore, 6092. London and New York: Routledge. Ortner, Sherry 1984 Theory in Anthropology Since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History 26:126166. Panopoulos, Panayotis 2003 Between Self and Others. The Academic Establishment of Greek Anthropology. In Educational Histories of European Social Anthropology, edited by Edward Drackl et al., 193205. New York: Berghan Books. Papataxiarchis, Efthymios 1999 , : . In Department of Sociology, University of Crete ed., , 227246. Rethymnon: University of Crete. 2002 , , : . In Moraitis School Foundation for the Study of Modern Greek Culture and General Education, : , , , April 1921, 2002, 6575. Athens: Moraitis School Foundation for the Study of Modern Greek Culture and General Education. Paradellis, Theodoros 1995 , : Loring Danforth, : . 57:110. Petralias, N. and N. Theotokas 1999 . . , . 60:1825.

282

Alexandra Bakalaki

Prodromou, Elizabeth H. 2000 Formation of Historical Consciousness among Greek Adolescents: Some Insights for Political Science Theory. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 18(2):305319. Psacharopoulos, George 1995 Education in Greece Today: Contributions to the Perennial Debate. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 13:169178. Rimoldi, Eleanor 2000 Generic GeniusHow Does It All Add Up? In Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy, edited by Marylin Strathern, 90105. London and New York: Routledge. Rosaldo, Renato 1988 Ideology, Place and People Without Culture. Cultural Anthropology 3(1): 7787. Sahlins, Marshall 1999 What Is Anthropological Enlightment? Some Lessons of the Twentieth Century. Annual Review of Anthropology 28:ixxiii. Shahrani, M. Nazif 1994 Honored Guest and Marginal Man: Long-term Field Research and the Predicaments of a Native Anthropologist. In Others Knowing Others: Perspectives on Ethnographic Careers, edited by Don Fowles and John Hardesty, 1568. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Shore, Chris and Susan Wright 2000 Coercive Accountability: The Rise of Audit Culture in Higher Education. In Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy, edited by Marylin Strathern, 5789. London and New York: Routledge. Stamelos, George and Chrisanthi Sivri 1995 Regional Dimensions of Entrance Examinations to Higher Education Institutions in Greece. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 13:215230. Strathern, Marylin 1987 The Limits of Auto-anthropology. In Anthropology at Home, edited by Anthony Jackson, ASA monograph 25, 1637. London and New York: Tavistock Publications. 1997 Improving Ratings: Audit in the British University System. European Review 5(3):305321. 2000a Introduction: New Accountabilities. In Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy, edited by Marylin Strathern, 119. London and New York: Routledge. 2000b Afterword: Accountability . . . and Ethnography. In Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy, edited by Marylin Strathern, 279304. London and New York: Routledge. 2002 Foreword: Not Giving the Game Away. In Anthropology by Comparison, edited by Andre Gingrich and Richard G. Fox, ixxvii. London and New York: Routledge. Stolcke, Verena 1995 Talking Culture: New Boundaries, New Rhetorics of Exclusion in Europe. Current Anthropology 36(1):124.

A Different Kind of Knowledge?

283

Tsaoussis, Dimitris 1985 , K A . Introductory note in G. Lienhardt, Social Anthropology, 1148. Athens: Gutenberg. Tsibiridou, Fotini 2003 , . In , , edited by Philippe Laburthe-Tolra and Jean-Pierre Warnier, 1314. Athens: Kritiki. Tsoukalas, Constantinos 1986 , , , . Athens: Themelio. 1996 : . In : 19691996, edited by Constantinos Tsoukalas. Athens: Plethron. Venizelos, Evangelos 2001 , : . Athens: Kastaniotis. Visweswaran, Kamala 1994 Fictions of Feminist Ethography. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Voulgaris, Yannis 2000 The Political Attitudes of Greek students: Internal Tensions of An Ethnocentric Democratic Culture. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 18(2):269285. Weston, Kath 1997 The Virtual Anthropologist. In Anthropological Locations: Boundaries of a Field Science, edited by Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson, 163184. Berkeley: University of California Press. Yang, Mayfair 1996 Tradition, Traveling Theory, Anthropology and the Discourse of Modernity in China. In The Future of Anthropological Knowledge, edited by Henrietta Moore, 93114. London and New York: Routledge.