Kirsten Hastrups tale: Transformations of engagement

Birket-Smith is the one we credit for creating the discipline in Denmark, and he deserves our respect, even if he was not alone; he was trained in cultural geography, and he had participated in Knud Rasmussen’s 5th Thule Expedition (from 1921 to 1924) visiting all North American Eskimos and establishing close cultural links between them. At the actual expedition Knud Rasmussen was supposed to study the ‘intellectual culture’ of the Eskimos, while Birket-Smith should study their material culture. This division of labour linked these early ‘ethnographic’ expeditions closely to the new Boasian school of anthropology in the US.

On the strength of this and other expeditions, Copenhagen had actually become the world capital of Eskimo research, while also engaging in other regions. This was the reason why Birket-Smith could get the kind of patronage we heard of above, and could call in each and everybody in Denmark with something to report on races, peoples and/or life-forms to present their work (along with the international delegates, of course), but also to involving a large number of distinguished people from outside the field to form a honorary committee. The backing was impressive.

Copenhagen at the time was not only the world capital of Eskimo research, it had become a world-leading hub of physicists centring on Niels Bohr, and had taken a strong lead also in linguistics – with Louis Hjelmslev as the key-figure. Both of these illustrious scholars participated and added their weight to the proceedings. Niels Bohr was even asked to give the opening talk to the first plenary session, and in this talk we get a sense of the importance attached to anthropology in wider circles. Niels Bohr opened his talk in the following manner:

»It is only with great hesitation that I have accepted a kind invitation to address this assembly of distinguished representatives of the anthropological and ethnographical sciences of which I, as a physicist, have of course no first-hand knowledge.« (Bohr 1939: 86)

Bohr then goes on to state, that of course he – like other physicists – has become increasingly aware of the dangers of the time – he is alluding to the impending war –and of the cultural differences that may account for them. And he continues:

»Of course it is impossible to distinguish sharply between natural philosophy and human culture. The physical sciences are, in fact, an integral part of our civilization, nor only because our ever increasing mastery of the forces of nature has so completely changed the conditions of human life, but also because the study of these sciences has contributed so much to clarify the background of our own existence. What has it not meant in this respect that we no more consider ourselves as privileged in living at the centre of the universe, surrounded by less fortunate societies inhabiting the edge of the abyss.« (Bohr 1939: 87)

As a true humanist, he continues to question his own ideas of society and the things he takes for granted – notably the relation between men and woman, which are reversed in other societies, as anthropologists have documented. While one may at first shudder by contemplating such reversal of the hierarchy, he states, that this in itself demonstrates the »national complacency inherent in any human culture«. From there he moves on to stress the importance of the mixing of populations in the interest of cultural development and the removal of prejudice. This is still a valid observation, as is his statement about the relativity of human judgement. What we hear is a person whose own understanding of the world is increasingly influenced by anthropology.

The very potent concern that fused into all of anthropology at the time, led to a questioning of the less wonderful sides of culture – to which Niels Bohr added a lot of interesting parallels to physics, speaking of the complementarity of thoughts and feelings, of instinct and reason – and the impossibility to categorically distinguish between them.

The reason for looking behind the curtain of a pre-disciplinary event is both to celebrate the formative moment of an internationally recognized field discipline, and to suggest how the reflexive space created in various versions of ethnographic work in itself shifts the ground of society, whether high or low. This reflexive space is what makes anthropology work in the world.

Just after the Congress, the Second World War prevented immediate institutional steps towards a solidification of anthropology, but as soon as it was over, Birket-Smith took the opportunity to make it happen. That was 70 years ago.

It was not until 1965, however, that a proper University Institute was created and the first professor appointed; that was Johannes Nicolaisen. He had been the first student in Birket-Smith’s new field, and later, he was actually given a research fellowship – that Niels Bohr chose to transfer from physics to support him and the new discipline (personal communication form Ida Nicolaisen). Nicolaisen was a wonderful teacher, whom I first met in 1966, when I marched into the Institute and asked him whether it would be alright for me to begin studying anthropology (wanting to shift from geography, actually) – even in the middle of the academic year. He welcomed me, all while also warning me that he could not promise me a job, once I had completed my studies. Of course not, I said, and I found my lasting home in anthropology. There was room enough to think for oneself and for engaging with the world in a plethora of ways, thereby moving it in some way or other – but never in a linear fashion. Sadly, Nicolaisen died already in 1980, and the Chair was left vacant until 1990, when I was appointed. Since then, the Department has grown immensely.

Our multiple engagements with the world are implicit in our working with people who are always theorizing their own world, and the knowledge produced owes as much to local theorizing as to the anthropological tradition. By default, anthropologists work with the world. In that sense ethnography cannot be disentangled from the protagonists’ own analyses. This is where our claim to engagement is rooted and where our optimism for the future of the discipline is grounded.

I agree with Tim Ingold, who – in his report from the centennial meeting of the Association of Social Anthropologists in 2053 (sic) – maintains the strength of the discipline.

»Social anthropology is not what it was, for it is distinguished neither by a preoccupation with the social phenomena nor by the axiom that such phenomena are the exclusive preserve of a categorical humanity. The discipline has become, rather, a principled inquiry into the conditions and potentials of life in a world peopled by beings whose identities are established not by species-membership but by relational accomplishment.« (Ingold 2013: 77).

This conclusion is not as surprising as it could have been, because in a sense we are already half-way there; otherwise it would not sound probable. Still, the onus of description rests with the humans; this is one of their relational advantages, I would argue – and the major raison d’être of anthropology.

I believe that anthropology is standing on the firm ground of a discipline that always dared inquire into the conditions and potentials of life by engaging with the world. From there anthropology can be put to any work. With the four key-notes that we are going to hear today, I am certain that we shall glimpse the future in various ways, not because our friends are prophets but because all anthropological reflection works towards new ways of being.

References:
Niels Bohr 1939. ‘Natural Philosophy and Human Cultures.’ Congrès International des Sciences Anthropologiques et Ethnologiques. Compte rendu de la deuxième session. Copenhague 1938. Munksgaard 1939 (p. 86-95)

Tim Ingold 2012. ‘No More Ancient; No More Human: The Future Past of Archaeology and Anthropology.’ In D. Shankland, ed. Archaeology and Anthropology. Past, Present, and Future. London and New York: Berg (ASA Monographs 48) pp. 77-90.

Ida Nicolaisen 2001. ‘Antropologi/Etnografi.’ Københavns Universitet 1479-1979. Bd. VI.2: Det rets- og statsvidenskabelige Fakultet, 2. del, Ditlev Tamm og Eivind Slottved, red. Københavns Universitet 2001 (s.187-257).