A Romanian-American dialogue

Conclusion These American anthropological studies both reflect and distort our own Romanian-conceptions. Paradoxically, this gives both Romanian and American researchers an opportunity to verify their validity and reliability. The studies are notable for their multiplicity of theoretical approaches...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Conclusion These American anthropological studies both reflect and distort our own Romanian-conceptions. Paradoxically, this gives both Romanian and American researchers an opportunity to verify their validity and reliability. The studies are notable for their multiplicity of theoretical approaches to Romanian reality: each author brings in something new by way of interpretation and, at the same time, maintains a dialectical conception as a methodological frame of reference. The authors are certainly conversant with present and future strategies of development in Romania. But their main problem is that they do not always understand the spirit of the latter and consequently fail to interpret contemporary Romanian realities in a deeply humanistic way. And now, some proposals. For a more active dialogue between Romanian and American scientists I suggest a more comprehensive use of the Romanian sources of information, including historical, beletristic, sociological, and political works. With reference to their reflections on history, the American anthropologists could have discussions with Romanian historians, and could use Romanian historical periodization, especially for the contemporary period. For us, the following sequence is basic: the moment of the armed insurrection as the beginning of the popular democratic revolution (August 23, 1944); proclamation of a Peoples' Republic of Romania (December 30, 1947); unification of Social Democratic Party with the Communist Party to form the Romanian Workers Party (Spring 1948); at this time it is possible to speak of a socialist revolution. The analysis of the Americans should take into consideration these important dates in Romanian history and structure their studies accordingly. Sometimes they must pay more attention to the affective connotation of words, especially for a Romanian reader. Such words would be, for example, their use of “elite”, rather than “leaders”, “bureaucracy” rather than “administration”, “pressure” rather than “social necessities with the consciousness of development,” “patronclient” instead of using “interpersonal relations with mutual benefit,” etc. I would also urge that substantive discussions between Romanians and Americans begin, built around specific topics of mutual interest, rather than ceremonial meetings which occur when the parties have neither the language skills, data nor social conceptions to interact fruitfully. I suggest to the American researchers that they maintain and strengthen their contacts with Romanian administrators at local, regional and national levels, so that their studies may contribute to our social praxis. Finally, the Americans should always take into account the economic constraints that shape political, juridical, moral, and philosophical phenomena, and try also to grasp more fully the interaction between elements of the superstructure and between “superstructure” and base in contemporary Romanian socialist society. Above all, along with Professor Cole [17], I hope that the scientific effort at interpreting Romanian reality, with its lights and shadows, will be used only for reciprocal knowledge and cooperation. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Autor*in:	Cobianu-Bacanu, Maria [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	1977

Schlagwörter:	Operative Farm American Anthropologist Socialist Revolution Socialist Society German Nationality

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Dialectical anthropology - Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 1975, 2(1977), 1-4 vom: 01. Jan.
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:2 ; year:1977 ; number:1-4 ; day:01 ; month:01

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1007/BF00249492

Katalog-ID:	SPR011922656