Between the Folk and Scholarship: Ethnological Practice in Estonia in the 1920s and 1930s
Kuupäev
2016-11-18
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Abstrakt
Doktoritöö käsitleb Eesti etnoloogia ajalugu 1920. ja 1930. aastatel ja põhineb neljal aastail 2010–2016 avaldatud artiklil. Uurimuse keskmes on esimesed Eesti professionaalsed etnoloogid ja nende roll distsipliini arengus selle institutsionaalses, rahvuslikus ja rahvusvahelises kontekstis.
Sarnaselt teiste Põhja- ja Ida-Euroopa riikidega kasvas Eesti etnoloogia välja 19. sajandi rahvuslikust romantismist ja kujunes teaduseks sõdadevahelisel ajal. 1920. aastatel Tartu Ülikoolis (TÜ) etnoloogiadotsendina ja Eesti Rahva Muuseumi (ERM) direktorina töötanud Ilmari Manninen (1894–1935) postuleeris eriala uurimisalana materiaalse talupojakultuuri ja lähenemisena ajaloolis-geograafilise meetodi. Sellist vaadet on hiljem peetud kitsapiiriliseks – rahvakultuuri nägemine ajatu ja ühtse nähtusena – ja iseloomulikuks kogu perioodi etnoloogiale. 1927. aastal Raadi mõisahoones avatud Eesti rahvakultuuri püsinäituse analüüs kinnitas nimetatud pildi olemasolu. Esimese uurijate põlvkonna esindajate Ferdinand Linnuse (1895–1942) ja Gustav Ränga (1902–1998) välitöömaterjalide analüüsist ilmnes aga tollase teadmusloome variatiivsus ja kontekstuaalsus, millest tingituna mõisteti rahvakultuuri mitmekesise ja muutliku nähtusena.
Eesti etnoloogia kujunes 1920. ja 1930. aastatel rahvuslikuks ja regionaalseks distsipliiniks, mis jäi ühiskondlikest ja poliitilistest oludest tingituna oma olemuselt rakenduslikuks. Selles oli tähtis osa erialainimeste vähesusel ja distsipliini seotusel muuseumiga – kõik vaadeldud etnoloogid töötasid ERM-is. Noore teadusala ambitsioonid põrkusid tegelikkusega, kus üksikud uurijad olid tihedalt seotud muuseumi administratiivsete ja kutsetöödega, mistõttu teadustööle jäi loodetust vähem aega.
Kõige ilmekamalt väljendus teaduse rakenduslikkuse aspekt 1930. aastate teisel poolel etnoloogide ja muuseumi osalemisega riiklikus propagandas. Selle näitena võib tuua Helmi Kurriku (1883–1960) koostatud käsiraamatu „Eesti rahvarõivad“ (1938), mille eesmärgiks oli „autentse“ rahvarõiva tutvustamine ja populariseerimine eestlaste seas ning rahvarõivaste kultuuripärandina kinnistamine.
Distsipliini olemuslik rahvuslikkus ja regionaalsus tähendas samal ajal selle rahvusvahelisust. Tollased etnoloogid olid dialoogis kolleegidega teistest riikidest, kus kasutati samu uurimismeetodeid. 1939. aastal avati TÜ-s etnoloogia professuur, mille hõivas pikaaegne ERM-i töötaja G. Ränk. See on märgiline sündmus Eesti etnoloogia ajaloos, mis kinnitas distsipliini elujõulisust ja andis võimaluse uue põlvkonna uurijate pealekasvamiseks.
The dissertation discusses the history of Estonian ethnology in the 1920s and 1930s, and consists of four articles published in 2010–2016. The research focuses on the first professional Estonian ethnologists and their role in the development of the discipline in its institutional, national and international context. Similar with other Northern and Eastern Europe countries, Estonian ethnology grew out of the 19th century romantic nationalism, and became an academic scholarship in the interwar period. In the 1920s, Ilmari Manninen (1894–1935) directed both the Chair of Ethnology at the University of Tartu (UT) and the Estonian National Museum (ENM). He defined material peasant culture as the field of study and historic-geographical method as its approach. This view has been seen as narrow (folk culture was seen as a timeless and socially uniform phenomenon) and distinctive to the whole era. The analysis of the permanent exhibition of Estonian folk culture, opened in 1927, confirmed this approach. The ambiguous reception of folk culture became obvious, above all, in the analysis of the fieldwork materials provided by the first generation of ethnologists – Ferdinand Linnus (1895–1942) and Gustav Ränk (1902–1998). I discovered variability and contextuality in the then understanding of folk culture as research object. In the 1920s and 1930s, Estonian ethnology developed into a national and regional discipline, which, due to social and political conditions, remained practical by nature. The small number of professionals and the discipline’s connection to the museum also played a certain role in it – all the named ethnologists worked at the ENM. The ambitions of young discipline contradicted reality as few acting researchers were busy with administrative and professional tasks at the museum and were able to dedicate less time to academic knowledge production than expected. The practical aspect of scholarship became most pronounced when ethnologists and the museum participated in the state’s cultural propaganda in the second half of the 1930s. The handbook “Estonian folk costumes” (1938) by Helmi Kurrik (1883–1960) may be regarded as one example of this practicality of research – by introducing and popularising „authentic“ folk costumes they were canonised as cultural heritage. Discipline’s national nature and regionality simultanously meant internationality. The then ethnologist were in contact with colleagues from other countries where the same methodology was acquired. In 1939 the professorship of ethnology was established at the UT, which was filled by G. Ränk, a former long-time researcher at the ENM. It was a relevant event in the history of Estonian ethnology, which asserted vitality of the discipline and made it possible for subsequent generation of ethnologists to take form.
The dissertation discusses the history of Estonian ethnology in the 1920s and 1930s, and consists of four articles published in 2010–2016. The research focuses on the first professional Estonian ethnologists and their role in the development of the discipline in its institutional, national and international context. Similar with other Northern and Eastern Europe countries, Estonian ethnology grew out of the 19th century romantic nationalism, and became an academic scholarship in the interwar period. In the 1920s, Ilmari Manninen (1894–1935) directed both the Chair of Ethnology at the University of Tartu (UT) and the Estonian National Museum (ENM). He defined material peasant culture as the field of study and historic-geographical method as its approach. This view has been seen as narrow (folk culture was seen as a timeless and socially uniform phenomenon) and distinctive to the whole era. The analysis of the permanent exhibition of Estonian folk culture, opened in 1927, confirmed this approach. The ambiguous reception of folk culture became obvious, above all, in the analysis of the fieldwork materials provided by the first generation of ethnologists – Ferdinand Linnus (1895–1942) and Gustav Ränk (1902–1998). I discovered variability and contextuality in the then understanding of folk culture as research object. In the 1920s and 1930s, Estonian ethnology developed into a national and regional discipline, which, due to social and political conditions, remained practical by nature. The small number of professionals and the discipline’s connection to the museum also played a certain role in it – all the named ethnologists worked at the ENM. The ambitions of young discipline contradicted reality as few acting researchers were busy with administrative and professional tasks at the museum and were able to dedicate less time to academic knowledge production than expected. The practical aspect of scholarship became most pronounced when ethnologists and the museum participated in the state’s cultural propaganda in the second half of the 1930s. The handbook “Estonian folk costumes” (1938) by Helmi Kurrik (1883–1960) may be regarded as one example of this practicality of research – by introducing and popularising „authentic“ folk costumes they were canonised as cultural heritage. Discipline’s national nature and regionality simultanously meant internationality. The then ethnologist were in contact with colleagues from other countries where the same methodology was acquired. In 1939 the professorship of ethnology was established at the UT, which was filled by G. Ränk, a former long-time researcher at the ENM. It was a relevant event in the history of Estonian ethnology, which asserted vitality of the discipline and made it possible for subsequent generation of ethnologists to take form.
Kirjeldus
Väitekirja elektrooniline versioon ei sisalda publikatsioone.