Indeksy etnograficzne w polskiej praktyce badawczej XX w.

The article presents the “archeology” of the process of shaping ethnographic research methodology in Poland. The author uses archival fieldwork materials gathered in the 20th century, created by employees of anthropological research institutions, which belonged to various universities, museums, academies of sciences and other research units. Among the extensive resources analyzed in this article there are materials from field research under the supervision of Kazimierz Moszyński (the first half of the 20th century), concerning Polish spiritual culture. Another set of resources is constituted by the Polish Ethnographic Atlas materials, a project initiated by Moszyński, but mostly continued by his follower – Józef Gajek (the second half of the 20th century). The issues in question are situated at the intersection of three theoretical perspectives. They are: the post-Foucault’s critical theory concerning the relationship of power and domination, media studies perspective, focusing on the mechanisms and tools of data administration, and, finally, the literacy theory emphasizing the  relationship between communication modes as well as thinking styles and logic of social organization. The ethnographic indexes featuring in the title of the article involve records, metrics and descriptions added to fieldnotes, surveys or conversations transcripts. The indexes contain detailed descriptions of people contacted by anthropologists. These descriptions primarily relate to the origin, education, health and wealth of the  interviewees, but also include opinions about the interlocutors’ intelligence and their usefulness for further research. This way of describing was strongly marked by convention, due to which the indexes could provide an array of profiled information about each interlocutor or the entire studied community. They have been used to create catalogs and files of “informants”, which further intensified the process of depersonalization. The author argues that this practice of anthropologists, remaining beyond their interlocutors’ knowledge and consent, allowed for schematic and objectifying description of persons encountered in field. As a result, it can be argued that this procedure, with reference to discursive legitimization, possessed the character of symbolic power. More importantly, this kind of description transformed the interlocutors into subjects of evaluations and classifications, enabling an assessment of “informants” primarily in terms of their suitability for efficient acquisition of research data.