[1980, Human Organization, Journal of the Society for Applied Anthropology, XXXIX, 3, 284-286]

It is exceedingly difficult to discuss the unenviable tradition and development of the social sciences in Italy. Observers recently have become more aware of Italian ethno-anthropology, with articles by Bernardi (1974), Lanternari (1974) and Grottanelli (1977) effectively providing a necessary historical background for contemporary Italian anthropology. Without repeating their argument, I must stress that before the 1940s, ethnology was the undisputed and only protagonist of Italian anthropology. Being much more historically oriented than United States social sciences, Italian ethnology focused on a comparison of non-European "primitive civilizations", with little attention paid to contemporary Italian social problems.

In respect, this form of ethnology has been accused of representing a scientific escape to exotica, divorced from confronting Italian sociocultural realities. A doubtful exception might be ethnologists' concern for folklore, an effort concentrated in Southern Italy. Initially, it was philological or literary in nature; eventually it became more historical and ethnological. Although the folklorist tradition dated back into the 19^th century and should be considered a valuable intellectual tradition (Pitre, Cocchiara, Gramsci, De Martino, Cirese, Di Nola, Gallini and Lombardi Satriani, to mention just a few), the works can hardly been considered applied anthropology or applied social science in the American meaning of the term.

Tullio Tentori must be credited with introducing to Italy what Americans know as cultural anthropology. Following World War II, he introduced not only the theoretical and methodological foundations of this discipline, but also established academic anthropology in the university structure. The "new" science was distinguished from the previous ethnological tradition. Tentori's efforts received enthusiastic support from several young scholars, an enthusiasm wich gradually allowed cultural anthropology to achieve a more well-defined and significant role within the Italian social sciences (Tentori 1977:608-11). Consequently, the first competitions for university chairs during the late 1960s and early 1970s established cultural anthropology within the Italian academy. Grottanelli (1977:599) notes that in 1977 there were only 21 professors of anthropology in Italy -8 in cultural anthropology, 6 in ethnology, and 7 in folklore. More recently, a new national competition has opened up nine chairs, with the division between the fields being five, two, and two respectively. In contrast, social anthropology has had greater difficulty gaining a legitimate place within the university structure. It was taught briefly at the University of Palermo in the 1940s, at the University of Urbino during the 1960s, and at the Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali in Rome for only a year (1977-78).

More recently, some Italian anthropologists have been attempting to downplay the theoretical and methodological differences between cultural anthropology and ethnology, preferring to stress the communalities between the two sciences (Pelliccioni 1976). It should be stressed, however, that despite their small numbers, not all Italian ethnoanthropologists support a reconciliation, as comments to Grottanelli's article demonstrate. It should be also be noted that innate individualism and academic egotism play a part in this negative response. Italy lacks working associations of professional anthropologists, with the only societies or institutes organized on an areal or interdisciplinary base.

Another critical feature of Italian anthropology is the absence of effective, intrauniversity coordination, such as that found in American university departments, and the absence of ethnoantropological graduate programs. With very few exceptions, our scholars were trained abroad in their specialities, and many are essentially self-taught students. Noncontinental readers should recall, however, that Levi-Strauss's academic position is as philosopher, not as an anthropologist.

A final obstacle is the chronic lack of suitable financial support, which often does not permit the fulfillment of the classic and propaedeutic fieldwork (Pelliccioni, 1977a:189). Consequently, some of our scholars are forced to remain in their armchairs. The sporadic funds which we manage to obtain from the National Research Council, the universities, or the foreign or education offices are normally limited to fortuitous and exceptional circumstances. Jablonko (1977:603) correctly points out that the present Italian situation "awakens in me the awe of scholars who must work with so little institutional backing or financial support, as compared to the strong supportive framework many of us are used to and expect in the United States". Therefore, even the choice of the fields in which we shall do our work is unfortunately tied to extrascientific considerations. For example, Italian ethnoanthropologists working in Ghana have been largely supported by the Missione Etnologica Italiana. Although the ethnoanthropologists were able to effectively utilize their own heuristic methodologies, they have undoubtedly avoided other research interests because of the lack of alternative funding possibilities.

The preceding description should provide a general background for a discussion of Italian applied anthropology. The development of applied anthropology is simultaneously inhibited by:1) the lack of clients interested in the practical uses of anthropology; 2) rational or visceral opposition from Marxist anthropologists; and 3) a shortage of funds.

The almost complete absence of either public or private clients appears to be a result of the Italian anthropologists' failure to advertise themselves. Confined to narrow academic and intellectuals boundaries, politicians, bureaucrats, industrialists and the public are generally acquainted with only the exotic aspects of old-fashioned ethnology fed them through the mass media. They are unfamiliar with the developments of "new"anthropology that pragmatically demonstrate that it is possible to analyze and suggest relevant solutions to problems in situations quite close to them. Neither sociology, nor, to an even greater extent, anthropology, is an integral part of high schools curricula. And this leads to a more serious problem. In a world increasingly ruled by violent ideas, both phisical and moral, there is a desperate need for a re-education of the populace as to what is "other" and "different". I believe this perspective to be of vital importance.

The political class views the practical reach of anthropology with indifference. A few regional and municipal corporations have hired some sociologists. Cultural experts, on the other hand, who can concretely analyze the short-term and long-term impacts of new laws or economic programs on Italy's diverse social and cultural backgrounds, are absent from representative and legislative institutions.

I, for one, after numerous attempts, have given up efforts to propose myself as an anthropological advisor to my Educational Office.

Marxist-oriented anthropologists are a second source of opposition to the applications of anthropology (Gallini, 1974; Lombardi Satriani 1974:46-49). They justify their opposition in terms of the misapplication of English anthropology in overseas colonies wich, they feel, is suspiciously connected to the practical interests of the rule of the British Crown. Moreover, they point to more recent attempts of U.S. anthropology's involvement in anthropological/military/spying operations in Indochina and South America (the Camelot affair). They are judged as reazionari fascisti, and darken the halo on the applications of our science. Although Bernardi (1977:9) notes that it is "fashionable, today, to see in anthropologist researchers of the first half of our century as favorites, if not servants, of imperialism", this criticism does not justify the outright dismissal of the English theoretical and methodological achievements of that period. Nonetheless, the criticisms and disputes over the imperialist underpinnings of applied anthropology have brought about a proper catharsis and redemption of applied anthropology.

These preconditions to Italian anthropology limit, but have not completely discouraged, applied research. Apart from the 19^th century work by Lamberto Loria, most applied research dates back to an interdisciplinary project on the countryside and the town of Matera, carried out for the UNRA Casas account (Tentori 1971:99-185). Other applied research has focused on the integral development of urban environments. Tentori and a sociologist, Guidicini (1972), have conducted interesting research on the toown of Bologna. Destro (1972:45-64) began investigations of social integration in a small immigrant village of Tor San Lorenzo in the Province of Rome, and although marked by discontinous stages, his work still continues. Using ethnological methodologies developed in research on the Tharaka of Kenya, Volpini (1979:5-44) has been working on a lengthy project on lifelong education in Gradoli, an agricultural village in the province of Viterbo. His preliminary reports suggest that this research seems promising for the economic and cultural development of this community. Tullio-Altan (1968,1971,1974) has completed research projects on mental patients, magistrates, and the problems and values of youth. And for the past three years, I have conducted research where mainly applied goals are concerned with not only urban development, but also the level of pan-ethnic integration reached by tonwnsmen in two small multiethnic towns: Isiolo, northern Kenya (since 1976) and Malakal, in southern Sudan (since 1979) (1977b:260-82;1979).

Thus, only the veneer of "pragmatic" anthropology exists in Italy. As the sociologist Ferrarotti (1972) points out, "to call determinate realities to account", one tends to solve objective problems through "literary perorations or philosophical speculations".

[URL=http://users.iol.it/f-pelli/f-pelli.anthropologyitaly.html]

Franco Pelliccioni Main Page:

NORTHERN ATLANTIC MARITIME COMMUNITIES PROGRAM