Interactions in Anthropology: Frankfurt and Vienna before the mid-20th century

Throughout the 20th century, Vienna and Frankfurt represented two major academic sites in the German- speakingworld.Withintheir overall patterns of interaction, socio-cultural anthropology (Völkerkunde/ethnology) occupied an interesting position in the humanities. By contrast to their rather transitory relations with colleagues at other German universities, Viennese ethnologists interactions with their Frankfurt counterparts were quite close, encompassing various academics of both cities at different stages between the time after World War I until the late 1940s. On closer inspection, it seems that a shared approach may be one main reason for this. Whereas other ethnologists represented functionalist, psychological or other approaches, which frequently were more oriented towards the present, in Vienna and in Frankfurt they mainly took a cultural-historical stand even though with varying basic assumptions, such as theological or racist premises. The cultural-historical concept was often based on the examination of culture circles or culture- areas with centres of dissemination (i.e. diffusion) and influenced other disciplines such as folklore, archaeology, prehistory or art history. The aim of this project is to clarify the importance inherent to very different cultural historical approaches for the various contacts between ethnologists from Vienna and Frankfurt during three decades. It should be examined to which degree this approach could bridge political and ideological differences between the individual representatives when both countries were temporarily adopting different political systems, the importance of the racial science was discussed within the discipline and most of the ethnologists campaigned for the recovery of the former German colonies. Concerning the Nazi period, it should be asked what significance a willingness to support or to oppose the Nazis had to research approaches and to mutual relationships. Based on archive documents, interviews and academic publications such as biographical and historical studies or contributions to the history of this academic field this projects purpose is to examine in which ways differences and similarities between the respective approaches were expressed in publications and in correspondence between scholars from Frankfurt and Vienna, how they were possibly linked by a common refusal of differing theoretical approaches and what role was played by different denominational political attitudes or local background. The intended study should generally contribute to the question how closely personal relations, academic work and political loyalties were connected and what could be the significance of these connections in times of crisis and totalitarian regimes. The intended project would therefore be of substantial relevance for cultural and social anthropology global history, for contemporary and recent academic history, and for all other disciplines dealing with similar questions, e.g. the sociology of knowledge.

The cultural-historical approach as a connecting element for the relatively close and lasting ties between ethnologists in Vienna and Frankfurt - both cities were centres of this orientation - could be confirmed based on archive material, literature research and interviews. Despite numerous and sometimes significant differences amongst individual representatives of the cultural-historical approach, as well as substantial political or ideological divides, they were united - regardless of their regional focus - by their shared academic orientation towards those in the discipline who represented other approaches. They often cultivated a more tolerant attitude than with colleagues from other academic orientations. However, within Vienna, where from the 1920s until 1938 the SVD Fathers dominated ethnology with a theological cultural-historical approach, those who did not follow this 'Vienna School' felt disadvantaged. They therefore often sought opportunities to work and exchange ideas outside Vienna, especially with colleagues working in cultural history in Frankfurt, where the Research Institute for Cultural Morphology had been based since 1925. As a co-founder of the cultural-historical approach, the director of this institute at that time already rejected schematic approaches as well as a theological and racist orientation. The beginning of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany had little impact on professional relations between Vienna and Frankfurt. Jewish family background or party membership had no significant influence on relations between the Viennese and Frankfurt representatives of the cultural-historical orientation. Even during the years 1938 to 1945, the shared cultural-historical approach bridged ideological and political differences. After the 'Anschluss', the institute's director in Vienna was dismissed and the new director advocated a 'racial' approach to cultural history. In Frankfurt, following the death of the previous institute's director, the potential successor lost their teaching license because he was married to a Jewish woman. The Frankfurt institute was threatened with closure. Here, connections were maintained with the SVD fathers in exile in Switzerland, as well as with the cultural-historically orientated Viennese prehistorian and Minister of Education in the 'Anschluss cabinet,' Oswald Menghin, and with the new director of the institute in Vienna. Despite discrepancies in both their basic assumptions and their positions on the Nazi regime, the latter showed their support for the members of the Frankfurt Institute. These networks endured the war. Untainted ethnologists now helped colleagues with a Nazi background. Positions toward the National Socialist movement and diverging fundamental principles receded into the background, while a shared research approach formed the foundation for lasting relationships among these scholars and fostered a measure of mutual trust.