Naslov
A Multi-Role Contextual Approach to Pilgrimages

Autori
Katić, Mario

Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Sažeci sa skupova, sažetak, znanstveni

Izvornik
Approaching Pilgrimage: Methodological Issues Involved In Researching Routes, Sites and Pract / - , 2019, 15-18

Skup
Approaching Pilgrimage: Methodological Issues Involved In Researching Routes, Sites and Practices

Mjesto i datum
Zadar, Hrvatska, 04.09.2019. - 06.09.2019

Vrsta sudjelovanja
Predavanje

Vrsta recenzije
Nije recenziran

Ključne riječi
Bosnian Croat Pilgrimage ; Relevant Context ; Multi-Role Contextual Approach

Sažetak
I was always troubled with the question of how to approach and research such a complex phenomenon as pilgrimage sites and practices. When I first started researching a Bosnian Croat pilgrimage site of Kondžilo in Bosnia and Herzegovina I had a very particular perspective – I was a volunteer. My insight into this pilgrimage site was very specific and different from other “common” pilgrims. At first I did not realise that, but over the years, and expanding my research on other Bosnian Croat pilgrimage sites (St John of Podmilačje, Bobovac and Diva Grabovčeva) this issue came to be one of the most important in my observation of Bosnia Croat pilgrimages. Over the years I decided to approach different pilgrimage sites of the same community through a different perspective/role. I continued to be a volunteer at Kondžilo pilgrimage sites where I had already established a rapport from this perspective but at St John of Podmilačje I decided to act as and be a “plain” pilgrim. At Bobovac pilgrimage sites I became a part of the community that does not organize the pilgrimage event but participates in and makes a significant part of the pilgrimage group. And then at pilgrimage to Diva Grabovčeva for three years I was a companion to a priest who participated in the Mass and confessed the pilgrims. My approach that developed over the years was based on the idea of the problem and importance of the relevant context. I have developed the ideas about the relevance of the context elsewhere (Katić 2019) and I will summarize them here: The researcher using their pre-existing knowledge about some phenomenon or practice frames a hypothesis and begins their research. In order to have their research accepted by others, they employ as an analytical framework, among other things, context - contextualization. However, out of any number of possible contexts, meanings and functions that this particular phenomenon or practice could have for the holders – our interlocutors, in different spatial and time frameworks – the researcher chooses only one "relevant" context that is relevant for them and for the audience for which they are writing. Choosing this particular and specific context as the most relevant for interpretation, they consciously or un-consciously, find arguments, evidence and artefacts that will support their claims and hypothesis. If some new elements surprisingly appear that do not fit into the framework and relevant context that have already been established by the researcher, then they are likely to be discarded as context that is irrelevant to the context in which the researcher is working. Such discarding or exclusion of other contexts constitutes an act of power and hegemony. Moreover, an important issue is the researcher’s reflexivity and self-awareness. If we imagine that the main source of the information’s is an interlocutor we have additional factors to be aware of. Besides our perspective and selection of information, there is also the perspective and selection of our interlocutors. The research process is always a two way street, we receive the information that our interlocutor wants to share with us. So, our selection is a selection of the selection. And then, at the end, both our perspective and our interlocutors are influenced by broader cultural, social, political, etc. contexts. Taking this into consideration I want to try to observe as many “relevant contexts” as I can and try to present all the possible aspects and meanings that Bosnian Croat pilgrimage sites and practices could have. I cannot approach the same site from a different perspective since I already have an established rapport with different roles. Moreover, I have already framed and formed knowledge about the site and practice based on that role. Hence, the main question that I want to discuss at this workshop is: Can I take this multi-role approach and talk about Bosnian Croat pilgrimages in general? I realise that I am actually talking about four different sites. But, on the other hand they are the same national, religious, and identitarian group ; the institutional Church is the same ; three sites are visited by the same cardinal ; there are people that visit all the sites since they are not happening in the same time ; all these locations are within 100 km distance ; and all are in the same political, social and cultural context. There are some local differences, of course, but can they prevent comparison between these sites and drawing some general conclusion regarding Bosnian Croat pilgrimages, especially, since I am myself a member of this community? With my different insights into different parts, aspects and relevant contexts of the Bosnian Croat community, can I legitimately approach their pilgrimage sites in this way?

Izvorni jezik
Engleski

Znanstvena područja
Etnologija i antropologija

POVEZANOST RADA