From the „engaged intellectuals“ to the „specific intellectuals“. Ethnologists Milovan Gavazzi and Milenko Filipović in the Light of Intellectual History (1930-1969)

U radu se prikazuje profesionalno djelovanje etnologa Milovana Gavazzija i Milenka Filipovića iz perspektive intelektualne historije. Rad je metodološki temeljen na analizi pismene korespondencije dvaju etnologa koja se čuva u Hrvatskom državnom arhivu u sklopu Gavazzijeve ostavštine. Implementacijom teorijskog fokusa Bourdieuove teorije polja, preko analize pisama pokušalo se sagledati intelektualno djelovanje obaju etnologa u periodu trajanja korespondencije (1930.-1969.). Kako su Gavazzi i Filipović bili nejednako pozicionirani unutar polja etnološke znanosti u objema Jugoslavijama (kraljevine i socijalističke), tako se njihov intelektualni rad promatrao u rasponu od aktivnijeg društveno-političkog angažmana u međuraću ka kasnijoj intelektualnoj povučenosti unutar okvira vlastite struke u periodu socijalizma. Posebna je pažnja, osim toga, bila posvećena i prikazu odnosa među jugoslavenskim etnolozima, strukovnome razvoju te etnološkim dodirnicama hrvatske i srpske etnologije – ponajviše Gavazzijevom i Filipovićevom djelovanju u sklopu Etnološkog društva Jugoslavije.This thesis presents the professional work of ethnologists Milovan Gavazzi and Milenko Filipović from the perspective of intellectual history. The paper is methodologically based on the analysis of written correspondence between two ethnologists kept in the Croatian State Archive. By implementing the theoretical focus of Bourdieu's Field theory, an attempt was made to look at the intellectual work of both ethnologists during the period of correspondence (1930-1969) through the analysis of letters exchanged by two colleagues. As Gavazzi and Filipović were unequally positioned within the field of ethnological science in both Yugoslavias (kingdom and socialist), their intellectual work was observed ranging from more active socio-political engagement in the interwar period to later intellectual retreat within their own profession during socialism. In addition, special attention was paid to the presentation of relations between Yugoslav ethnologists, professional development, and ethnological contacts of Croatian and Serbian ethnology – by focusing on Gavazzi's and Filipović's work within the Ethnological Society of Yugoslavia