183VYTIS CIUBRINSKASCONCLUSIONThe politics and praxis of the peoples studying discipline(s) in Lithuania shows a clear difference which remains between national ethnology and sociocultural anthropology. The former, throughout the periods of its existence, applied “cultural tradition” and was used as a discipline for “national culture engineering”. The latter, supposed to be cosmopolitan and coming from the West as “post-socialist novelty”, has been contested in Lithuanian academia. The epistemological modus vivendifor these two “peoples studying disciplines” is suggested by Hann as “methodological pluralism” (Hann 2006). Such pluralism is noticeable and gains recognition in the recent fieldwork-based research conducted by Ullrich Kockel, in which Lithuania is portrayed as part of a “re-visioned” Europe (Kockel 2010), and also in the “good life” studies of post-socialist Lithuanian society by Asta Vonderau (2010). It is also clearly seen in the scope of the journal Lithuanian Ethnology: Studies in Social Anthropology and Ethnology, published since 2001.REFERENCESApanavicius, Romualdas. 2009. “Etnologijos studijos Lietuvoje 1927–2005 metais.” Lithuanian Ethnology: Studies in Social Anthropology and Ethnology9(18): 134–164. Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large. Cultural Dimensions of Globalisation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Baumann, Gerd. 1997. “Dominant and Demotic Discourses of Culture: Their Relevance to Multi-Ethnic Alliances.” In Debating Cultural Hybridity. Multi-Cultural Identities and the Poli-tics of Anti-Racism, edited by Pnina Werbner and Tariq Madood, 209–225. London and New Jersey: Zed Books.Brubaker, Rogers and Frederick Cooper. 2000. “Beyond ‘Identity’.” Theory and Society 29: 1–47.Burke, Peter. 1992. “We the People: Popular Culture and Popular Identity in Modern Europe.” In Modernity and Identity, edited by Scott Lash and Jonathan Friedman, 293–308. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.