ABSTRACT
As for the state of anthropological scholarly debate on the topic of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia's dissolution several contested yet otherwise almost habitually used notions/concepts need to be band together and at least briefly addressed. These are: boundaries and grounds of a field of science, including the problem of studying one's own society and the doxa of an outsider's impartiality; centre and periphery; objectivity and militancy, also concerning desirable engagement during fieldwork or thereafter is part and parcel of the anthropological research. The case with political sciences, communication sciences, sociology or history, cultural anthropology has been expected to provide answers, or at least assist in answering the question of why this had happened and, more importantly, why this had happened 'that way'. It may be stated that the topic of Yugoslav 'dissolution' is in Croatian cultural anthropology more commonly understood in somewhat wider terms, most often as being part and parcel of the/a process of 'transition'.
