CFP AAA 2019: Different But Not Different: Ethnographies of Substitution
CFP AAA 2019: Different But Not Different: Ethnographies of Substitution
CFP: Reworking the Cognitive Bias in and out of Biomedicine (AAA 2019)
This year, we at Somatosphere are trying an experiment in academic
mentorship. Two of our regular contributors and editorial collaborative
members, Emily Yates-Doerr and Matthew Wolf-Meyer, are hosting a panel
designed to ease early-career anthropologists (broadly defined) into
academic publishing. The idea is to bring together scholars interested in
analyzing cognition or cognitive-related practices ethnographically (see
the CFP below), with an eye toward publishing a series at Somatosphere in
the following year. To that end, Emily and Matthew have committed to
working with the panelists to turn their papers into Somatosphere posts.
Additionally, there's the possibility that the group will continue to work
together in an effort to put together a special issue of a journal on a
related theme, potentially reworking the Somatosphere posts into
The panel will have room for 4-5 panelists in addition to Emily and
Matthew's discussant roles. If we receive enough papers for an additional
panel, we hope to recruit two additional Somatosphere editors to serve as
discussants for a second panel. If you are interested in participating,
please send a preliminary abstract to Emily and Matthew. (email@example.com;
Our hope is that this experiment will provide a model for future mentorship
activities through Somatosphere and the AAA generally.
CFP: Reworking the Cognitive Bias in and out of Biomedicine
“Instinct,” “behavior,” “impulse,” “drive,” “habit,” “addiction.” Medicine
has an expansive lexicon to conceptualize how and why humans act, much of
which is centered upon biologically determinant mechanisms of experience.
Additionally, humans are described as suffering from cognitive
“impairments” and “decline,” which localize sociality in the changing
matter of the brain and confine development and disability to inevitable,
linear biological conditions. In this panel, we bring together
anthropologists engaged in debates that query our “thinking” about
thinking, to rework the cognitive bias in and out of biomedicine. Such
approaches might include ethnographies of patients and practitioners that
explore the relations between brains, bodies, and environments; they may
also include engagements with individuals and communities invested in
disrupting cognitive biases outside of medicalized contexts. Across the
cases, we hope to highlight experimental and experiential situations that
help to reimagine the brain as the site of cognition and neuroreductive
approaches to action. In borrowing “imagination” to do this work, we want
to highlight how engagements with thinking about thinking can usefully undo
neuro- and psy- orthodoxies; can we reclaim and reterritorialize the
imaginative field of thought and cognition through ethnographic engagements
with alternative, creative, and experimental situations? We hope to
encourage a renewed anthropological interest in the socio-material shaping
of action in order to usefully interfere with existing models of
body-environment connections. The panel aspires to push considerations of
responsibility, obligation, and care away from classifications of “good”
and “bad,” “social” and “anti-social,” “human” and “animal,” and towards
more generative ways of apprehending social action and relations.
Possible topics include
-practices that are seen as shaping particular kinds of bodily and mental
capacities, which may include diet, meditation, exercise, legal and illegal
drug use, etc.
-relationships between individuals, communities, and their consumption
practices that shape their apperception of the world
-attempts on the part of experts and lay people to develop techniques and
technologies for shaping cognitive capacities
-engagements with disabled communities and individuals who challenge
normative and ableist models of cognition
-multi-species and STS ethnographic approaches to more-than-human worlds
and how they shape human processes associated with cognition
-para-ethnographies of experts in and out of the social sciences who are
developing models of human action that move beyond neuroreductive
conceptions of behavior
Call for Papers, AAA/CASCA Annual Meeting, Vancouver November 20-24, 2019.
Migration, Placemaking and the Interrogation of Nation-based Discourses
Organizers: Glynis George (University of Windsor) and Nicola Mooney (University of the Fraser Valley)
The shift towards mobilities in anthropological research extends the dynamic and fluid approach that has been taken towards migration and culture within the discipline (Brettell, 2018). Yet, drawing from Glick-Schiller and Schmidt (2016) we argue that place remains a valuable tool and space through which to examine nation-bound discourses and the dynamic flow of migrants. Transnationalism certainly shifted our gaze towards the movement of people between, across, within, and beyond particular places; to the complex identifications and flows that unmoor people from places and the cultural norms, social roles and labour that associated them with particular ways of life. But recent calls (eg. DeGenova, 2016) to reflexively interrogate place and our native point of view, and to view placemaking as a precarious and fraught process (Hinkson, 2017) invite us to de-centre national constructions of migration, and the place of place within them, and to subvert the hierarchies of belonging they create. Places for example, are produced through sedimented and ongoing practices of everyday and creative habitation amid hyperdiverse alterities (Hall 2015, Williamson 2016) – including those of migrants whose routes, trajectories, and traces refashion social and political landscapes and imaginaries. This session invites papers that explore placemaking and emplacement, to reflect critically on migration, cultural flows and/or national discourses of migration and immigration within Canada, the US and other nations. Papers may explore how migrants negotiate placemaking in relation to work, family, social and cultural practices, settlement and citizenship; the relationship between placemaking, emplacement and belonging; emplacement as the process through which places are constructed and re-inscribed through intercultural and/or migrant/immigrant/resident engagement; placemaking as a critical interrogation of national discourses of migration and immigration.
Brettell, Caroline B. 2018. Conceptualizing migration and mobility in anthropology: An historical analysis, Transitions: Journal of Transient Migration, 2(1): 7-25.
De Genova, Nicholas. 2016. The ‘native’s point of view’ in the anthropology of migration, Anthropological Theory, 16(2-3): 227-240
Hall, Suzanne. 2015. Migrant Urbanisms: Ordinary Cities and Everyday Resistance, Sociology 49(5): 853-69.
Hinkson, Melinda. 2017. Precarious Placemaking, Annual Review of Anthropology, 46:49-64.
Schiller, Nina and Schmidt Garbi, 2016. Envisioning place: urban sociabilities within time, space and multiscalar power, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 23(1)1-16
Williamson, Rebecca. 2016. Everyday space, mobile subjects and place-based belonging in suburban Sydney, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(14): 2319-2335.
CfP- AAA Panel: Care and Privatization in Marketizing Socialist Asia
*Care and Privatization in Marketizing Socialist Asia*
Panel proposal for the American Anthropological Association’s Annual
Vancouver Convention Center November 20-24
*Convener: Minh Nguyen, University of Bielefeld, Germany*
This panel takes as a starting point a broad conceptualization of care as
the processes involved in creating and sustaining selves, bodies and social
relationships (Nguyen, Zavoretti and Tronto 2017). As such, care is a
social field in which support, nurture and solicitude are given and
received, and at the same time a political one that is ridden with
inequalities and manipulations, where social actors compete for power in
defining how it should unfold.
In Laos, China and Vietnam, Asia’s former state socialist countries that
are rapidly marketizing, care is not just becoming a frontier of
commodification, but also a moral trope that powerful institutions rely on
for legitimation. Above all, the state and the market are found to be
zealously deploying the discourse of care for their goals of producing
particular kinds of citizen and consumer subject while disciplining those
who deviate from the new economy’s norms and standards. It would be,
however, no surprise for anthropologists that people in these places do not
just endorse these norms and standards, but also co-opt, negotiate with and
contest them through alternative meanings and even non-compliant practices.
This panel will focus on such negotiations and contestations around care in
market socialist Asia. Papers will reflect on the possibilities and
politics of care arising from the workings of institutions such as the
welfare state, local communities, the family, charitable organizations and
movements, labor markets and private companies in the market socialist
economy. Of particular interest is the interface between care and
privatization in contexts where socialist institutions and practices
continue to require an emphasis on redistribution despite market-oriented
imperatives of private accumulation and private responsibility.
From: Minh Nguyen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CfP AAA/CASCA 2019: Critically Examining the Reproductive Politics of Nourishing Substances
CfP AAA/CASCA in Vancouver, Canada: 20-24 November 2019
Critically Examining the Reproductive Politics of Nourishing Substances
Anthropological scholarship on reproduction and assisted reproductive technologies has studied the role of nature and nurture in the making of kinship. A wealth of literature has explored the cultural meanings associated with biogenetic substance, such as blood, gametes and embryos. Scholarship has to a lesser extent focused on the role of nourishing substances in reproduction and kin-making (Carsten 1997, Mol 2010, Faircloth 2013, Yates- Doerr 2015). Ranging from milk and other secretions of the maternal body to food and nutraceuticals manufactured at a global industrial scale, what is the role of nourishment in creating kinship ties and relationality? With an increasing post-genomic emphasis on the plasticity of bodies as shaped through their environments (Landecker 2011), scientists, fertility specialists, (intending) parents, and policymakers are now increasingly turning to nourishment as a technology for shaping and enhancing future health and safeguarding against chronic disease. This panel provides renewed attention to how nourishing substances are conceived, constructed and given meaning in reproductive projects at different scales between the molecular and the global. What is the reproductive role of nourishment as it is turning into a major technology in the 21st century? What are the ways in which nourishment is stratified? How does it shape who can or cannot reproduce? And, how might an increasing focus on nourishment and reproduction itself be an indicator of changing environments and climates?
Papers responding, but not limited to, the following themes and topics are welcome:
• Nourishing substances: placental secretions, milk, food
• Nutraceuticals & food supplements, fertility treatment add-ons
• Cooking & care-giving
• Fertilisers, pesticides, hormones & endocrine disrupting molecules
• Parenting & gender
• Environmental racism & reproductive justice
• Environmental pollution & climate change
• Empire, nation and decolonisation
• Multispecies perspectives
Accepted panelists will be notified by Monday, April 1, and will be expected to submit their respective abstract to the AAA by Friday, April 5.
Dr Karen Jent
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Reproductive Sociology Research Group (ReproSoc)
University of Cambridge
16 Mill Lane
The Climate of Commodity Discourses:
Values We Produce, Market, and Consume
Global commodity chains are one lens anthropologists use to examine the dynamic entanglements within human social relations that exist in a highly monetized world, where worth is often determined by a set of cultural conversations founded on a clear stress on the principles of market value. Studies within political economy, anthropology, and cultural theory continue to counter the taken-for-granted narrative of economic calculability to uncover the seemingly hidden aspects of the commodity and its value. Still, the constructed value is often legitimized via particular commodity discourses.
This panel asks participants to focus specifically on commodity discourses that are deployed by actors to legitimize a particular value for an object, people, or institution. From billboards to social media, to pilgrimages and temples, to supermarkets, bazaars and traders, to the epistemological foundations of certain industries – these discourses can be found in a myriad of places. Today’s environmental, political, and economic climates shape the discourses we find being pushed forth under such banners as ethical, green, sustainable, socially conscious, democratic, fair trade, organic, pure and authentic. These commodity discourses often both standardize and differentiate objects via a number of taxonomies all in a singular moment, constructing our social worlds. This session aims to address discourses at different points of a commodity’s social life in a variety of global locations.
At this time, we have three paper presentations and hope you will consider joining us at AAA – CASCA! Please submit abstracts of 250 words (max) to Jason.email@example.com by April 1st.
Jason WM Ellsworth (Dalhousie University)
Alice Ping-Hsiu Lin (The Chinese University of Hong Kong)
Making known: Social and other media, public spheres and persons
A proliferation of social media usage poses challenges for any easy assumptions about the changing nature of the field with increasing possibilities to reflect both on anthropological methods and self-understandings of people we study. This panel calls for papers which address some of these issues which may incorporate both emergent practices within communities as well as larger ‘local-global’ interactions and virtual public spheres. What kinds of interactions – arguments, different kinds of sociality/ invisibility, new concerns about privacy, identities, hate crimes/ violence on the notion of person – occur to bridge the divides between different settings or set up new boundaries. What are the particular mediated spaces and how might these extend the scope for anthropological enquiry in dealing with contemporary issues within and beyond domestic spaces? To what extent are the lack of regulation and ambiguous understandings of rights and privacy issues intercepting traditional understandings of persons in communities and as citizens? In what ways do such issues afford re-engagements with ‘traditional’ topics and shift the objects of enquiry? How are these settings differently conceptualised in the processes of happenings?
Papers may reflect for instance, on:
• Social media, privacy and new forms of sociality
• Invisibility and voice through social and other media/ contested voices in and out of the home/ public-private spheres, virtual media and localised identities/’global’ citizenship
• New methodological issues and innovations in studying social media/ the shifting object of anthropological enquiry and media voices
• Rights of the person to be forgotten in relation to social and other media/ violence, reputational loss and social media platforms/geopolitics, public spheres and the anthropological enquiry
In one instance, growing prevalence of media devices in the home and community offer researchers opportunities to question methodological limits and incorporate new approaches. In another, varied interactions within ‘ordinary’ domestic spaces around media usage and or around lack of such usage can also be marked by scrutiny and self-reflective practices in these settings. This may particularly be so where change appears uneven: media can be repositioned as differential agents within and beyond domestic settings. This propels spaces for multitudes voices and capacities for interventionist roles where persons and their media inhabit both micro and macro settings. In what ways are these settings joined or separated through the different usage of media?
If of interest, please submit an abstract (250 words max) to Narmala Halstead (Narmala.firstname.lastname@example.org) by March 28, 2019.
When Human Rights Fail: Paradoxes and Problems in the Practice of Human Rights
Human rights discourse is mobilized by activists, bureaucrats, and diplomats across the world. From the most grassroots social movements to the international conference rooms and halls of the United Nations, individuals and organizations argue for specific actions, protections, or interventions rooted in human rights. While these claims offer a variety of discursive, political, and strategic benefits, which may be deemed successful, at other times human rights “fail.” There are examples of asymmetries of the vernacularization of human rights in which local activists cannot successfully “appropriate, translate, and remake transnational discourses” relevant to the communities in which they work while others are much more adept (Merry 2006:3). The human rights system’s conceptualizations of humanness, has also meant that race, gender, socioeconomic class, and sexual orientation (among many other categories) may be used to deny certain groups human rights because they are not human enough to claim such rights (Schippers 2018; Wynter 2003). Human rights discourses may be mobilized to hurt the very people they claim to protect (Cheng 2011).
Our panel seeks papers that interrogate how, why, or when human rights “fail” through an ethnographic lens. This broad premise attempts to locate the variety of situations in which an anthropology of human rights can deal critically with the human rights system, the practice of human rights “on the ground,” human rights’ effectiveness, and the paradoxes they entail. We are soliciting papers that engage with human rights ethnographically, rather than theoretically, to demonstrate the nuance of human rights in activist and social movement settings. Our goal is not to tear down the human rights system, but rather to use ethnography to think about how else human rights are being conceptualized, mobilized, and practiced, as well as how these new conceptualizations transform human rights.
Our discussant will be Professor Kamari Clarke, Carleton University.
Please send your proposed abstract (max 250 words), along with affiliation, current status, and contact information to Nathan Madson (email@example.com) and Amarilys Estrella (firstname.lastname@example.org) by March 31, 2019 3PM EST.
We look forward to your submissions!
Eligibility: All Annual Meeting participants must be paid Annual Meeting registrants (by April 10 at 3 pm ET) AND have active memberships through November 24. Anthropologists outside of the U.S. or Canada, or non-anthropologists, may request a Membership Exemption, but meeting registration is still required. Membership exemptions must be requested by Wednesday, March 20. For financial assistance with registration, please complete the Program Chair Waiver application prior to Wednesday, March 20. The completion of an application does not guarantee a waiver will be awarded.
2011 The Paradox of Vernacularization: Women’s Human Rights and the Gendering of Nationhood. Anthropological Quaterly 84(2): 475–505.
2003 Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument.
Merry, Sally Engle
2006 Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schippers, Birgit, ed.
2018 Critical Perspectives on Human Rights. London: Rowman and Littlefield International.
AAA/CASCA 2019 "The Nature of Capitalist Time"
Call for Papers: We are looking for one more paper to complete our double-panel session “The Nature of Capitalist Time” at the meeting of the AAA/CASCA 2019 in Vancouver, 20-24 November 2019.
The Nature of Capitalist Time
Economic anthropologists have contributed greatly to our understanding of the temporal dimensions of capitalist production, exchange, and consumption. Meanwhile, environmental anthropologists have analyzed the centrality of time to ecological processes, seasonal and climatic change, and associated human ways of being in the world. But aside from a few exceptions, which tend to pivot on big concepts like the Capitalocene and the Anthropocene, these parallel bodies of scholarship have yet to engage in sustained conversation about the degree to which capitalist time is facilitated, impeded, or otherwise shaped by “nature.” This panel is animated by a number of broad questions: How exactly does nature mediate the temporality of capitalism? In what ways does capitalist time depend on nature as idiom, as object, or as force? How do the ongoing transformations of both capitalism and nature reconfigure the temporal contours of social and political life? What kind of more-than-human collaborations emerge in these contexts?
Participants will focus on the discursive and material linkages between economy, ecology, and temporality in specific sites and situations. Possible areas of inquiry include the temporal rhythms characteristic of mineral extraction; the influence of evolutionary timelines on the formation of racialized labor regimes; the ways in which seasonal changes may hinder or facilitate resource production and trade; the toxic afterlives of technological waste; or climatic fluctuations integral to the generation of alternative energies. While we highlight the need to think across the boundaries of economic and environmental anthropology, our effort to unite these different strands of research will neither aspire to a singular theory about the nature of capitalist time nor settle for an eclectic inventory of infinite variation. Rather the objective is to account for the diverse but patterned temporal registers in which the relationship between nature and capitalism is expressed (e.g., accelerations, compressions, disruptions, delays, pauses, bursts, crises, cycles). This panel invites contributions that engage ethnographically with any aspect of capitalism (e.g., labor, financialization, neoliberalism, trade, investment, debt, extraction, and wages) in relation to nature broadly conceived (e.g., microbes, hurricanes, insects, glaciers, genes, wind, oil, sunlight, gold, carbon, gravity, and water). We welcome contributions that draw on cross-disciplinary and decolonizing approaches in order to move anthropological discussion forward.
Please, send your abstract (250 words) to the panel conveners, Gisa Weszkalnys (email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>) and Austin Zeiderman (A.Zeiderman@lse.ac.uk<mailto:A.Zeiderman@lse.ac.uk>), by 22 March 2019.
CfP AAA/CASCA 'The Post-Anthropological. Convergences Across Museums, Art, and Colonialism'
With apologies for cross-posting, please see the following CFP for the upcoming CASCA/AAA Annual Meeting in Vancouver, BC (Nov 20-24).
The Post-Anthropological. Convergences Across Museums, Art, and Colonialism.
Convenors: Margareta von Oswald (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) and Jonas Tinius (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)
In recent years and especially across European postcolonial contexts, the renaming, reform, and even reconstruction of anthropological museums is embedded within and reinforced by a fierce debate about the legitimacy, location, and expertise for anthropological representation. This has led to what we describe as a post-anthropological moment in which anthropology becomes problematised beyond itself.
Inflected by our own research of these developments in anthropological museums, and their convergences with contemporary art and debates on colonialism in Europe, we have witnessed and been struck by the extent to which both anthropology as a discipline (including its history and institutions, such as museums and archives) and themes traditionally associated with it have become central topics of discussion beyond the discipline’s institutional confines. We have identified three areas of debate – current transformations of anthropological museums, contemporary art, and post-colonial critique – that have arguably become the most productive and vibrant ‘post-anthropological’ fields. We take the tension implied in the ‘post’ not to represent a crisis of identity for anthropology, but a productive moment that may open up new ways of negotiating anthropological representation beyond itself. This debate is thus not just one within anthropology, but also and perhaps more significantly, about the elsewhere and otherwise of anthropology.
The discussion on the post-anthropological is situated in current debates in museum studies, anthropology, and curatorial studies as well as linking discussions on colonial legacies with those on contemporary art. We seek contributions which respond to and challenge the notion of the ‘post-anthropological’ and the fields and debates associated with it: current transformations of anthropological museums, contemporary art, and post-colonial critique. We are particularly interested in case studies and observations, historic and contemporary, from outside of Europe.
CFP (AAA/CASCA 2019): Articulating morality in return migration
Please find below the CFP for our panel at AAA/CASCA 2019, Vancouver, 20-24 November.
We have one place left for presentation in the panel, and welcome your proposals.
*** Articulating morality in return migration ***
Jarrett Zigon (University of Virgina)
Ted Fischer (Vanderbilt University)
Migrants’ decisions to return to their countries of origin are informed by the comparison and assessment of different life scenarios. Such comparison requires pondering and deliberating on life ‘here’ and ‘there’, linking such assessment to one’s own circumstances and possibilities. The experience of return also raises a range of moral demands and dilemmas, calling on migrants to (re)negotiate belongings, allegiances, and (re)attune their ways of dwelling in social environments that may diverge from expectations. In this session, we are interested in ascertaining and exploring the key areas of moral concern and deliberation that inform migrants’ return projects as well as their concrete experiences of return. What domains of life, we ask, are of most absorbing moral concern for return migrants? Which areas of intense moral deliberation characterize migrants’ imagining and concrete experiences of return? Integral to these lines of enquiry is ascertaining the source and nature of moral concerns and deliberation: When do these moral concerns arise? Who is voicing them and in which context? Which are the moral narratives informing such judgments? How are evaluations articulated? With these questions, we are also interested in addressing the “why” of moral concerns and deliberations, including the reasons that explain the emergence of moral issues in the first place, the way they affect some domains of life over others, and in which manner. This requires exploring how such concerns are linked to specific political economic configurations and changes in living conditions. It also means paying attention to people’s socio-economic positioning, statuses, and relational entanglements in order to discern the importance of lines of differentiation linked to class, gender, generation, race and ethnicity among others. While providing a better understanding of the promises and challenges of return migration, these paths of inquiry will shed new light on how moral concerns and deliberations emerge, are articulated, and circulate in transnational spheres and across a variety of contexts, providing valuable insights on how moralities travel different scales and locations, gain salience, and eventually acquire a global dimension. With this session, we encourage scholars working on return migration and closely related phenomena to reflect on the moral dimension of such trajectories of mobility, and to do so in dialogue with recent advances in the anthropology of ethics, morality and the good life.
Valerio Simoni (Graduate Institute, Geneva)
Jérémie Voirol (Graduate Institute, Geneva)
AAA/CASCA 2019 Call for Papers
Panel: Strategies of Care and Resistance at the Margins
As borders close and carceral states deploy protectionist and nationalistic language to justify the increasing number of ways that particular bodies are criminalized and illegalized, how do targeted populations organize and sustain resistance? Beyond the images selectively circulated in mainstream medias that depict snapshots of spontaneous and organized resistance, including protests and rallies against authoritarian regimes and police and colonial violence, this session seeks to understand the strengths, needs, and struggles of criminalized groups outside of such hyper-visible moments of resistance. We aim to develop a better understanding of how, on a day-to-day basis, groups that are differentially marginalized, criminalized, and stigmatized build and sustain communities. In particular, we are interested in the care work that is both needed and undertaken by members of criminalized communities, the ways in which this intersects with race, gender, class, and legal status, and the variable role that ‘community care’ plays in strategies of resistance.
Global in focus, this session welcomes submissions that diversely engage with one or more of the following topics:
Incarcerated persons (particularly women of color) and their service needs
Motherhood in the context of incarceration and criminalization
Navigating criminalization at the intersection of race, gender, and class
Care work (individual, family, community) in the context of criminalization and resistance
‘Burn out’ in community care work and organizing
Strategies of resistance, including social justice, human rights, and intersectional feminist approaches
Engaged and applied anthropology and researching with criminalized and/or incarcerated persons
Chosen families in criminalized communities
The criminalization of trans and queer racialized bodies and challenging popular depictions of resistance and progress
This panel is organized by Dr. Catherine Fuentes, Teaching Professor UNC Charlotte, and Dr. Nicole D. McFadyen, York University. Please email 250 word abstracts with paper title and presenter information to email@example.com , Cc firstname.lastname@example.org by Wednesday, March 27th.
CfP CASCA/AAA 2019 panel 'Assembling Social Worlds: Anthropological Engagements with Social Work'
Ann Marie Leshkowich and I are organizing a panel for the upcoming CASCA/AAA meetings in Vancouver on new anthropological engagements with social work (see CfP below). Abstracts welcome, deadline 25 March.
Very best, also on behalf of Ann Marie,
Anouk de Koning
Assembling Social Worlds: Anthropological Engagements with Social Work
CfP for the CASCA/AAA Annual Meeting, Vancouver, November 20-24, 2019
Conveners: Anouk de Koning (Radboud University) and Ann Marie Leshkowich (College of the Holy Cross)
This panel seeks to explore new avenues in anthropological studies of social work beyond the more usual focus on how social workers combine empowerment and governance, care and control. We propose to envisage social workers as experts who assemble social worlds and help create forms of personhood. Social work practices provide us with access points to the configuration of social worlds in locally embedded, material ways that are conversant with transnationally circulating forms of social work and therapeutic knowledge and practice. This panel invites contributions that elaborate, through concrete case studies, social work as world making, not only in the European and the US contexts in which the profession originated, but also in diverse sites around the globe.
Contributions could address the following sets of questions:
How do social workers conceive of the social world on which they act, and how do they understand their ability to act on it?
How do social workers help create conceptions of personhood? On what kinds of understanding of individuals and society do these conceptions of personhood draw?
What technologies, including documentation and infrastructure, do social workers use to create and enact these social worlds and forms of personhood?
What do we gain from an understanding of social work as affective labor, for instance in terms of the classed and gendered nature of social work, or in the kinds of relations it creates in and through its practices?
What kinds of ethics of care and responsibility infuse social work, and how do these relate to the power dynamics that are often central to the governmental tasks of social work?
How can we understand the globalization of social work, including concurrent politics of knowledge related to indigenizing social work?
Please send abstracts of proposed contributions to email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> and email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> by March 25 2019, at the latest.
Roundtable CFP for AAA/CASCA 2019, “Reconciling the archive: a roundtable discussion of the principles and practices of research data management”
Please consider joining our proposed roundtable “Reconciling the archive: a roundtable discussion of the principles and practices of research data management” at the 2019 Meetings of the AAA and CASCA.
Reconciling the archive: a roundtable discussion of the principles and practices of research data management
The findings of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and more recently, the recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission continue to shape, refine, and re-define the principles and values that academics use as a measure for conducting ethically sound research with Indigenous populations in Canada. The OCAP® principles have become the de facto standard for how to conduct research with First Nations. Standing for Ownership, Control, Access and Possession, these principles assert that First Nations have control over data collection processes in their communities, and that they own and control how this information can be used (FNIGC 2019). In line with these principles, scholars like Kovach (2005) ask whether researchers’ methods are effectively “creating space.” How, in other words, are researchers reconciling the historically “extractive” (Kovach 2010) research processes in light of the OCAP® principles? More specifically for this roundtable we are asking: What are we doing with research archives? How do we engage in the repatriation of the intellectual artifacts/outcomes of our research? The aim of this roundtable is to engage anthropologists (and scholars of allied disciplines) to critically examine both the challenges and potentialities for effectively working with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis partners/communities to incorporate and operationalize ethical principles of data management considerations into our research practices. Roundtable participants will engage in a discussion of the ways in which we are storing, returning, and/or managing research data and how we are able to fulfil the intertwined principles and values enshrined in OCAP® (and other Indigenous/community-based research protocols). Some questions that we will collectively explore include (but are not limited to): What are anthropologists doing to engage and fulfil the OCAP® principles in the context of the qualitative research that they produce? How do we work with communities not just in the process of co-producing new knowledge but in managing the data that emerges from those practices as we consider our roles in the processes of reconciliation? How are we incorporating data management considerations into our research designs and research grant applications? How are we returning our data and how/where are we and/or communities/organizations storing and accessing it? How are we making our data accessible? Have any anthropologists created an accessible portal for First Nations, Inuit, and/or Métis communities and individuals to access and use the research data? We welcome the input/participation of graduate students and faculty at all levels and stages of the research process. Please send 100-word abstracts describing your contribution to the roundtable to Naomi Adelson <email@example.com> by March 26, 2019.
Kovach, M. (2010). Indigenous Research Methods and Interpretation. In Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts (pp. 121–140). University of Toronto Press.
Kovach, M. (2005). Emerging from the Margins: Indigenous Methodologies. In L. Brown & S. Strega (Eds.), Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous and Anti-oppressive Approaches (pp. 19–36). Canadian Scholars’ Press.
CfP AAA 19: Infrastructure and environmental transformations
Dear Colleagues, with apologies for cross-posting, please find below a CfP for our panel at AAA/CASCA 2019, Vancouver, 20-24 November:
Crisis in the meantime: Infrastructure and environmental transformations
Discussant: Kregg Hetherington (Concordia University)
In times of profound environmental transformations across local and global scales, state authorities and engineers have increased efforts to establish infrastructure that will “contain” the most harmful consequences of various anticipated catastrophes. In addition, people seek to “proof” existing and prospective infrastructure against the threat of future environmental crisis and disruption. Far from being “a call to study boring things” (Star 1999) that only reveal themselves in failure, attending to infrastructure in times of unprecedented environmental crises requires an appreciation that such projects are often highly foregrounded for users and planners.
As others have noted, infrastructure projects, rather than as a barely heard “background hum” to the smooth flow of goods and services, are often highly visible in particular locations. Acknowledging this, we wish here to push for a consideration of how increasingly unruly environments dynamically play into the promises and aspirations that infrastructure are said to contain. In this way, we seek to investigate how infrastructure becomes a constitutive factor in our relation with the environment: while some may find hope and increased stability in projects of preparedness, others distrust government authorities and engineering knowledges, lacking faith in their efficacy.
Acknowledging that infrastructure helps shape our relation with past and prospective environmental change, this panel explores the potential of infrastructure to generate distinct temporalities that bring to the fore ongoing legacies and future potentialities of transformation and disruption. We are particularly concerned with how people’s engagement with infrastructure shapes the production of particular temporalities – or a distinct “meantime” – before and between potential catastrophic events. We invite proposals for papers that consider how infrastructure amidst environmental transformation may fail to meet people’s needs and worries, or shift people’s relation with an environment ever on the move and that address themes of environmental transformation, temporality and infrastructure across spatial and temporal scales.
Panel convenors: Tom Boyd (Manchester University) and Noah Walker-Crawford (Manchester University)
CFP AAA/CASCA 2019: "Beyond Rights and Freedoms: Sexual and Reproductive Justice in the Age of Authoritarianism"
CASCA - AAA Panel -Critical Pedagogy and Changing Climates in Canadian Anthropology (and beyond)
Critical Pedagogy and Changing Climates in Canadian Anthropology (and beyond)
This roundtable is the inaugural event of the proposed Network for Critical Pedagogy in Canadian Anthropology, which serves to bring together anthropologists interested in the intersections between anthropology, ethnography, and critical pedagogy. In keeping with the theme of this year’s joint AAA/CASCA conference, this roundtable will facilitate discussion of the “changing climates” in both senses of the term: What are the changing climates in which we teach anthropology in Canada today? And how might we, as anthropologists and teachers, effect a change in climate informed by the joint insights of critical pedagogy and anthropology?
There are many challenges facing Canadian anthropology in today’s changing climate, and these are often entangled with the role we have as teachers. The connection between anthropological research and teaching has always been intimate because each informs the other; good teaching is informed by research and good ethnography always requires the researcher to be an attentive learner. Moreover, as more and more faculty work as either precarious (contract) faculty or in teaching-intensive streams, the value and support for research is diminishing and the focus on teaching increasing. In addition, there is an increasing pressure in many universities to engage in various “new” types of pedagogy: high impact practices, SOTL, community service learning, experience-based learning, etc. Although these have the potential to be progressive, there is a growing critique of their complicity with neoliberal project and of a corollary lack of commitment to collaboration and social justice in the classroom. But, of course, it is not just the institutions in which we work that are changing. “Climate change” in both Canadian social and political life and in Canadian Anthropology also raises many issues and questions worth thinking about in conversation with critical pedagogy: questions about teaching in and about the Anthropocene, about the pursuit of Truth and Reconciliation, about decolonizing the classroom, the curriculum, and the discipline, about #MeToo, and more. What conversations might we have about these institutional, societal, and disciplinary developments if we view them through the lens of anthropology and critical pedagogy?
In its most elementary form, critical pedagogy is about changing climates: challenging the status quo, seeking justice, and producing change. Therefore, in this panel, we invite participants to discuss how anthropological perspective on “struggle, collaboration, and justice” might bring about such changes.
Overall, this panel seeks to interrogate the intersection of ethnography, pedagogy and research and the importance of critical pedagogy to social justice. We seek participants who are coming from different perspectives, teaching environments, and career stages and trajectories. Ultimately, we intend for this roundtable to lay the foundation for ongoing conversations about what critical pedagogy explicitly informed by the disciplinary insights of anthropology might look like, in theory and in practice.
If you are interested in participating in this roundtable panel, please send a brief description or suggestions of the topic(s) you would like to address and discuss to Mary-Lee Mulholland (firstname.lastname@example.org) or Maggie Cummings (email@example.com)
CFP (AAA/CASCA 2019): Settler worlds: affect, land & intimacies of nation making among settlers
With apologies for cross-posting, please see the following CFP for the
upcoming American Anthropological Association conference in Vancouver, BC
(Nov 20-24). The annual theme is “Changing Climates/Changer D’Air.”
AAA/CASCA CFP 2019
Settler worlds: affect, land and intimacies of nation making among settlers
Organizers: Piergiorgio di Giminiani (Pontificia Universidad Católica de
Chile) and Sophie Haines (University of Oxford)
Rather than an event, settler colonialism appears as a power formation
responsible for material processes of indigenous dispossession.
Ideologically, settler colonialism works to consolidate economic and
political inequalities between natives and settlers based on hierarchical
differences in native and settler claims to national belonging, development
and environmental entitlement. Environmental transformation and development
through settler expansion is the principle by which settlers can claim
native status towards the nation, a discursive process that curtails native
claims towards land. While settler biographies of engagement with the land
rotate around ideals such as emptiness, endless environmental
transformation and landed capital accumulation central to settler colonial
ideologies, they cannot be reduced to mere reflections of settler colonial
ideologies. A growing number of works (see Dominy 2011, Campbell 2015,
Blair 2017, McIntosh 2016, Suzuki 2017,) have ethnographically illustrated
the complexity of settler worlds by drawing attention to the unequal
articulation of claims towards property, nationhood and environmental
conservationism among settlers themselves. Especially at the margins of the
colonial project, settlers’ engagement with land reveals embodiments and
understandings of land as more than a neutral background for capital
accumulation. This panel aims to explore how embodied relations with the
land among settlers can elicit at once imaginaries of land as neutral
background for capital accumulation, but also affective relations through
which disputed senses of place and critical stances towards state and
market can emerge. We seek contributions that ethnographically engage with
disputed claims on justice, nationhood, gender and capitalism among
settlers through a focus on environmental affect and intimacy.
Blair, J. 2017 Settler indigeneity & the eradication of the non‐native:
self‐determination & biosecurity in the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 23:580-602.
Campbell, J. 2015 Conjuring property: speculation & environmental futures
in the Brazilian Amazon. University of Washington Press.
Dominy, M. 2001 Calling the station home: Place & identity in New Zealand's
high country. Rowman & Littlefield.
McIntosh, J. 2016 Unsettled: denial & belonging among white Kenyans.
University of California Press.
Suzuki, Y. 2017 The Nature of Whiteness: Race, Animals, & Nation in
Zimbabwe. University of Washington Press.
CfP: AAA Paper Panel: “Engineering markets: Ethics, entrepreneurship, experimentation”
CfP: AAA Paper Panel: "De- and Re-Territorialization in Metropolitan France"
Ellen Badone and I are organizing a panel for the 2019 AAA/CASCA meeting in Vancouver (Nov. 20-24th, 2019) on "De- and Re-Territorialization in Metropolitan France." We are excited about this topic and would like to invite you to participate. Please read over the panel abstract below and, if interested, send us your paper abstracts via e-mail by March 24th. Also please feel free to pass this call for papers along to other researchers who may be interested in participating.
Dept. of Anthropology
University of California, Los Angeles
Professor, Anthropology and Religious Studies
Hamilton Ontario L8S 4K1
Type: Call for Papers
Date: Nov. 20-24th, 2019
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Panel Title: De- and Re-Territorialization in Metropolitan France
Submission Deadline: March 24th
Abstract: In keeping with the AAA-CASCA conference theme “Changing Climates: Struggle, Collaboration and Justice,” this session brings together anthropologists who work with diverse ethnic, linguistic, religious and regional communities located in metropolitan France. We seek to foster an exchange of ethnographic knowledge related to: the organizational structures of these communities, their present and historical formations, their tactical and strategic manœuvres vis-à-vis the state, their modes of social relation (including the interrelation of communities), and their modes of relating to the political economy. Through this exchange, we hope to develop a richer understanding of how new and classical liberalism have impacted France’s sub-national communities. Crucially, we treat the term “community” – used in the conference theme – as part of our problematic. We do this because we are aware of the controversies that this term has sparked within the French context (e.g. the various accusations of communautarisme that French parliamentarians have leveled against cultural and religious organizations).
The French state has long refused to recognize sub-national communities as legal entities lest they insinuate themselves between the state and the citizen, arrogate rights that are (ideologically) ascribed to one of these parties, or claim to derive specific rights from their entity-status (cf. Colosimo 2016, Spinoza 1670). One notable example of this policy of non-recognition is the government’s refusal to ratify the European Charter for Minority Languages on the grounds that it contravenes the French constitution and threatens the “unity and indivisibility of the Republic.”
Beyond policy decisions of this sort, which work against the recognition of sub-national communities directly, the state apparatus (SA) also undermines the cohesion of sub-national communities through a set of mundane bureaucratic mechanisms (e.g. bank accounts, competitive exams, identification cards). These mechanisms work to undermine community by individuating, mobilizing and re-arranging elements of the population. Nonetheless, it must be recognized that the French state has on other occasions and in other ways reinforced sub-national communities. For example, it tried to attenuate the phenomenon of urbanization during the 19th century through the veneration of rural communities and corresponding vilification of urban life in its scholastic manuals (Thiesse 1996, 2014). Clearly, we are not dealing with an “absolute deterritorialization” here, but rather one that is always partial and prone to relapse, one which forever takes with one hand what it gives with the other (Deleuze and Guattari 1980). In light of this recognition, we encourage our panelists to reflect on the concrete ways that their research “communities” have been made, unmade and re-made over time through their engagement with the state, the global and national economies, and other segments of French society.
2016 Les bûchers de la liberté. Paris, France: Stock.
Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari
1980 Mille plateaux. Paris, France: Éditions de minuit.
Spinoza, Benedictus de, Jonathan I Israel, and Michael Silverthorne
2007 Theological-political treatise. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
1996 Les petites patries encloses dans la grande: les manuels scolaires régionaux de la IIIe république. Mission du patrimoine linguistique. www.culture.gouv.fr/content/.../1/.../Ethno_Thiesse_1996_129.pdf.
2014 Ils apprenaient la France L’exaltation des régions dans le discours patriotique. Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme. http://books.openedition.org/editionsmsh/2475, accessed February 25, 2019.
Call for Papers
2019 AAA-CASCA Annual Meeting
Vancouver, BC, CAN
“Capacity and Consent in Relations of Care”
Evaluations of capacity and consent are ones laden with normative imaginings. Such evaluations can become particularly intensified as people become involved with medical and juridical regimes as subjects of care. At the same time, the vexed relationship between capacity and consent pervades everyday life as capacities to articulate desires are limited through norms of rationality, sanity, and able-bodiedness that shape ordinary ethical encounters.
This panel seeks to think through the entanglements of capacity and consent, and to invite ways of imagining these otherwise. It is particularly interested in examining adulthood and adult status as they bring together conversations of aging and disability. As children are a category commonly considered incapable of fully consenting, older adults and adults living with disabilities may also be infantilized as they are marked in their lack through norms of youth and able-bodiedness. Desires for sexual intimacy, for example, may become compromised through the moral strictures of care institutions or legal guardians, while daily decisions ranging from courses of treatments to what to eat and how to dress wind through notions of senility, logics of cure, and proper gendered embodiment.
What could it be to think consent as desire? How are understandings of capacity and consent entangled with normative conceptualizations of the life course? What are the pervasive medical and juridical norms and logics of care that limit adults’ capacities to express wishes and to refuse? How can different forms of articulation of consent be heard?
Abstracts of 250 words should be sent by March 24thto: firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear Colleagues (apologies for cross-posting)
Please contact us if you’re interested in contributing a paper to this AAA panel. Please e-mail proposed paper titles and abstracts (max. 250 words) to Paolo Bocci (email@example.com) and Andrew Flachs (firstname.lastname@example.org) by Wednesday, March 27th. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us.
CFP: AAA 2019 “Changing Climates: Struggle, Collaboration, and Justice/Changer d’air: Lutte, collaboration, et justice.”
American Anthropological Association Meeting
November 20 – November 24
Co-Chairs, Paolo Bocci and Andrew Flachs, Discussant: Sarah Lyon
Creative and tenacious farmwork: Rethinking resistance and resilience in agriculture
While seldom in dialogue, the analytics of ‘resilience’ and ‘resistance’ have informed scholarly debates of change and political possibility in rural life. Resilience, the ability to absorb disturbance, has become a central organizing framework in the study of socioecological systems because it challenges equilibrium-based theories in ecology and anthropology, helping describe dynamic responses in resource management, conservation, finance, climate change, and security (Walker and Cooper 2011; González, Montes, and Rodríguez 2008; Berkes, Folke, and Colding 2000). Ironically, given its claims of flexibility, resilience often continues a dualistic understanding of human and nature whereby humans cannot do anything but respond and adapt. Resistance, a crucial concept in critical agrarian studies and political economy, has informed academic literature around peasants’ struggles for land tenure, political organization, and production control. Confronting contemporary forms of economic and conservation enclosure, an analysis of ‘resistance’ that confronts contemporary economic and conservation enclosure recognizes that smallholders create counter-narratives, form complex political alliances, and participate in dominant economic forms (Hall et al. 2015). Yet the ability to pursue viable and vital rural life, whether legible or not as a form of politics “from below” (Borras and Franco 2013), remains often unexplored. By rethinking resistance and resilience in agrarian life, this panel aims to theorize the creative and tenacious ways that small farmers create rural worlds in an era of urbanization, economic interconnections at multiple scales, and agrarian populism.
Small farmers are not disappearing in the contemporary globalized political economy – to the contrary, these communities creatively shape global agrarian capitalism (van der Ploeg 2014). We seek papers that explore the forms of vitality that farmers possess within, or despite, these structural forces. How do farmers generate localized, alternative opportunities for livelihood and wellbeing? How do they respond to the dominant discourse and policies, such as those around organic agriculture or conservation, to live by and affirm distinct practices and values beyond mere endurance? Although we recognize the paramount value of discussing and advocating for structured forms of counter-politics, including the mobilization of ancestral knowledge, this panel looks at forms of world-making that are emerging, situated, and informal. Much agricultural life impacted by and in conversation with global socioecological change is not captured by the usual analytics of resistance and resilience. Nonetheless, it effectively shapes this rural political economy. We welcome contributions exploring farmers’ tenacious and creative responses to and within institutions whose reach has increased worldwide (especially in the Global South), and we encourage panelists with theoretical insights and case studies of institutions including agribusiness, conservation, political activism, right- and left-wing populism, certified organic, and fair trade labeling.
Berkes, Fikret, Carl Folke, and Johan Colding
2000 Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press.
Borras, Saturnino, and Jennifer C. Franco
2013 Global Land Grabbing and Political Reactions ‘From Below.’ Third World Quarterly 34(9): 1723–1747.
González, José, Carlos Montes, and Daniel Rodríguez
2008 Rethinking the Galapagos Islands as a Complex Social-Ecological System: Implications for Conservation and Management.
Hall, Ruth, Marc Edelman, Saturnino M. Borras Jr, et al.
2015 Resistance, Acquiescence or Incorporation? An Introduction to Land Grabbing and Political Reactions ‘from Below.’ The Journal of Peasant Studies 42(3–4): 467–488.
van der Ploeg, Jan Douwe
2014 Peasant-Driven Agricultural Growth and Food Sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies 41(6): 999–1030.
Walker, Jeremy, and Melinda Cooper
2011 Genealogies of Resilience: From Systems Ecology to the Political Economy of Crisis Adaptation. Security Dialogue 42(2): 143–160.
CFP AAA-CASCA: Incorporating entrepreneurship: aspiration, class and self-making in ethnic and class-based market insertion strategies
Call for Papers: American Anthropological Association Meetings Vancouver,
BC November 20-24 2019
Organizers: Piergiorgio Di Giminiani, Sally Babidge, Marcelo Gonzalez
Discussant: Carla Freeman
During the last three decades, micro-entrepreneurship has become a major
target of governmental and corporate action worldwide. The expansion of
programs aimed at supporting potential and early career entrepreneurs, have
affected an increasingly large sectors of society across different class
and ethnic backgrounds. Inspired by the principles of micro-finance,
entrepreneurial governance has emerged discursively as a panacea for
economic precariousness among marginalized sectors of society, bearing
promises of more inclusive access to entrepreneurial formation and feeding
hope of social mobility. At the same time, under the banner of innovation,
entrepreneurial governance has also created new inequalities by reifying
class differences. Many of the ideals behind the emergence of new
entrepreneurs reflect neoliberal principles, in particular,
self-accountability, and a celebration of economic freedom, regardless of
ongoing dependence on governmental support to small scale entrepreneurs.
Although micro-entrepreneurial governance often fails to engender the
promised transformation of citizens into fully independent entrepreneurs,
it remains a powerful technology. By eliciting imaginaries of
self-realization based on the constant renewal of aspiration,
micro-entrepreneurial governance serves as the context in which potential
and actual entrepreneurs redirect their life trajectories through the
articulation of new claims of class and ethnic difference. We seek
contributions that engage with practices, experiences and discourses of
micro-entrepreneurship. These may focus on the effects of state,
non-governmental or corporate interventions in entrepreneurial formation of
individual subjects or communities, as well as critical responses among
potential and actual entrepreneurs.
Please send an abstract (maximum 250 words) to Piergiorgio Di Giminiani (
email@example.com), CCing Sally Babidge (firstname.lastname@example.org ) and Marcelo
Gonzalez (email@example.com ) by Thursday March the 24th. For preliminary
queries, feel free to get in touch!
AAA CFP 2019: Creative and tenacious farmwork: Rethinking resistance and resilience in agriculture
Dear Colleagues (apologies for cross-posting)
Please contact us if you’re interested in contributing a paper to this AAA
panel. Please e-mail proposed paper titles and abstracts (max. 250 words)
to Paolo Bocci (firstname.lastname@example.org) and Andrew Flachs (email@example.com)
by *Wednesday, March 27th*. If you have any questions or comments, please
do not hesitate to contact us.
CFP: AAA 2019 “Changing Climates: Struggle, Collaboration, and
Justice/Changer d’air: Lutte, collaboration, et justice.”
American Anthropological Association Meeting
November 20 – November 24
Co-Chairs, Paolo Bocci and Andrew Flachs, Discussant: Sarah Lyon
*Creative and tenacious farmwork: Rethinking resistance and resilience in
While seldom in dialogue, the analytics of ‘resilience’ and ‘resistance’
have informed scholarly debates of change and political possibility in
rural life. Resilience, the ability to absorb disturbance, has become a
central organizing framework in the study of socioecological systems
because it challenges equilibrium-based theories in ecology and
anthropology, helping describe dynamic responses in resource management,
conservation, finance, climate change, and security (Walker and Cooper
2011; González, Montes, and Rodríguez 2008; Berkes, Folke, and Colding 2000).
Ironically, given its claims of flexibility, resilience often continues a
dualistic understanding of human and nature whereby humans cannot do
anything but respond and adapt. Resistance, a crucial concept in critical
agrarian studies and political economy, has informed academic literature
around peasants’ struggles for land tenure, political organization, and
production control. Confronting contemporary forms of economic and
conservation enclosure, an analysis of ‘resistance’ that confronts
contemporary economic and conservation enclosure recognizes that
smallholders create counter-narratives, form complex political alliances,
and participate in dominant economic forms (Hall et al. 2015). Yet the
ability to pursue viable and vital rural life, whether legible or not as a
form of politics “from below” (Borras and Franco 2013), remains often
unexplored. By rethinking resistance and resilience in agrarian life, this
panel aims to theorize the creative and tenacious ways that small farmers
create rural worlds in an era of urbanization, economic interconnections at
multiple scales, and agrarian populism.
Small farmers are not disappearing in the contemporary globalized political
economy – to the contrary, these communities creatively shape global
agrarian capitalism (van der Ploeg 2014). We seek papers that explore the
forms of vitality that farmers possess within, or despite, these structural
forces. How do farmers generate localized, alternative opportunities for
livelihood and wellbeing? How do they respond to the dominant discourse and
policies, such as those around organic agriculture or conservation, to live
by and affirm distinct practices and values beyond mere endurance? Although
we recognize the paramount value of discussing and advocating for
structured forms of counter-politics, including the mobilization of
ancestral knowledge, this panel looks at forms of world-making that are
emerging, situated, and informal. Much agricultural life impacted by and in
conversation with global socioecological change is not captured by the
usual analytics of resistance and resilience. Nonetheless, it effectively
shapes this rural political economy. We welcome contributions exploring
farmers’ tenacious and creative responses to and within institutions whose
reach has increased worldwide (especially in the Global South), and we
encourage panelists with theoretical insights and case studies of
institutions including agribusiness, conservation, political activism,
right- and left-wing populism, certified organic, and fair trade labeling.
Berkes, Fikret, Carl Folke, and Johan Colding
2000 Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and
Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press.
Borras, Saturnino, and Jennifer C. Franco
2013 Global Land Grabbing and Political Reactions ‘From Below.’ Third
World Quarterly 34(9): 1723–1747.
González, José, Carlos Montes, and Daniel Rodríguez
2008 Rethinking the Galapagos Islands as a Complex Social-Ecological
System: Implications for Conservation and Management.
Hall, Ruth, Marc Edelman, Saturnino M. Borras Jr, et al.
2015 Resistance, Acquiescence or Incorporation? An Introduction to Land
Grabbing and Political Reactions ‘from Below.’ The Journal of Peasant
Studies 42(3–4): 467–488.
van der Ploeg, Jan Douwe
2014 Peasant-Driven Agricultural Growth and Food Sovereignty. The
Journal of Peasant Studies 41(6): 999–1030.
Walker, Jeremy, and Melinda Cooper
2011 Genealogies of Resilience: From Systems Ecology to the Political
Economy of Crisis Adaptation. Security Dialogue 42(2): 143–160.
CFP for CASCA/AAA FALL 2019 Ethnographies of Afforestation and Capitalist Landscapes
The ethnographic examination of afforestation practices throws in sharp relief histories of more-than-human engagements with forest ecology, forestry, silviculture and forest management, whose unintended outcomes regularly challenge anthrocentric notions of modernity and capitalism. This panel considers the fraught relations that exist between many forms of capitalist extractivism, afforestation, and the forest landscape. Taking afforestation practices as its focus, this panel responds to Anna Tsing's invition to explore the ruins and margins of capital landscapes as the dwelling place of heterogeneous collectives. It also draws on critics of political economy who have tried to theorize capitalist landscapes as the result of global systems of production, exchange, and speculation, underlining the heavy tendencies of capital to reproduce, normalize and structure its own margins, especially forest enclosures. This panel invites scholars whose work on afforestation, forest plantations, or forests more generally, addresses, bridges, and/or reconciles these different approaches to capital and nature. Potential ideas include a consideration of how forest plantations invite a reconsideration of nature, the potentials opened when considering multispecies assemblages in capitalist ruins, and the ways that forests can represent both normalized structure and precarious margins.
This panel is organized by Dr. Jodie Asselin, Assistant Professor, University of Lethbridge and Dr. Pierre-Alexandre Paquet, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Please email 250 word abstracts to Jodie.firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com before March 23rd.
CfP for CASCA/AAA 2019
Please consider joining our panel "Land Relations in Flux: New Land
Investments and Precarity"
Land is central in economic, political, cultural, ecological, and
affective relations. As Li (2014) argues, land, while often treated
like a commodity, must be made so through the work of assembling its
value as such and settling other potential meanings, values, and uses.
New land-reliant capitalist economic activities often disrupt existing
land-based relations. In so doing, they may displace people and/or
alter lifeways, ecological processes, and non-capitalist economic
activities. The arrival of new land-reliant capitalist activities may
also ignite, exacerbate, or even settle conflicts over land’s meanings,
values, and uses. These activities are found in agricultural and urban
areas, in settler colonial and post-colonial societies, in borderlands,
in special economic zones, in ecologically meaningful areas, and in
resource-rich regions. This panel will present papers on the changing
economy of land, and the impacts on people who face changing access to
the valued resources, relationships, and cultural practices land
enables. It will examine precarity, cultural change, and conflict
within and over land's varied meanings, values, and uses, and the
possibilities for decolonization, redistribution, and ecological
Li, T. (2014). What is land? Assembling a resource for global
investment. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 39(4),
The intervention we hope this panel will make is to explore these issues
from geographically and contextually diverse ethnography, linking rather
than silo-ing urban and rural, natural resource and environmental
ethnography, borderlands, and Indigenous, settler colonial, and
post-colonial contexts. Abstracts are welcome from scholars working on
economy and land in all these areas.
Please send abstracts (250 words max) with paper title and presenter
information to panel organizer Kathleen Piovesan, Doctoral Candidate at
the University of Oregon, firstname.lastname@example.org by Friday, March 22.
Session participants must be registered for the meeting by April 5.
CASCA/AAA Call for Papers: Changing Climates of Education
for this year's CASCA/AAA conference "Changing Climates" taking place in Vancouver (November 20-24, 2019), please consider submitting a paper abstract (max. 250 words) if the below panel resonates with your work and interest. Please send your abstract by March 25th, and any question to email@example.com
I am generally also interested to connect with people that work in and across educational anthropology, anthropology of science & technology, and science & technology studies.
Many thanks, and all my best,
Changing Climates of Education: engaging critical work across educational anthropology, anthropology of science, and science & technology studies
Institutional settings have been prominent sites for educational anthropologists to study knowledge formation and education. While in recent years much work has moved beyond such settings, many scholars point to a still prevalent conception of education as synonymous with institutions, with the school as default norm (Ingold 2018; Levinson 1999; Varenne 2008). Indigenous studies scholars in particular have questioned taken-for-granted epistemological and ontological assumptions of education (Brayboy et al 2015; Lomawaima & McCarty 2006). Scholars in anthropology of science and science & technology studies (STS) likewise started off by focusing on how institutions, like the lab or science policy committees, corroborate specific (technoscientific and technocratic) ways of knowing. Over time, activists and researchers have moved beyond the lab to sites where diverse actors challenge normative ways of knowing and expertise (Callison 2014; Epstein 1995). They have interrogated how expertise is defined by lived experiences and tacit forms of knowing (Felt & Wynne 2007; Lave 1988), pointing out that vast forms of knowledgeability often simply remain unregistered due to lacking resources or cultural capital (Gieryn 1999).
In these fields of study, there is a growing recognition of new or unregistered sites and ‘climates’ in which education (and expertise) emerge. In times of new information & communication technologies, what does it mean to ‘be educated’? What is meant by ‘educating the public’ in public policy schemes, e.g. aiming to democratize science & technology, or science communication (e.g. in museums) addressing wider publics? How does ‘getting an education’ receive new meaning when efforts to decolonize academia and curricula push for the recognition of epistemological difference and power struggles? Further examples include but are not limited to citizen science initiatives, Indigenous schooling, environmental and social movements, public relations work in the industry, governmental extension programs, as well as a general proliferation of educational institutions.
One way to approach these new formations is to follow educational anthropologists and ask how education sprawls into everyday life and practices, taking on new, or long existing but unrecognized cultural forms. Another way is to unpack education in ways STS scholars unpack science and technology: as situated in, and concurrently transforming sociocultural, economic or political realities. Just as technoscientific configurations are emergent forms of life that reshape politico-legal and socio-cultural realities (Fischer 2003), what new form of life has ‘education’ taken on? How, and what forms of ‘education’ do actors in these diverse settings claim in changing environmental, social, and political climates?
This panel seeks to engage critically with education through these diverse disciplinary approaches, within and beyond institutional boundaries and norms, as trans-institutional practices, as democratization or commercialization effort creating new institutions, as policy scheme, etc. It invites empirical, conceptual and theoretical work across and beyond these fields of study, which have rarely engaged, yet have much potential for fruitful exchange.
Brayboy, B.M.J. et al. (2015). Sovereignty and education: An overview of the unique nature
of Indigenous education. Journal of American Indian Education 54(1), 1–9
Callison, C. (2014). How Climate Change Comes to Matter: the Communal Life of Facts.
Durham & London: Duke University Press
Epstein, S. (1995). The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of
Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials. ST&HV 20(4), 408–37
Felt, U. & Wynne, B. (2007). Science and Governance: Taking European Knowledge Society
Seriously. Expert Working Group report for European Commission.
Fischer, M. (2003) Emergent Forms of Life and the Anthropological Voice. Duke U Press
Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ingold, T. (2018). Anthropology and/as Education. London: Routledge
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, B.A. (1999). Resituating the Place of Educational Discourse in Anthropology. American Anthropologist 101(3), 594–604
Lomawaima, K.T. & McCarty, T.L. (2006). To remain an Indian: Lessons in democracy
from a century of Native American education. New York: Teachers College Press
Varenne, H. (2008). Culture, Education, Anthropology. Anthr. & Educ. Quart. 39(4), 356–68
Mascha Gugganig, PhD
Research Group "Innovation, Society and Public Policy" (ISPP)
Munich Center for Technology in Society
Technical University Munich
Phone: ++49 89 289 29238
Augustenstr. 46, 80333 Munich
CFP for AAA/CASCA 2019 -- Emotional Encounters: Affect and Health Care in the Pacific
Call for Paper Proposals: AAA/CASCA Meeting, Vancouver, Canada. November 20-24, 2019
Emotional Encounters: Affect and Health Care in the Pacific
Organized by Dr. Holly Wardlow (U Toronto) and Dr. Barbara Andersen (Massey U)
Healthcare is an affective encounter. Patients and clinicians bring emotions to the encounter (e.g. fear/sympathy), and expect emotional expressions and attitudes from each other during the encounter (e.g. compassion/deference). Healthcare providers often undergo profession-specific pedagogies that teach them both proper emotional attitudes towards patients and how to manage patients’ emotional responses to information. And, healthcare sometimes entails giving overt instructions to patients about emotion – e.g. to “live positively” or to avoid worry. Thus, the healthcare encounter entails not only knowledge negotiation and translation, but also affective negotiation and translation.
This session aims to bring together research about emotion in the Pacific with research about the affective dimensions of health and healthcare. Pacific nations have seen anthropology’s most innovative and ground-breaking research about emotion (Rosaldo 1980, Schieffelin 1983, Lutz 1988, Feld 2012, White & Kirkpatrick 1985, Hollan & Throop 2011), some of which has considered entanglements with health and well-being. Unni Wikan, for example, analyzed Balinese sentiments in terms of “the role ascribed to emotions in nurturing or inhibiting health” (1989: 294). Little of the emotion research in the Pacific has examined the healthcare arena directly, however, and little of it has taken up theoretical approaches characteristic of the “affective turn” in the humanities and social sciences, such as analyzing “how emotion is implicated in a variety of everyday and exceptional encounters between citizens, state agents, and the dispersed material traces of state power (Laszczkowski and Reeves 2015: 3) or the globalization of emotion pedagogies (Wilce and Fenigsen 2016).
Papers may address the following questions and/or propose additional related questions:
How do healthcare providers instruct or discipline patients’ feelings, or interpellate patients as particular kinds of affective subjects? To what ends? How do patients respond?
What are the diverse affective/emotional ideologies that patients and providers bring to healthcare encounters? How are “emotion work” and “emotion talk” deployed in clinical settings? What are the resulting translations or disjunctures?
How are providers taught to feel for and express emotions to patients, and what challenges do they encounter?
How are healthcare spaces (maternity wards, outpatient areas, consultation rooms) also affective spaces, and how does this shape the nature of the healthcare encounter?
Interested participants are invited to submit a proposed title and abstract (50 word minimum and 250 word maximum) to Holly Wardlow (firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>) and Barbara Andersen (B.Andersen1@massey.ac.nz <mailto:B.Andersen1@massey.ac.nz>) by March 28. Decisions on panel inclusion will be made by March 31.
2012 Sound and Sentiment: Birds, Weeping, Poetics, and Song in Kaluli Expression, 3rd edition. Durham: Duke University Press.
Hollan, Douglas W. & Jason Throop, Eds.
2011 The Anthropology of Empathy: Experiencing the Lives of Others in Pacific Societies. New York & Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Laszczkowski, Mateusz and Madeleine Reeves
2015 Introduction: Affective States—Entanglements, Suspensions, Suspicions. Social Analysis 59 (4): 1–14.
1988 Unnatural Emotions: Everyday Sentiments on a Micronesian Atoll and Their Challenge to Western Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1980 Knowledge and Passion: Ilongot Notions of Self and Social Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1983 Anger and Shame in the Tropical Forest: On Affect as a Cultural System in Papua New Guinea. Ethos 11(3): 181 – 191.
White, Geoffrey M. & John Kirkpatrick, Eds.
1985 Person, Self, and Experience: Exploring Pacific Ethnopsychologies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
1989 Managing the Heart to Brighten Face and Soul: Emotions in Balinese Morality and Health Care American Ethnologist 16(2): 294-312.
Wilce, James and Janina Fenigsen
2016 Emotion Pedagogies: What Are They, and Why Do They Matter? Ethos 44(2): 81 – 95.
Call for Presenters – Roundtable Proposal – AAA/CASCA Conference, November 2019
Roundtable Title: The Lifecycle of a Career Research Record, or, Estate Planning for Anthropologists
Organizers: Elizabeth Finnis and Tad McIlwraith, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Guelph
We have 5 participants in this proposed roundtable session, and are opening participation to 2-3 additional presenters (see abstract below). If you are interested in participating, please send 2-4 sentences with your ideas/interests, to Elizabeth Finnis (firstname.lastname@example.org) by March 25th, 2019.
Abstract: The long-term maintenance of one’s research record is an ongoing concern for anthropologists. Often, keeping "everything" is seen as a disciplinary imperative. But, is it practical or ethical to maintain complete records in perpetuity? And if such records are kept, who is responsible for storage and managing access, particularly as we approach later career and later life? Anthropological research collections might consist of a range of material and storage options, including cloud storage, card board boxes, slide boxes, flash drives, index cards, old computers, and tangible artifacts, and while some of this material may be governed by research ethics or community agreements, other material might have been gathered prior to standardized institutional or funding agency ethics processes. In this roundtable, we bring together anthropologists from different research and employment contexts, and at different career stages, to discuss plans for the materials generated and acquired during our career activities. This involves considering the practicalities, emotionalities, and ethics of long-term field data management, storage, and archiving. Specifically, we ask participants to reflect on the following questions: What are your main concerns, or worries, when it comes to the future of your research records? What, if anything, are you doing now to plan for the long-term preservation of your research record? What are the ethics of returning (or not returning) fieldnotes, photographs, and other research materials to communities, and how should research partners be included in these decisions? And, what roles might institutions or professional archives play in resolving these issues/facilitating planning? The intent of the roundtable is to share thoughts around individualized concerns and best practices, and will include time for audience discussion.
Note: The deadline for early registration for the conference is March 20, 2019.
CfP, AAA panel "Doing nothing in an age of productivism: The moral and affective weight of passivity"
We are looking for paper proposals to the following panel for the next
American Anthropological Association meeting (Vancouver, Nov 20-24): "Doing
nothing in an age of productivism: The moral and affective weight of
passivity." The call for papers is below.
Liz Fouksman and Darci Sprengel
Doing nothing in an age of productivism: The moral and affective weight of
Panel proposal for AAA 2019
Agency and productivity are broadly considered inherently interlinked,
desirable, and virtuous. This is evident not only in dominant economic
ideologies but also across the full spectrum of political (and academic)
narratives. In these accounts, periods of inactivity or idleness are often
treated as either contemptible or temporary lapses awaiting rectification
For instance, narratives treating agency and productivity as virtuous are
manifest in conceptions of “hustle” and “entrepreneurship,” which stress
the agentive nature of the under- or precariously employed. This narrative
is also evident in dominant approaches to “the political.” Being “woke” and
giving “voice” are often assumed preferable to being “asleep” or “quiet.”
In other words, active political engagement, in the form of “resistance,”
protest, and discursive critique, are ascribed moral value as pillars of
any progressive or desirable society.
What happens when agency, productivity, and political action demonstrably
fail? What alternative worldviews, agencies, actions, imaginaries as well
as notions of self and time do such failures produce? In the aftermath of
the so-called Arab Spring, for instance, is widespread political exhaustion
and political refusal: mass mobilization and discursive critique largely
failed to institute democratic rule. This exhaustion and refusal thus
emerge from a longing for widespread political and social change at a time
when ordinary politics has proven ineffective. And in South Africa, despite
decades of (fitful) growth and a fixation with job creation by the
post-apartheid government, expanded unemployment rates remain around 37%.
There, a “proper job” (one that pays enough, and is stable enough) remains
a central aspiration even as its reality continues to recede, sparking
widespread worries and fears of passivity and “just-sitting” that shape the
imaginaries, fears and political demands of the long-term unemployed.
Built into moral narratives of “productivity” and “agency” as virtuous,
then, are its opposites. For “productivity” and “agency” to be virtuous,
there must also exist morally objectionable unproductivity and inaction.
Ascribing moral value to them depends on an inherent contradiction, since
certain types of action depend on inaction (for example when it comes to
climate change), the unemployment of some (“disposable” or “surplus”
populations), and stability (in the permanence of authoritarian regimes in
resource rich places, or of settler colonial states, for instance).
This panel interrogates the assumed positive value of and affective
attachments to productivity and agency, attachments found across the
spectrum of political and social life, including both among academics
themselves and their research subjects. The panel solicits papers that
approach idleness--as well as related concepts such as boredom, slowness,
quietness, stability, refusal, exhaustion, sitting, sleep, leisure, and so
on--as a critical lens through which to question normative assumptions
around the inherent worth of work, action, agency, and/or change.
Abstracts of 250 words should be sent by March 24th to:
email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org
The Anthropology of Friendship: Ideals and Practices in Everyday Life
While friendship has historically been a marginal subject in the social sciences, it has always been there in anthropology. Whether a question of the murky boundaries between kinship and friendship and the cross-cultural usefulness of those categories, or the ethnographic analysis of patron-client bonds, blood brotherhood, compadrazgo relationships, or gifts and reciprocity, friendship has long been both a latent and explicit theme in ethnographic studies around the world. In light of this long tradition, how can anthropologists help to understand the changing place of friendship in contemporary societies? This panel seeks participants who study friendship – broadly understood – from an ethnographic perspective. We are interested in what we can understand about social life in diverse ethnographic contexts through how people conceptualize and practice friendship, or how they configure it relative to bonds of kinship, patronage, neighbourliness, etc. We welcome contributions that understand friendship not merely as a positive, supportive, idealized relationship, but also as a difficult or tension-ridden social bond, a nexus of both support and practical problems in people’s lives.
Questions to frame contributions to this panel include, but are not limited to, the following:
-Is friendship a peculiarly ‘modern’ category? What kinds of subjects or persons do anthropologists and other scholars have in mind when they theorize friendship?
-How might the place of friendship in people’s lives be changing?
-What is the place of stories of friendship – good ones or bad ones – in everyday moral discourse? How do representations or ideals of friendship circulate in everyday life?
-To what extent is friendship an informal social relationship? In what ways do formal and informal life intersect in friendship? And how do we know formality and informality when we see them?
-How do different social actors appeal to the categories of ‘friendship’ and ‘friend,’ or how do they put them to work? How is the friend category invoked in practical situations and for what reasons?
-How do social actors deal with the practical tensions between affection and instrumentality, public and private, voluntariness and loyalty that characterize modern friendship ideals? How might friendship ideals vary cross-culturally, and how might those diverse ways of seeing it produce more robust theories of friendship in anthropology?
-How can we study friendship ethnographically? In what settings or situations do we see friendship ‘at work’ and what methodological approaches are best suited to ‘get at’ it?
AAA/CASCA CFP - The “buzz” of resource extraction
Session Organizers: Marieka Sax (University of Northern British Columbia)
Daniel Tubb (University of New Brunswick)
Abstract: Literature abounds on the community impacts of the “boom” of largescale resource extraction projects during operation, and on the consequences of the “bust” of their decline. Less attention has focused on the preceding “buzz” of what happens before a project begins operations. The buzz refers to the period—sometimes lasting years—of speculation, exploration, and preparation before construction on a specific project gets underway. All major projects go through this phase, yet little research has explored the impacts of geological surveys, environmental assessments, stakeholder and Indigenous rights-holder engagement, financial speculation, community consultations, revenue sharing agreement negotiations, and other activities that accompany the initial phase of project development. Sometimes projects don’t go forward, but value is created nonetheless without the actual extraction of raw materials. Sometimes the prospect of extraction is accompanied by community tension, local opposition, and violent conflict. What emerges in the buzz before operations begin has a local context that precedes geological surveys and site preparation. What is left behind in the aftermath of the buzz extends beyond the removal of minerals, hydrocarbons, or other materials from the earth.
This session explores the social, political, and economic impacts of the ongoing “buzz” of resource extraction and development from a variety of perspectives. Possible topics include, but are not limited to:
- What are the uncertainties and fears that accompany large resource projects?
- What community conflicts are created or exacerbated by the prospect of largescale projects?
- What impacts do consultations, agreements, and assessments have on communities and individuals?
- How does buzz phase change the demand for and access to public services, including health or education?
- How can this buzz phase impact legislation and government policy?
- Does the buzz phase have psychological or social impacts?
- What are the economic impacts on secondary industries?
- How does the buzz phase have a broad impact on quality of life?
Please submit an abstract of 250 words or less to Daniel Tubb (email@example.com(mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)) and Marieka Sax (email@example.com(mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)) no later than Friday, March 22, 2019.
CFP AAA 2019: Critical Anthropological Perspectives on Addiction Treatment Buzzwords
*Call for Papers*, AAA 2019 Annual Meeting, Vancouver, BC, CAN, November 20-24
Recovering, Rehabilitated, Healthy: Critical Anthropological Perspectives on Addiction Treatment Buzzwords
Organizers: Aleksandra Bartoszko (VID Specialized University) and Shana Harris (University of Central Florida)
Over the last decade, anthropologists have contributed numerous critical insights to the study of drug and alcohol use. We have questioned drug and user criminalization, highlighted widespread stigmatization, scrutinized treatment management, and challenged the representation of addiction as a chronic disease. Our critical work also includes interrogating terms that are "native" to the drug and alcohol field, such as "addiction," "health," "recovery," and "rehabilitation." Anthropologists and other scholars have shown the constructed and contingent character of these buzzwords by examining their historical, geographic, moral, and ethical foundations. Curiously, however, we continue to use these terms in our work, often reproducing the imaginaries we seek to critically address in the first place. In many studies, anthropologists enmesh the empirical experiences that they observe in the field with the analytical categories they use to understand them. As a result, what anthropologists and the people we study mean by such terms as addiction, health, recovery, and rehabilitation are often unclear or unquestioned.
This panel explores these issues by critically examining the roles these buzzwords play in anthropological investigations of drug and alcohol use. In our analyses, how do we use these terms and the concepts they support? How do we contend with their specific histories and sociocultural undertones? Do we, as anthropologists, accept or resist the related discourses, ideologies, and assertions that circulate within the drug and alcohol field?
We invite ethnographic theoretical papers that scrutinize these terms and the concepts they support; explore their meanings to individuals, institutions, or policies; analyze how they are used, reproduced, or resisted; and discuss their potential for future anthropological inquiry. We are particularly interested in papers that examine how empirical concepts and accounts monopolize or dominate our analytical thinking without us noticing. Given the large production of scientific research on drugs and alcohol by American scholars, we particularly invite discussion on how the local redefinitions of the treatment concepts play out in other geographical locations in the global north and south.
Please submit an abstract (250 words max.) via email to the panel organizers at email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> and email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> by MONDAY, MARCH 25, for full consideration. Presenters will be notified of selection by April 1.
Førsteamanuensis/ Associate Professor
VID vitenskapelige høgskole/ VID Specialized University
CfP AAA - Ethics and economic action in shifting climates: ethnographies of investing and saving
At the Max Planck Cambridge Centre <http://maxcam.socanth.cam.ac.uk/> we are concerned with studying the intersection of ethics, the economy and social change.
At this year’s AAA in Vancouver (Nov 20-24) we want to focus this debate on investment and savings as different forms of economic action. Find our long abstract below.
We are very luck to have Caitlin Zaloom <http://as.nyu.edu/content/nyu-as/as/faculty/caitlin-zaloom.html> (NYU) as our discussant for this session.
Please be in touch with us until March 19 with an abstract (max 250 words) if you want to join our panel: email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
All are welcome.
With all best from
Rachel Smith, Johannes Lenhard, Anna-Riikka Kauppinen
With inequalities in wealth soaring as returns on investment <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment> outpace productivity <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity>-based income (Piketty 2013), it is time to turn our ethnographic attention to practices of accumulation and returns on capital. These occur beyond the sphere of production and lead us to rents and dividends. Focussing on investment and savings helps us to focus on how people plan for the future, and the climates or conditions under which they seek to mitigate uncertainty, or take calculated risks. Ethnographic insights specifically will allow us to see not only the strategies of wealthy elites using equity to grow their assets, but also new middle-class cultures and practices of saving; it will also give us insights into the struggles of the ‘unbanked’ poor and more generally into alternatives to debt-financed and indebted lives (Rudnyckyj, 2019).
Moreover, expenditure characterized as unproductive ‘consumption’ from the point of view of an economist may be seen from the standpoint of householders and community members as forms of investment in social relations (‘wealth-in-people’), or contributing to one’s social standing or moral worth. Indeed, as Guyer (2004: 99) proposed, an alternative to classifying almost everything individuals or households do as ‘consumption’ would be to see it as forms of investments in the broad sense: ‘performative conversions’ directed toward hopes for prosperous futures, and not only with the expectation of profit-margins. Indeed, from a householder’s perspective transactions such as buying a house, contributing towards a wedding, giving tithes, or meeting children’s school fees can often be deemed forms of ‘investment’. And, as anthropologists (e.g. Bloch and Parry 1989) have long pointed out, forms of expenditure may look more ‘moral’ if not ‘rational’ when compatible with a long-term social order, or religious objectives (salvation of the soul versus storing up goods on earth), which new ethnographies of investment and saving are ideally suited to explore.
Drawing on ethnography from different geographies, economic contexts and scales this panel explores the role of ‘investing’ and ‘saving’ at different historical, economic, political, even religious contexts and (dis)junctures. We are especially interested to tease out how practices of investment and saving bridge ethical and economic decision-making. New ethnographies of investment and saving can illuminate debates and life projects organised not just around ‘value’ and ‘equity’ in the sense of profit and net worth, but also a diverse and plural set of values (Robbins 2013; Graeber 2018), including equality, fairness, justice, and grace. On the other hand, we also encourage attention to the kind of negative moral evaluations and sentiments that may pertain to practices of investment and saving, including greed, the occult, jealousy, complicity, and contempt.
By illuminating the plurality of values and sentiments that give shape to particular cultures and practices of investment and saving, this panel seeks to unearth alternative approaches to the study of economic action in constantly shifting political, economic, and ethical climates. We invite ethnography across diverse sets of actors and field-sites, including economists and bankers, workplaces, associations, households, and religious communities that provide novel insights on how people qualify particular transactions and transfers as ‘consumption’, ‘saving’ and ‘investment’.
The papers can address the following questions, among others:
- How do different ‘climates (economic, political, religious, ecological) influence people’s strategies and future-oriented action when facing risk, uncertainty and poverty?
- What practices of saving and investing do people deploy when they avoid, or are excluded from, mainstream or formal financial instruments and/or state-funded forms of welfare and pensions? This could include insights on microfinance, savings and credit associations, but also informal lending, Ponzi and pyramid schemes, and even religious and ‘occult’ economies.
- How do different kinds or degrees of investing and saving lend themselves to different forms of self-fashioning (e.g. entrepreneurial self, thrifty/responsible saver) and to moral evaluations of others (e.g. tight-fisted miser, irrational hoarder, irresponsible consumer, greedy usurer) in different contexts and climates (cf. Peebles 2015)?
- How do materiality and liquidity matter (e.g. if investments or assets are in cash, silver, land, heirlooms)?
- Metaphors such as growing, climbing, yields, and climates are often applied to economic phenomena, and particularly interest-bearing capital (Taussig 1980). What species of fetishism may ensue, and does it make a difference if one’s assets literally grow and reproduce (as in crops and livestock)?
- What kinds of ethics, not just economics, inform actions of bankers, venture capitalists, traders, merchants, religious institutions and households?
- How might practices of abstaining from consumption be motivated by other kinds of ‘saving’ or investment, such as saving the planet, or religious salvation?
- How do practices of saving and investing pertain to different temporalities and views of time, this could relate to utopian or apocalyptic visions of the future, or understandings of time as something that can be ‘saved’ or ‘invested’ as well as ‘wasted’ and ‘spent’?
CASCA-AAA2019 panel CFP: A Meditation with ‘Love Ethics’: Forgiveness and the Atrocity Paradigm Revisited
In All about Love(2000), Bell Hooks asserts, “all the great movements for social justice in society have strongly emphasized a love ethic”. Hooks considers love a “participatory emotion”, “a transformative force,” far from “naive”, “weak” or “hopelessly romantic.” Drawing from Freire, Hooks’ claim for a love ethic is claim for “honesty”, “trust”, “compassion” and “forgiveness”, as only by establishing such qualities, she argues, communion with others — “individually or nationally” — can be successfully possible. More recently, Goddard (2017) explores such potential in social work studies related to various types of conflict, arguing that love (agape) based emotions can prompt the sense of ‘forgiveness’, unleashing tension, leading to constructive outcome for all parties involved. As such, further psychological literature too attests to the power of self-love and ‘forgiveness’ as valuable attributes for both interpersonal relationships and individual growth. Against such backdrop, recent critics firmly maintain that certain evil acts or evil-doers are so horrific that they cannot ever be ‘forgiven’ (Schott, 2004). For example, in response to “the atrocity paradigm” (Claudia Card, 2002), Schott considers claims for forgiveness of evil acts simply “disrespectful” to the victim. In this context, this panel will explore the merits of love ethic from various cultural, historical and social perspectives and contexts, attempting to address the limitations in ‘atrocity paradigm’ perspectives, as well as presenting the availability of alternate universes the human has been endowed with over the millennia. While deeply engaging with the concepts of ‘forgiveness’, ‘empathy’ and ‘compassion’, the panel will also challenge the binary concepts of ‘perpetrator’, ‘aggressor’ and ‘victim’ prevailing in scholarly accounts of ‘history’. We welcome papers and collaborations, multi-disciplinary or otherwise relevant to this meditation. Cultural, creative or scientific explorations are welcome as well.
Please send paper proposal by April 1.
Simone de Beauvoir Institute and
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Beyond observation and into ethics: Advancing anthropological understandings of stigma and morality
Sarah O’Sullivan, University of Toronto
Carl Denig, University of Edinburgh, UK
Ethnographers have long excelled at observing the effects and lived experience of stigma (Bernays et al. 2017, Estroff 1981, Goffman 1961, Jackson 2005, Warin 2010) although little effort has been made in anthropology to connect these experiences to ethics. In response, Kleinman and Hall-Clifford (2009) invited anthropologists to seek theorising the moral processes that undergird stigma almost a decade ago but “stigma” as both a discourse and a social process (Parker and Aggleton 2003) continues to prove an elusive quarry for the discipline. This panel seeks to mitigate this discrepancy in the literature, asking: “what happens when we conceptualise stigma in broader terms, as a social and ethical process as well as psychological and individual phenomenon”?
Sociologists, in recent years, have produced a wide array of literature exploring stigma in practice. Notably, Tyler and Slater’s (2018) call for scholarship to reconceptualise stigma within a cultural and political economy that can better produce understandings of problems of inequality and discrimination acts as a jumping off point from which we begin to theorise stigma. Anthropology’s attunement to local understandings can reveal more about both the distinctive features of and universal circumstances enabling this form of relationality.
We invite participants to think beyond stigma as normatively “immoral” and towards theorising it as an enacted and embodied form of situational ethics determined by the temporal and spatial particularities of unequal power dynamics. Such an approach offers anthropology the possibility of a fresh understanding of stigma, which connects with various theoretical concerns such as intersectionality, the impact of technology upon ethics and social relations more broadly, and embodied interaction.
We seek abstracts from scholars within all areas of anthropology as well as practitioners with a special interest in ethics and its entanglement with stigma. Topics may include, but are not restricted to, the following:
• Theoretical issues in the relationship between morality and stigma
• Ethnographies of the moral/political economy of stigma
• Cross-cultural understandings of stigma as enacted (and embodied) ethics
• Comparisons of stigma as moral practice in different populations (whether on the basis of ethnicity or race, physical conditions and/or handicaps, and psychological and neurological conditions)
• Stigma inversion and moral revaluing (e.g. psychiatric ‘service evaders’, neurodiversity, sex-positive and liberal feminist approaches to sex work)
• Stigma and the culture(s) of biomedicine
• Stigma as a form of power
• Tensions between universalistic anti-stigma campaigns and local cultural and ethical understandings
• The situationality of stigma (see e.g. Lachicotte 2001 on a service-user’s selective use of different labels for personal advantage) and its potentially protective properties (Crocker & Major 1989)
We are NOT seeking purely observational or clinical reports on stigma.
*Please note that we are seeking to fill only 2 or 3 spots*
Interested authors are invited to submit an abstract of approximately 250 words, to either Sarah O’Sullivan (email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>) or Carl Denig (email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>) by 15th March 2019.
CfA AAA 2019: Keeping, Giving, and Waiting in Line: Ethnographies of the Bank
Keeping, Giving, and Waiting in Line: Ethnographies of the Bank
Call for abstracts for AAA/CASCA 2019
Many of the causes and consequences of the post-2007 global financial
crisis unfolded in sites of everyday banking, from homeowners’ struggles to
make mortgage payments to depositors’ worries over bank liquidity. But
while a great deal of the scrutiny into this crisis and its reverberations
has centered on high finance and global capital, relatively less attention
has been paid to retail and commercial banks—those institutions of savings
and lending, or “socialized hoards” (Peebles 2008), that constitute much of
everyday finance around the world and in many of our fieldsites.
This panel brings together ethnographic approaches to commercial and retail
banks, everyday banking practices, and the limits or other of the bank. We
propose that a richer anthropological understanding of finance depends on a
fuller examination of its instantiation as an everyday phenomenon—in
diverse forms of saving, investing, and borrowing and in lay theories of
and anxieties over these activities. Moreover, we seek to contribute to
that examination by facilitating conversation around one particular site of
these practices, namely, the bank.
We hope to create a conversation about the bank through papers that explore
- histories and futures of banking
- the gendered, classed, and racialized dimensions of banking
- banking, the state, and nation making
- banking publics
- banking and labor
- unbanking and the unbanked
- banking, formalization, and rationalization
- trust, value, and temporality in banking
- banking, subjectification, and sociality
Across the papers we ask what kinds of debates get played out through
controversies and discussions over banking. We also reflect on
methodological challenges of conducting ethnographic work on and within
Discussant: Gustav Peebles (The New School)
Organizers: Nishita Trisal (Michigan) and Soo-Young Kim (Princeton)
-Veuillez envoyer votre appel à communications à email@example.com
Petites annonces Colloque CASCA –
Soumettre votre annonce –
Petites annonces AAA –
CfP for AAA/CASCA 2019 - ‘Extractive Infrastructures’
CfP for the panel ‘Extractive Infrastructures’ at the American Association of Anthropologists/CASCA Annual Meeting, Vancouver B.C., Canada, 20-24 November, 2019
How do infrastructural projects give material life to, and solidify, contemporary forms of extraction around human and non-human resources? What power relations do extractive infrastructures reinforce or interrupt? What state and governmental imaginaries do they rely on or evoke?
This panel interrogates the relationship between infrastructure and extraction, paying close attention to the infrastructural assemblages that make up extractive projects the biopolitical work of infrastructure. As anthropologists such as Anand, Appel, Larkin, and others have shown, to call something an infrastructure is a designation, not a reflection of objective fact. It identifies a causal relationship, even when there is an endless chain of social and material substrata that bring a given phenomenon into being. In light of this observation, we interrogate the stakes and consequences of extractive infrastructures. We ask: what ideologies, power relationships, and TK are reinforced or constrained by extractive infrastructures? Moreover, what are the stakes of identifying something as both an infrastructure and a resource?
In Seeing Like a State, James Scott established that the identification of something as a resource reflects a shift in perception—nature to natural resources, animals to livestock and vermin, etc.,— which, in turn, enables social engineering on a massive scale. In an era of economic and environmental precarity, how do we use these designations—infrastructure, resource—to make sense of international structures of governance, and to negotiate our relationship to the built and natural environments?
- How can we think about the ruins and legacies of extractive industrial practices?
- How might we integrate new sources of fuel and energy production into the global supply chain?
- How is human capital governed via the management of labor and migration?
- In what ways do the capabilities and limits of technology frame our approach to environmental protection?
We invite contributions that unpack these questions at the juncture of infrastructure and extraction to reconceptualize the management of human populations and the environment across multiple empirical settings.
To submit a paper proposal, please provide us with the following information by March 22nd: name, affiliation, contact information, title of paper, abstract (max. 250 words).
Dr. Julia Morris and Dr. Samantha Maurer Fox, The New School for Social Research
<firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>> <firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>>
Dr. Julia Morris
Post-doctoral Fellow, Zolberg Institute on Migration and Mobility, The New School
CFP: AAA/CASCA 2019 - Humor, Health, and Medicine
2019 AAA/CASCA Annual Meeting
Vancouver, BC, Canada - November 20-24, 2019
*CFP: Humor, Health, and Medicine*
Organizers: William J. Robertson (University of Arizona) and J.M. Reid (The
University of Texas at San Antonio)
As the old saying goes, laughter is the best medicine. Yet, scientific
studies of the impact of humor on health have had mixed results, with some
scholarship highlighting the benefits of humor on physical and mental
health and other scholarship warns of the inappropriateness of humor in
several medical contexts (Pinna et al. 2018). While the anthropological
study of humor has a long history (e.g., Mauss 2013 ; Radcliffe-Brown
1940; Handelman & Kapferer 1972; Apte 1985), there remains little
anthropological scholarship on the role of humor in medical and health
contexts. This call for papers seeks contributions that highlight how
anthropological theory and methods can inform understandings of humor,
health, and medicine, and potentially contribute to broader public and/or
medical understandings of the role of humor, joking, and laughter in health
Humor and joking are common phenomena across human societies, yet there is
no accepted single scholarly definition of “humor.” As Henk Driessen (2015)
notes, “humor is omnipresent yet elusive, nonsensical yet serious, friendly
yet aggressive or hostile, universal yet specific. Humor and joking are
part of the human condition yet may differ from time to time, place to
place, and even from person to person” (416). We seek papers that utilize
anthropological theory and methods to draw attention to the
“universal-yet-relativeness” of humor as it appears in health and medical
contexts, broadly considered. We invite submissions from all subfields and
are especially interested in bringing together a regionally- and
topically-diverse set of papers. We also want to encourage authors to be
playful and humorous in their own reckonings with humor, health, and
medicine (though this is not a requirement for acceptance).
Papers could (but do not have to) address the following:
- Ethnographic descriptions of humor in health, healing, and well-being
- Humor in clinical settings
- Humor between patients and health-care providers
- Humor among health-care providers
- Lay humor versus medical expert humor
- How humor in public settings (such as stand-up comedies, sitcoms, or
comedy movies) shapes and moves public discourses of health and medicine
- Humor as a tool for public/global health
- Humor as resistance, struggle, or collaboration in health and medical
- Sociolinguistic analysis of humor and joking in health and medical
- The intentional or explicit prohibition of humor in health and medical
- Humor as an expression of resilience
To have your paper considered for our Oral Presentation Session, we need
- Paper title
- An abstract of no more than X words
- Your name and affiliation
Please send this information to both firstname.lastname@example.org and
Jessica.Reid@utsa.edu by *March 25, 2019*. We will notify everyone who
submits of our decisions by March 29, and those who are selected will be
expected to register for the AAA conference and upload their abstract
information by *April 4, 2019*.
Apte, Mahadev L. 1985. *Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach*.
Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.
Driessen, Henk. 2015. Humor, Anthropology of. In *International
Encyclopedia of the Social & **Behavioral Sciences*, eds. N. J. Smelser &
P. B. Baltes. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. 416-419.
Handelman, Don & Bruce Kapferer. 1972. Forms of Joking: A Comparative
Approach. *American Anthropologist* 74(3): 484-517.
Mauss, Marcel. 2013 . Joking Relations. *HAU: Journal of Ethnographic
Theory* 3(2): 321-334.
Pinna, Miguel Ángel Cuervo et al. 2018. The Use of Humor in Palliative
Care: A Systematic Literature Review. *American Journal of Hospice &
Palliative Medicine *35(10): 1342-1354.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1940. On Joking Relationships. *Africa: Journal of
the International **Africa Institute* 13(3): 195-210.
CfP for AAA 2019: Entanglements of Food, Nutrition, and Health
AAA Session Abstract
Jacquelyn Heuer (University of South Florida) and William Lucas (University
of South Florida
Issues surrounding food often link culture and identity to larger issues of
colonialism, racialization, and social inequities. These often result in
health disparities that tend to function dynamically across intersectional
lines, affecting biological, behavioral, socioecological, and cultural
factors while influencing larger structural factors as well. As such, this
issue crosses multiple disciplinary lines, drawing in research from
biocultural and medical anthropology, nutrition, and public health. Broadly
speaking, papers in this panel ask what sorts of health outcomes occur
alongside shifts in diet, status, or food sovereignty and (in)security? By
posing this question, this panel hopes to illuminate the broad spectrum of
research being conducted while identifying next steps that anthropologists
can take to advance applications, theory, and research in order to move the
Please send abstracts (150 words max) with paper title and presenter
information to Jacquelyn Heuer (email@example.com) by Friday, March 22.
Session participants must be registered SfAA members and be registered for
the meeting by April 5.
*Jacquelyn N. Heuer, MA*
Doctoral Student, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida
Master's Student, College of Public Health, University of South Florida
Instructor, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida
Teaching Assistant, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida
Vice President, Food Studies Research Initiative
Treasurer, Applied Anthropology Graduate Student Organization (GSO)
CFP: Anthropological Engagement with Health Behavior Change (for the AAA meetings)
Anthropologists working in public health (U.S. and global) are often
involved in efforts to change behaviors/practices that are seen as risks to
health, for such conditions as HIV/AIDS, substance abuse, chronic diseases
(diabetes, cardiovascular disease), other infectious diseases (e.g.,
malaria, zika, ebola, tuberculosis, flu), youth violence, and other
conditions or situations. Such interventions, which often include
communication efforts, social mobilization, prevention programs, and
community-based interventions, are typically framed and designed using
theoretical approaches from public health and biomedically-based problem
definitions, including the term “behavior” itself. How have anthropologists
engaged with these efforts critically reframed goals, reshaped
understandings of the problem, broadened the scope of solutions, challenged
theoretical assumptions, recast metrics of success, incorporated new
methodologies, or changed the relationships and power dynamics between
those funding, designing and implementing such programs and the affected
populations? What has or has not come of such engagement? How can
anthropologists most productively engage in these efforts?
This panel welcomes papers that describe specific health-related
social/behavior change programs and experiences; critically challenge such
programs, interventions, and theoretical approaches; highlight emerging
approaches informed by anthropology; propose new modes of engagement; and
otherwise comment on the interaction between anthropology and health
ORGANIZER: Mark Edberg, PhD, MA, Associate Professor and Center Director,
The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health
(secondary appointments in the Department of Anthropology and Elliott
School of International Affairs), at firstname.lastname@example.org.
*Mark Edberg, Ph.D., M.A.*
Department of Prevention and Community Health
Milken Institute School of Public Health
Secondary Appointments in the Department of Anthropology and Elliott School
of International Affairs
The George Washington University
Session CFP - CASCA-AAA2019: Indigenous Peoples, tribunals, prisons, and legal and public processes
We invite participation in our session:
Organizers: Bruce Miller, University of British Columbia, (email@example.com); Stephen Baines, University of Brasilia
Indigenous Peoples, tribunals, prisons, and legal and public processes
It is an open question whether state institutions and legal/public processes can properly serve the interests of Indigenous peoples, and is commonly answered in the negative by social scientists. But following from this position, the relevant questions are why and when do these institutions fail and are there remedies? If so, are social science methods capable of determining what the remedies might be? To answer these questions, panel members present research which foregrounds ethnographic and other research from North and South America. Examples arise from studies of the British Columbia human rights tribunal, treaty processes, Brazilian jails, in reconciliation processes, and in treaty and resource negotiations, among others. Research with indigenous people in prisons in Roraima state, Brazil, for example, reveals intercultural misunderstandings in tribunals, where the national penal code is used by law operators to judge societies with different cultural values, often imposing sentences which are not understood by indigenous people. The creation of indigenous internal regiments, in written form, by the Indigenous Council of Roraima (CIR), despite many difficulties involved, is proving to be one way of resolving many cases within the communities to avoid sending indigenous people to jail, with alternative punishments which are contemplated in national and international legislation. Indigenous people in British Columbia face related problems in accessing and using the Human Rights Tribunal to address discrimination in hiring, access to services and other areas of life. Changes in rules of testimony and cross examination, document sharing, and time limits to enter the process can produce signficiant change. But Indigenous justice institutions themselves may provide more relief.
Key words Indigenous peoples; justice; public processes
*Interested participants, please submit a proposed title and
250-word abstract to Bruce Granville Miller by March 25.
Bruce Granville Miller
Professor, Department of Anthropology
Canadian Anthropology Society Fellow
University of British Columbia
6303 NW Marine Dr
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1
Canadian Anthropological Society / Société canadienne d’anthropologie (CASCA)
Joint AAA/CASCA Conference - November 20-24, 2019 - Vancouver, BC
Call for presentations (oral session)
Session title: Patient Engagement: Changing climates, uncertain encounters, and emergent relationships in medical research
Thea Luig, PhD
Physician Learning Program, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton
David Lessard, PhD
Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal
In medicine, the interest for “patient-centered” research and care and shared decision-making is high. Over the last decade, this movement has transformed the climate in healthcare/clinical research and policy from a paradigm inspired by ‘evidence-based medicine’ to another one intended to be more sympathetic to participatory approaches, known either as patient and public engagement, co-design, or community-based research. Major funding institutions are now taking an active role in this transformation. For example, the Canadian Patient-oriented Research Platform actively supports and promotes partnerships in research between investigators, patients, and other stakeholders.
This shifting climate generates new spaces for the sharing of patient experience, voice, and storytelling, with the promise of an improved ‘learning’, ‘accountable’, and ‘patient-centered’ healthcare service. It also generates encounters between people with diverging professional or personal reasons for their involvement and a wide range of ontological horizons, discourses, and practices. As a result, medical researchers and health policy makers face new terrain with little systematic or standard procedures for engagement and with uncertain outcomes. In these exchanges or partnerships, identities, roles, and forms of knowledge become scrutinized, unclear, and subject to negotiation. They often can be challenged, as personal and professional spaces intersect, previously uncontested boundaries blur, with no consensus or clear understanding of how to “engage patients”, or what to do with these emergent forms of knowledge that is patient voices. New ways of doing research requires researchers to reflect on and embrace knowledge beyond “evidence” in a research environment that faces burdened by lack of time and financial and human resources. Contributing to this changing climate has been an increasing interest in multidisciplinary abilities in medical research teams, and openness to qualitative methods, including ethnography.
Patient-centered research can be constructed as a new field of anthropological inquiry characterized by transforming usages of discourse and language, and emerging conceptual frames and epistemologies in healthcare; a fascinating and challenging field for theoretical and methodological development in the social sciences and humanities. Patient engagement opens spaces for dialogue, conflict, intersecting narratives of agency, empowerment, power and co-option.
For this session we invite papers that reflect on this current paradigmatic shift in medical research, and the exchange between social theory/method and medical research, in the context of patient and stakeholder engagement. Papers could describe, illustrate, or challenge how the shift for more patient-centered research plays out narratively and phenomenologically in actual interactions between patients, researchers, and decision-makers, or address question of power and agency. We also welcome reflexive presentations on the ethics of research in this new environment, and our role as anthropologists in mediating, shaping, co-constructing this new climate, and our agency in these dilemmas.
We are welcoming proposals for 15-minute oral presentations.
Abstracts must include a title, and authors’ name(s) and affiliations (name of presenter underlined).
Length: 300 words.
Deadline: March 20th, 2019.
Send your abstract by email at: firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com
Roundtable CFP for AAA/CASCA 2019, "Finding Recourse in Perilous Times: New Forms of Environmental Activism in North America
Please consider joining our proposed roundtable "Finding Recourse in Perilous Times: New Forms of Environmental Activism in North America" at the 2019 Meetings of the AAA and CASCA.
Mary Anglin and Julie Shepherd Powell
Finding Recourse in Perilous Times: New Forms of Environmental Activism in North America
This roundtable explores new forms of environmental activism in North America in the wake of climate change, political instability, affronts to civil society, and continued capitalist exploitation of marginalized populations and environments. The list of environmental challenges for communities and constituencies include the exponentially growing effects of climate change; the continued “race to the bottom” for energy sources, irrespective of the impact on ecosystems and their inhabitants; the consequences of siting environmental hazards with little oversight and in proximity to impoverished neighborhoods and communities of color; the ripple effects of industrial agriculture; the pollution of waterways; various “syndemics"; and the health and environmental consequences of ever-increasing reliance on synthetic chemicals, once labeled by Rachel Carson as "chemical death rain.” What roles might anthropologists play in this "all hands on deck" moment for the planet? What theoretical and ethnographic contributions does this work offer to anthropology?
In Mexico, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) continues to destabilize the livelihoods and wellbeing of communities, and serves as an impetus for migration to environmentally and occupationally hazardous agricultural jobs in the U.S. In Canada, environmental destruction caused by tar sands oil production negatively affects cultural, social, and economic ways of life for First Nation peoples. The fight over the Dakota Access Pipeline on indigenous territory in North Dakota revealed draconian forms of suppression and brutality, directed by police against Standing Rock Sioux protestors on their own land. Despite interventions by the U.S. Forest Service and state and local law enforcement, tree sitters in the mountains of Virginia and West Virginia have managed to halt construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline and, as with indigenous protesters at Standing Rock and elsewhere, call attention to environmental damage from the construction and operation of natural gas pipelines. In the U.S., recent changes to the administration, structure, and priorities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies undermine their ability to justly regulate pollution, determine appropriate land use on federal lands, address questions of occupational safety and health, respond to humanitarian crises and other consequences of environmental disasters, or implement plans to mitigate or prevent global warming--to mention but a few of the most obvious issues. At the same time, extreme climate events from hurricanes to polar vortexes to raging wildfires wreak havoc on populations that have, in turn, been made increasingly vulnerable through repeated crises. In Puerto Rico, residents continue to clean up the environmental damage 18 months after Hurricane Maria devastated entire communities and in the context of federal disregard for the cascading health and socioeconomic effects of that disaster.
In this roundtable, we explore current social and political challenges to organizing, grassroots knowledge production, transformative movements, and participatory democracy. We will highlight comparative analyses of the unique environmental activisms of constituencies and communities across North America, while exploring the ethical, political, and theoretical implications of conducting ethnographic research on contemporary environmental crises and activist responses.
We welcome the input of scholars who work in rural or urban settings on environmental health, energy activism, disaster response, environmental justice, and/or the destruction of local environments in the U.S. and its territories, Mexico, and/or Canada. We especially invite contributions from scholars from under-represented groups, independent scholars, and scholar/activists. Interested participants, please send 100-word abstracts describing your contributions to the roundtable to Julie Shepherd-Powell (firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>) and Mary Anglin (firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>) by March 22.
Mary K. Anglin, PhD, MPH
Department of Anthropology
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506-0024
AAA 2019 CfP: Whiteness and Its Fractures in the Opioid "Crisis"
*Call for Papers*
AAA 2019 Annual Meeting
Vancouver, BC, CAN
*Whiteness and Its Fractures in the Opioid "Crisis"*
Allison Schlosser (Case Western Reserve University)
Emily Metzner (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)
*Discussant Helena Hansen (New York University)*
*Abstract*Addiction and its treatment are now central concerns in the U.S.
and increasingly worldwide due to the recent stark rise in opioid use and
overdose death. Attention to opioid addiction, treatment, and overdose
prevention has intensified with the emergence of new groups of relatively
socially privileged drug users, with particular attention to White
middle-class users in suburban communities. In the U.S., analysts have
drawn on narratives of opioid addiction as a symptom of social suffering
rooted in Post-Industrial economic dislocation among poor and working class
Whites to frame the current political climate. Shifts in popular news,
social media, and viral video have intensified the circulation of images
and discourses on opioid use. The spectacles of suburban White prom queens
in recovery, parents overdosing in cars with children present, and “mobile
morgues” used to manage the overwhelming number of dead bodies rapidly
circulate online. This social, political, and economic context has
intensified the moral panic of what is now commonly referred to as the
“opioid crisis,” and has troubled fundamental beliefs about “addiction” and
“addicts,” but also about whiteness.
Anthropologists have long understood race as culturally constructed. In the
last two decades, whiteness studies has emerged as a theoretical and
methodological approach to examine whiteness as a discursively constructed
social category and psycho-social experience performed in local historical,
cultural, political-economic, and relational contexts. As opioid use and
related death among broader socioeconomic swaths has intensified moral
concern, scholars have analyzed the shifting meanings and consequences of
whiteness in relation to the opioid “crisis” (cf. Hansen, 2017; Hansen &
Skinner, 2012; Netherland & Hansen, 2016; Mendoza, et al., 2018). Yet, as
these scholars emphasize, whiteness is not a monolithic social category but
intersects with ethnicity, gender, and class, among other social
identities. Additionally, whiteness takes shape in particular local
contexts. These complexities render whiteness “fractured” (Levine-Rasky,
2016): rife with internal contradictions further strained by the racialized
moral panic of the opioid “crisis.”
Brodkin (2001) calls for increased attention to the “variations,
ambivalences, and contradictions within whiteness and alternatives to it”
(p. 149). The papers in the panel respond to this challenge, leveraging
ethnography to trace the fractures in whiteness in diverse local contexts.
Panelists examine shifting meanings of whiteness in relation to the rise of
opioid use among Whites in particular cultural, geographic, and
institutional contexts. We examine strategies that uphold and reproduce
White privilege in the criminal justice system, healthcare, social
services, and recovery communities. We draw particular attention to how
whiteness emerges in local contexts of daily life: how it is performed,
internalized, incorporated with intersecting social identities, contested,
and transgressed. In doing so, we aim to contribute nuanced understandings
of whiteness as ineluctably entwined with local contexts, intersecting
social identities, intimate relationships, and the stakes of survival in
everyday life. We propose that the current “opioid crisis” thus presents a
unique opportunity to throw whiteness into “crisis.” By rendering whiteness
and its fractures visible, we aim to interrupt it, and to imagine more just
*Interested participants are invited to submit a proposed title and
250-word abstract to Allison Schlosser (firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>)
and Emily Metzner (firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>) by
March 11. Decisions on panel inclusion will be made by March 18. *
Brodkin, K. (2001). Comments on “Discourses of Whiteness.” Journal of
Linguistic Anthropology, 11(1), 147-150.
Hansen, H. (2017). Assisted technologies of social reproduction:
Pharmaceutical prosthesis for gender, race, and class in the White opioid
“crisis.” Contemporary Drug Problems, 44(4), 321-338.
Hansen, H. & Skinner, M. (2012). From white bullet to black markets and
greened medicine: The neuroeconomics and neuroracial politics of opioid
pharmaceuticals. Annals of Anthropological Practice 36(1), 167-182.
Levine-Rasky (2016). Whiteness fractured. New York: Routledge.
Mendoza, S., Rivera, A., & Hansen, H. (2018). Re-racialization of addiction
and the re-distribution of blame in the white opioid epidemic. Medical
Anthropology Quarterly, 00(0), 1-21.
Netherland, J. & Hansen, H. (2016). The war on drugs that wasn’t: Wasted
whiteness, ‘dirty doctors,’ and race in media coverage of prescription
opioid misuse. Culture, Medicine, & Psychiatry 40, 664-686.
Seeking participants in panel on the challenges posed by historical markers in changing times.
Ideally the panel will focus on celebrations of colonialists, military explorers, and other symbols of settler colonialism. First Nations efforts to change markers, creative ways to engage in "counter-monumentality," non-material projects like novels, books or performances; First Nations/white settler collaborations and their challenges; success stories and failures would be important contributions. Updating museum collections may also be relevant.
My own work is on markers to the Sullivan campaign of 1779, one that resulted in the destruction of over 40 Haudenosaunee settlements. These markers are in Pennsylvania and New York and are being reinstalled every year. I am planning to report on a successful collaboration between Onondaga and white settler organizations, while highlighting the many difficulties they faced.
Please contact me via email. En francais est possible aussi.
Thank you/ Merci,
Andrea Lynn Smith
AAA/CASCA Annual Meeting, Nov. 20-24 2019, Vancouver
Call for Papers: Beyond the Endgame: Living with HIV in “Post-Crisis” Times
How are HIV-positive people mediating notions of difference, self, and health through powerful ‘end of crisis’ narratives circulated by global health organizations like UNAIDS, alongside stagnant or decreasing political and financial support for people living with HIV (Moyer 2015)? In numerous locations, despite the lack of necessary supports, HIV-positive individuals are being increasingly encouraged to pursue healthier and more fulfilling lives through a set of moral, physical, and social practices, called “positive living,” since the advent of antiretroviral therapies (Benton, Sangaramoorthy and Kalofonos 2017). How, Benton et al ask, are conceptions of time embedded in public health programs directed at HIV-positive people mediated and how does ‘positive living’ infer particular notions of difference, health, and the self ? How are HIV-positive individuals and groups engaging with local, national and global prevention and treatment strategies claiming ‘the end of HIV’ is within reach? This panel seeks ethnographically oriented examinations of HIV-positive individuals and communities in different locations and their diverse navigations of ‘positive living’ amidst ‘end of crisis’ temporal narratives emanating from national and global health authorities.
Papers may address the following questions and/or propose additional thematic foci related to these questions:
· Have improvements in overall health for many (but by no means all) HIV+ populations resulted in greater social (re)integration and acceptance? Do they continue to be viewed as risky medicalized subjects requiring surveillance and management by government health and welfare services, or are they viewed as fading anachronisms, representative of a past era of fear, illness and death?
· How do variously positioned HIV+ people and their supporters respond to the shift from ‘death sentence’ to ‘near normal life span’ narratives as ‘end of crisis’ campaigns circulate on national and global stages?
· How do differentially located HIV+ communities view new biomedical ‘discoveries’ about HIV treatment, prevention and education, such as the “undetectable=untransmittable” or “PREP” campaigns which often accompany ‘end of crisis’ narratives?
· How are local support services and programs for HIV+ populations being (re)shaped in relation to the possibility of long term living with HIV, where, in many cases, there is stagnating or decreasing funding for these services/programs?
· What are the ethical and moral contours of ‘positive living’ in ‘post-crisis’ times and how are they being (re)shaped in relation to changing national and global health initiatives?
· How do structural forms of inequality such as gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, ability, age and/or socio-economic status intersect with “end of AIDS” narratives and/or experiences of living with HIV in ‘post-crisis’ times?
Please submit abstracts to David A.B. Murray, Department of Anthropology, York University, Toronto, firstname.lastname@example.org NO LATER THAN WEDNESDAY MARCH 27, 2019
Benton, Adia, Thurka Sangaramoorthy, and Ippolytos Kalofonos. 2017. Temporality and Positive Living in the Age of HIV/AIDS: A Multi-sited Ethnography. Current Anthropology. 58(4):454-476.
Moyer, Ellen. 2015. The Anthropology of Life After AIDS: Epistemological Continuities in the Age of Antiretroviral Treatment. Annual Review of Anthropology. 44:259–75
Vous cherchez des panélistes? Vous voulez des conseils sur l'hébergement ou les activités lorsque vous serez au colloque? Dans tous les cas, n'hésitez pas à soumettre une brève annonce à email@example.com. Nous publierons ici toutes les informations pertinentes pour faciliter la communication entre les membres tandis qu'ils se préparent pour le colloque à venir.