Élection à la CASCA

La CASCA tient présentement une élection en ligne auprès de ses membres. Un membre de la CASCA devra être élu en tant que membre actif anglophone du comité de direction de la CASCA pour un mandat de deux ans. Deux personnes se sont portées volontaires, soit Eric Henry de Saint Mary's University et Charles Menzies de University of British Columbia. Voir ici leur biographie et leur déclaration respectives. Le vote est confidentiel et a lieu en ligne à l'aide du logiciel en ligne SurveyMonkey. Veuillez noter qu’il sera possible de voter du 18 au 24 mars 2016. Vous recevrez un courriel à partir duquel vous pourrez voter électroniquement.  
 

Sondage sur l'éthique

La CASCA souhaite connaître votre position quant à l'adoption d'un code d'éthique propre à ses membres. Un sondage confidentiel sera en ligne vers la mi-mars. Vous recevrez un lien par courriel vous menant directement au sondage. Pour en savoir plus sur le Comité éthique, consultez cette page.  
 
 

[English] Towards an Anthropology of Small Cities: Transformations and Solidarities

As the world’s population becomes increasingly urban, with more than half living in urban areas, cities have become salient sites for the constitution of different citizenships, different understandings of rights, entitlements, and responsibilities (Holston and Appadurai 1996) and different solidarities. However, the “city” is broadly defined and cities vary widely based on population size and density, land use, built structures, political economy, demographics and identities of the inhabitants, and patterns of migration in and out of the city. About 80% of all North American citizens live in “cities” of more than 2,000 people. Much of the research in urban anthropology focuses on large cities and urban centers, those with populations of more than 500,000. However, much of the North American urban landscape is constituted by small cities with populations of less than 200,000 people (e.g. Norman 2013). This panel asks what characterizes an anthropology of small cities? How might small cities be theorized differently than large urban centers? What kinds of methodologies ought to be employed when working in small cities that may (or may not) differ from work in rural areas or large cosmopolitan centers? More specifically, this panel will address how solidarities (trans)form through small cities, not simply in them.

Jennifer Erickson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Anthropology
Director of Graduate Studies
Ball State University
Burkhardt Building 305
Muncie, IN 47306
765-285-1512

[English] The Latin American State and its Agents

The papers in this panel approach the Latin American state with an ethnographic eye, exploring the everyday practices of state agents and a range of ways that the targets of state programs interpret them, respond to them, and sometimes alter those projects to fit their needs. The cases to be presented include: how public health emerged as an arena of legitimate state activity in Ecuador, and helped make the state seem real and effective; the ambivalent role of educators in the context of Argentina's  conditional cash transfer program. 

Please contact Lindsay DuBois (Lindsay.DuBois@dal.ca) or Kim Clark (akc@uwo.ca) as soon as possible but before Feb. 4th at the latest.

[English] Becoming a Veteran: Investigating the Transition from Military to Civilian Life in the Canadian Context

Following over a decade of constant deployment in Afghanistan (2001-2014) by soldiers of the Canadian Armed Forces, there is a renewed interest in how soldiers transition to civilian life after leaving the military.  The majority of the published research is based on depersonalized and anonymous surveys, leading to policies and programs that are based on the aggregate but applied to the individual.  This, in turn, has led to repeated criticisms from the veterans’ community that the available programs do not meet their needs or are inaccessible.  This panel seeks to explore: (1) the ways in which veterans have navigated the available programs and supports; (2) the ways in which solidarity thru shared identity affects the transition from the role of soldier to that of being a veteran within Canadian civilian society; and (3) the unique forms of interaction with society that transitioning veterans have engaged in an attempt to shape their new identities.

Please send short abstracts (150 words) by 31 January 2016 to:

Walter Callaghan
PhD student
Department of Anthropology
University of Toronto
w.callaghan@mail.utoronto.ca

Métis Acadien, Acadien Métis, Canadien Métis, French-Indian ou/or Simply Métis Tout Court?

Avec la reconnaissance des Métis comme peuples autochtones protégés par la Constitution de 1982, les politiques identitaires métisses deviennent de plus en plus tendues. Les différentes identités se voient contestées tant d'un point de vue intérieur qu'extérieur à celles-ci. Cette session explorera les défis historiques et contemporains au sujet de ce que signifie être « Métis. » Plus précisément, elle réexaminera certains documents historiques afin d'explorer l'émergence de communautés s'identifiant « Métis, » tout particulièrement dans les régions de l'Atlantique et du Pacifique de l'Amérique du Nord. Plutôt que de présenter l'émergence de ces identités comme suivant un processus linéaire et géographiquement restreint ou délimité, cette session explorera la possibilité d'un processus d'ethnogenèses souple et multipolaire, accommodant l'émergence de différentes identités métisses, à de maints endroits, et selon différents processus de résurgence identitaire. L'objectif de cette session sera d'explorer un cadre théorique capable de reconnaître simultanément les divers aspects culturels, de même que la complexité historique lorsqu'il s'agit des identités métisses.

Pour plus de renseignements: Sébastien Malette (Sebastien.Malette@carleton.ca) ou Michel Bouchard (Michel.Bouchard@unbc.ca).

[English] (Far from) Simple Solidarities, Complex Coalitions: Unexpected Politics in Troubled Times and Places
 
For more information contact Sandra Morgen (smorgen@uoregon.edu) OR Kathleen
Piovesan (piovesan@uoregon.edu) or Gennie Nguyen (gnguyen@uoregon.edu)
 
Politics often produces unexpected alliances and oppositions, especially in local struggles over resources and investments. Sometimes long-standing political enemies join forces. Sometimes long-standing allies splinter or fail to support groups with whom they have espoused solidarity or shared interest. Solidarity is rarely simple and surprising coalitions can emerge that disrupt, but also can reinforce, existing political alignments. This session examines the locally politically unexpected, documenting it, analyzing its genesis and/or consequences, and using these examples to problematize anthropological engagements ­ theoretical and otherwise ­ with solidarity. Papers include case studies about tax politics, housing, and community development. We invite others whose research could contribute to consideration of these questions.

[English] Common Values for Anthropological Practice - Round-table

Following a 1749 settling of Halifax, land known as the Halifax Common was designated to provide free livestock pasturage and camping for citizens. The Common began with, and continues to be, encroached by uncommon interests. Canadian anthropologists share a collective discomfort in developing a common code of prescribed ethics. We conduct our work within the interstices of the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS), institutional Research Ethics Boards, government and private contracts and other working agreements while critically engaging wider contexts. This roundtable will workshop the collective values that shape our engagements with the professional practice of anthropology. Our goal is to arrive at a living document that can be used by Canadian anthropologists in their scholarly and applied work. All are welcome to attend and contribute to this process.

[English] Working Title: “Medical Anthropology, CIHR and SSHRC: Strategizing for Funding Inclusion in Uncertain Times.”
 
Organizer: Emma Varley, Chair of the Canadian Medical Anthropology Network (CMA) Assistant Professor, Brandon University
 
*Roundtable Abstract and Goals*
 
Changes to national funding landscapes, evolving institutional objectives and shifting donor agency priority research areas have had significant and sometimes damaging impacts on the nature, scope and methods of our medical anthropology studies and inquiry both in Canada and internationally. In response, this roundtable revisits the Canadian Medical Anthropology Network’s 2011 manifesto, “The End of Medical Anthropology in Canada?”, which issued an urgent call for renewed dialogue and activism around medical anthropologists’ ability to be funded by SSRHC and CIHR (http://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/the-end-of-medical-anthorpology-in-canada/).
 
Reduced funding for medical anthropology research has impacted the scope of our work and the ways we share our findings with diverse audiences, beneficiaries and stakeholders. In turn, the pressures placed on medical anthropologists to ‘fit’ into SSHRC and CIHR eligibility criteria push us to cloak our research either in the non-health terms asked by SSHRC, or subordinate it to the public health and medicine approaches preferred by CIHR.
 
How do these changes and pressures affect our discipline’s role in Canadian academic and applied health settings?  What do anthropologists do to ensure anthropological approaches become more central to expanded public health research and interventions at national and global levels?
 
Medical anthropologists active within and beyond academia are invited to share their experiences of these changes, the strategies they use to navigate diminished national research funding opportunities, and their thoughts on where the Canadian Medical Anthropology Network (CMA) should go next with its networking, activism and mobilization, especially as new opportunities for disciplinary advocacy arise in a post-Harper era.
 
Interested medical anthropologists are warmly encouraged to join the roundtable to talk about their experiences with one or more of the following issues:
 
- *Our positioning betwixt and between the social and health sciences:* How do we qualify our work according to public health and health science approaches, evidentiary expectations, methods and metrics? In what ways do public health concerns or interventions require our creative response?
- *Our navigations and negotiations of CIHR and SSHRC funding criteria, priority areas, and regulations:* How do we explain the importance of anthropological methods and evidence for health research, or for policy and programming? How can we insert deep forms of critical inquiry and engagement into the health research approaches preferred by CIHR, or the  ‘non-health’ social science approaches emphasized by SSHRC? How do we navigate CIHR concerns for our ‘productivity’, particularly as it compares with public health outputs?
- *Our retooling of medical anthropological language and methods in clinical medical and public health terms:* How do we draw on interdisciplinary language and approaches to ‘win over’ grant reviewers, or convince them of the merits of an anthropological approach? What kinds of methods, theory and evidence ‘count’ in order for our work to be considered fundable? How do CIHR and SSHRC funding criteria lead some applicants to tactically sublimate the anthropology focus of their work? How do these concessions impact our research once it is funded?
- *The impacts of the mixed-methods and positivist interdisciplinary approaches on the perceived usefulness, quality, effectiveness and ‘worthiness’ of medical anthropological research approaches:* In which ways can we seize on and reconfigure these preferred methodologies in anthropological terms and capture ‘better’ evidence, or produce more ‘successful’ results? How do we draw on the strengths of interdisciplinary research, or communicate our concerns about its drawbacks?
- *If not CIHR or SSHRC, then what? *Which other funding bodies, agencies and opportunities support our work? How is our work affected when we seek funds from private or non-governmental sectors, or from outside Canada altogether?
 
The results of this roundtable will guide future advocacy and activism by the Canadian Medical Anthropology Network in the following areas:
 
- Medical anthropology’s inclusion in CIHR’s Research Pillars and SSHRC’s Future Challenge Areas, expanded funding for non-medical, health-focused studies by medical anthropologists, and ensuring that our work is evaluated on anthropological terms.
- Strengthening the CMA as a forum for the development of stronger intra-professional alliances among medical anthropologists – scholars, students and practitioners alike.
 
Interested participants are asked to share their institutional affiliation, contact information and a 200-word abstract concerning their proposed discussion topic/s with the roundtable organizer by *Sunday, January 31, 2016*.

Les échelles de solidarité : Engagement et recherche en Acadie et milieu francophone minoritaire

Qu'en est-il de la solidarité en recherche? Quels sont les enjeux liés à la proximité et à la distance vis-à-vis des milieux étudiés, notamment en Acadie et dans les autres francophonies canadiennes en milieu minoritaire?

Faire de la recherche sur les francophones vivant en milieu minoritaire, est-ce nécessairement faire de la recherche engagée? La tenue du congrès à Halifax servira de prétexte pour inviter à une réflexion sur les postures du chercheur.e en Acadie en tenant compte des échelles du terrain, des définitions diverses de l'Acadie et des différentes méthodes. Les réflexions sur d'autres aires du Canada francophone ou d'ailleurs sont également les bienvenues. Ces interrogations sont plus que jamais de mise, car les communautés comprennent qu'elles doivent forger divers types de solidarités, que ce soit avec le groupe majoritaire, les communautés autochtones ou les nouveaux arrivants francophones et francophiles, ainsi qu'à l'intérieur même du noyau familial dans les familles exogames. La présentation de travaux portant sur ces processus serait également pertinente à cette table ronde.

Pour plus d'information, veuillez communiquer avec Clint Bruce (Clint.Bruce@usainteanne.ca), Michelle Landry (michelle.landry@umoncton.ca) ou Michel Bouchard (michel.bouchard@unbc.ca)

[English] Infrastructures: Materializing Publics and Persons in Colonial and Postcolonial Contexts

Jean Mitchell, University of Prince Edward Island

Sandra Widmer, York University

There is growing interest among anthropologists in examining the socialities, effects and affects of  infrastructure(s). Their material-semiotics engage  environments, persons, technologies and objects that shape everyday lives. Infrastructures can be sites of nation-building that offer possibilities for citizenship in contexts of colonial and postcolonial governance. Promises of infrastructure enroll people in particular forms of politics aimed at better futures (Hetherington 2014). Infrastructures also chart the changing relations of power with “the thinning of the state” in neoliberalism (Allison and Piot 2012). This panel explores infrastructures as ways of understanding postcolonial social formations and forms of economic distribution. You are invited to consider how infrastructures both connect and fragment social worlds in colonial and postcolonial contexts. Papers could consider topics such as: Public/private infrastructures; Food systems; Medical care; Emergency preparedness; Public health surveillance; Cell phone infrastructures; Indigenous/state relationships, Energy conflicts.

Please send abstracts to mjmitchell@upei and swidmer@yorku.ca by January 31.

[English] The power and place of the gift in contemporary solidarities
 
Marcel Mauss’ conceptualization of the gift offers an alternative to understanding (non)market exchange through the economic lens of individual, rational actors. Reminding us that transactions of giving and receiving are imbued with morality, Mauss demonstrates that the gift functions to establish solidarity and maintain long-term social relations. Recent ethnographic research has extended the topical currency of this analytic by following the exchange of a wide range of items and encounters framed as gifts across contemporary social and geopolitical boundaries. Relationships of reciprocity developed through current forms of gift exchange – such as state-run conditional cash transfer programs, or volunteer-run social programs that fill the gaps left by a shrinking welfare state – ask us to consider the nature of these solidarities. This panel explores how this anthropological concept of long durée may help us to understand contemporary solidarities in local communities, state-citizen exchanges, and beyond.
 
We invite papers that investigate these relationships and transactions through the analytical lens of the gift. Prospective panelists may wish to consider:
 
- how social actors negotiate or frame these gifting relationships, and/or how such relationships and exchanges are framed as gifting;
- how participation in these relationships frames or situates these subjects in the community through the creation of alliances and affinities;
- how different interests are served and solidarities forged through the establishment of gifting relationships;
- how the gift may be used to understand morality in the context of globalization and/or neoliberalism.
 
If interested, please send paper title and your abstract (150 words) to Rhiannon Mosher rhmosher@yorku.ca and Chantelle Falconer chantelle.leblanc@utoronto.ca by January 29, 2016. We will begin reviewing abstracts as they are submitted. Thank you for your interest.

[English] Para-ethnography: a method for decolonizing Anthropology?

This roundtable will consider the following question: what are the benefits of stepping outside of the traditional methodological toolkit, particularly when working with community groups involving Indigenous people? Our central focus will be on para-ethnography, or the positioning of participants as experts in their own right, as a methodological framework for reconciliation work. While traditional methods have been criticized for reproducing colonial practices, the papers discussed here will address this call for decolonization by considering alternative methods. Although not limited to these, we are particularly interested in:  participatory action research, child-centred action research, and digital and visual methods.  Attention to how an emphasis on methods can foster reconciliation and solidarity between academics and community groups is encouraged.

This panel will bring together 3-4 scholars. Each participant will speak about their research for twenty minutes, and the roundtable will conclude with a lively discussion between participants and the audience.

If you are interested in participating, please submit a one-page cv and a brief description of your proposed research talk (approximately 100 words) to Dr. Erin Spring (erin.spring@uleth.ca) by February 1st, 2015.

[English] Roundtable on Solidarity in Oral History and Anthropology
 
Anthropology and oral history have distinct and powerful ethical guidelines. In oral history, the co-authored interview is itself the foundational product of the research relationship. Building on as assumption of shared authority, oral historians negotiate agreements with their narrators to make these interviews public, using their real names, in archives. The narrator retains the right to retract their interview at any time, and often remains involved in the process of analysis, editing, and public presentation. In anthropology, the published product(s) of the research is often the only public artifact of the research relationship, and it is typical to obscure the identities of participants and places.
 
As politically engaged scholars and activist researchers working at the intersections of these two practices, we have struggled to define solidarity and balance the sometimes conflicting demands of solidarity with different groups: co-researchers, colleagues, individual narrators, and the broader communities in which we work. In this roundtable session we will ask what is generated by the productive tensions between the ethics of oral history and anthropology.
 
If interested, please contact Amy Starecheski (aas39@columbia.edu) and Joey Plaster (joseph.plaster@yale.edu) with a brief statement of interest by January 25, 2015.

[English] Language and Technology: Usage, Interaction, and Change

Organizers:  Alexis Black and Christine Jourdan (Concordia University)

Language and technology have been intimately linked through the materiality of linguistic practice (e.g. stylus, pen and paper, telephones, social media) and the cognitive and emotive effects of language use.  This panel will engage with technology as a mediator for language use from an anthropological perspective. It will explore how people use language through technologies and how languages and technologies interact.  Pertinent questions for examination could include how technology affects language use, how language is constrained or nourished by technology and the relationship between technology and language in practice and cognition.

This panel is sponsored by CASCA'S LingAnthLing interest group.  Subjects may include research into language creation to accompany emerging technologies (e.g. the creation of new metaphors or terminologies to support communication of new technological realities), the particular challenges posed by attempts to create technologies that can respond to and mimic natural human language (e.g. problems in AI research to create 'talking' machines), or ethnographic or discursive study of changing patterns and functions in everyday language in tandem with changing technologies (e.g. text messaging and social media as the locus of new linguistic products and practices). 

Please contact us at a.black@concordia.ca and Christine.Jourdan@concordia.ca

[English] Teaching Anthropology Today
 
Last year’s roundtable session in Quebec City, entitled “Landscapes of Knowledge: Teaching Anthropology in Canada Today”, successfully generated much productive discussion about the issues and challenged faced by teachers of anthropology in today’s postsecondary context.  In the spirit of solidarit(i)es, this year we want to revisit these issues in an expanded panel that includes colleagues at all career stages teaching anthropology in a wide variety of programs, institutions, and locales.
 
In recent years, the educational climate within Canadian university contexts has changed dramatically. The democratization of universities since the 1960’s, coupled with the increased availability of government-sponsored student loans, has made postsecondary education a prerequisite for “middle class” employment, and students therefore expect
to find middle class jobs upon graduation. In addition, neoliberal restructuring policies of various governments and university administrations, coupled with changing student demographics and increasing tuition rates have challenged many of the traditional roles, values, and expectations of academia. Postsecondary education, many complain, has been reduced to a game of metrics, with educators feeling pressure to retain students (and their tuition dollars) by tailoring course offerings to meet perceived student demands, or to expand or repackage undergraduate programmes at the expense of disciplinary depth and breadth. Within this context, professors and teaching assistants also grapple with changing high school curricula that deemphasize writing and critical thinking skills. As a result, university educators worry that most first year students are unprepared to meet the demands and rigors of traditional university pedagogy. To address the increasing numbers and demands of undergraduates, there has also been an increasing reliance upon underpaid and oftentimes overworked sessional or contract faculty, as well as the implementation of new “teaching track” positions.
 
The goal of this session is to spark a productive dialogue about teaching anthropology within this neoliberalized landscape of knowledge. We invite papers that draw on presenters’ teaching experiences and strategies in order to address questions including, but not limited to:
  • What are the challenges for teaching anthropology within an increasingly pragmatic, “job-oriented” student culture, and how do we address them?
  • How does the imposition of student “client-based” models of pedagogy affect us as teachers of anthropology? What does it mean to engage students in this context? What strategies do we use to work within, or perhaps against, this model?
  • How is the discipline impacted by the development of two-tiered streams of professorships (teaching track versus research stream)?
  • How does this new landscape affect contract teachers of anthropology, and how does increase in precarious employment effect the way anthropology is being taught?
  • How are instructors engaging with administrative pressures to incorporate various teaching technologies in the classroom? What technologies (if any) do you find most helpful in teaching critical thinking skills?
Co-Organizers: Maggie Cummings (University of Toronto) and Karen McGarry (McMaster University). Please send inquiries and/or abstracts (100-150 words) to Maggie Cummings (mcummings@utsc.utoronto.ca) and Karen McGarry (mcgarry@mcmaster.ca) by January 31, 2016
[English] Anthropology and the ‘Action Turn’: Possibilities, Tensions, Futures
  
This panel seeks to draw attention to the practical and theoretical implications of the ‘action turn’ for anthropology. Set against the broad collapse of the boundaries separating ‘pure’ theoretical analysis from ‘applied’ practical expertise in the discipline, anthropology is going through a sustained period of deliberation over its relevance in the public sphere. At the same time, however, to what extent anthropologists should involve themselves in action-oriented research continues to be a matter of contention in some quarters and reflects debates over the utility of anthropology stretching back to the 1930s (if not earlier). In this panel, we seek to question, and provide empirical analysis of, anthropology in action and engage with all facets of the epistemological break that action inspires in how we know the world and do research in it (Ospina & Anderson 2014 "The Action Turn". In The Sage Encyclopedia of Action Research). We invite papers relating to research work with community partners, practitioners, and institutions alike. 
 
If interested, please contact Mark Watson (mark.watson@concordia.ca) and Donna Patrick (donna.patrick@carleton.ca) with a title and 150 word abstract by January 25 2016.
[English] The view from here: positioning solidarity in Canadian anthropology
 
While people studying and working in Canadian anthropology departments and those trained in them would appear to share many common interests, perspectives, and goals, the field, along with many of its closest cousins within the academy, seems beset on all sides by neoliberal pressures that are changing the nature of scholarship and imposing new divisions at every level. Yet, while it has been a challenging decade to be sure, in some respects, Canadian anthropology departments, which have not yet been subjected to the same degree of restructuring as their cousins in the US, the UK, and elsewhere, may be uniquely positioned to articulate an alternative model. This forum will bring together variously positioned anthropologists with an interest in the future of the discipline in Canada to share their experiences, work toward common understandings of the pressures at work, and discuss opportunities for solidarities across these divides.
 
The session aims to provide a space for open discussion and to facilitate dialogue between scholars at various stages of their careers. Topics may include, but are not limited to: teaching loads and unpaid labour; Canadian graduate programs; career trajectories of Canadian PhDs; research management and research funding; casualisation of academic labour; unionisation and inter-union relations. Please forward abstract submissions (100–150 words) or expressions of interest to Reade Davis (reade.davis@mun.ca) and Michael Connors Jackman (mcj@clerk.com) by 25 January 2016. 

[English] Seeds and power

- complet - 

Farmers face complex pressures to adopt so-called modern varieties of seed, ranging from development projects that prioritize industrial inputs to trade agreements that require the adoption of intellectual property rights or seed certification laws, among other factors.  Activists argue that these pressures, along with seed regulations that criminalize the exchange of traditional varieties, are part of a new enclosure movement that seeks to advance the market for transnational seed corporations and the industrial food system.

This panel explores political conflicts over seed as property, knowledge and labour.  Do competing understandings of seed –as the results of particular forms of expertise and particular types of labour, for example-- contribute to such conflicts, and if so, how? Can these conflicts over seed be understood as ontological conflicts?  And how might struggles over seed provide insight into understandings of the commons, agricultural development, and peasant resistance and identities?

Organiser: Liz Fitting

[English] North American Borders/Borderlands 

Anthropological study of borders and borderlands in North America have been dominated by ethnography and theory about the Mexico-USA border “where the third world grates against the first and bleeds” (Anzaldúa 1987). However, North America is also the site of multiple political, cultural, or linguistic borders/borderlands between Indigenous peoples, European empires, and contemporary nation-states. The objective of this panel is to make these zones of interaction visible through careful ethnographic work and theorize North American borders and borderlands in historical, critical, and/or comparative perspective. Papers in this session will take up the study of North America from its limits and crossings, from sites of connection and entanglement, and from positions of solidarity, division, or refusal. In this way, scholars can better understand the making, unmaking, and refusal of borders, the characteristics of borderland life, and work to build solidarities across space. 

Interested scholars should send a title and 150-word abstract to Sara Komarnisky (sarak@ualberta.ca) by January 31, 2016.

Le public et le privé dans l’espace urbain

Les villes concentrent des institutions, intérêts et ressources que l’on classe souvent comme étant soit privés, soit publics. En fait, le public et le privé s’imbriquent l’un dans l’autre, les préoccupations privées devenant souvent le moteur des actions publiques et vice versa. Tandis que la dimension publique de la ville a été grandement étudiée, sa dimension privée demeure sous-théorisée; les recherches actuelles portent surtout sur les effets néfastes de la privatisation de l’espace public sans s’attarder, par exemple, sur les dynamiques de l’intime ou du domestique en ville. Comme l’a mis en évidence l’anthropologie féministe, les sphères publiques et privées se co-produisent et sont traversées par des rapports de force et des flux de pouvoir. En transposant cette approche sur les espaces urbains, cette session cherche à explorer les interstices,  les imbrications et les intersections du public et du privé et leurs conséquences sur les relations sociales dans la ville.   

Veuillez envoyer votre proposition de communication avec un titre, un résumé de 100 à 150 mots, des mots clés et les noms des co-auteurs (le cas échéant) avant le 22 janvier à Martha Radice martha.radice@dal.ca et Nathalie Boucher nathalie.boucher.1@umontreal.ca 

[English] Debt and the Double Edge of Solidarity

Anthropologists have long been interested in the paradoxical roles that financial and other forms of debt play in social life: its potential to bind and to divide, to intensify social inequalities and to blur them; its role in both expressing and destabilizing care and kinship; its ability to render people solid citizens and deadbeats. Since the global financial crisis, as Holly High observes, debt is approaching a Maussian “total” social phenomenon, one in which “everything intermingles.” This panel explores the paradoxes of the credit/debt dyad (Gustav Peebles’s term), with particular attention to its work at/as a “double edge” of solidarity. Possible topics include but are not limited to: the role of various types of debt in forming and fracturing solidarities across and within social and geopolitical boundaries; the role of elite solidarities in establishing debt as a mechanism for governmentality and subjectivation; and anthropology’s potential to illuminate debt’s part in making and unmaking shared identities, interests and struggles within and across political movements, groups, classes, institutions and households.

Session Organizers: Robin Whitaker & David Cooney (Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland)

Please email inquiries and/or 150 word abstracts to robinw@mun.ca and dscooney@mun.ca by January 20th.

[English] Solidarit(i)és at the Intersection of Food and Religion

Food and religious communities offer a unique perspective to explore the complexities, tensions, and contradictions that arise within the dual nature of solidarity as both a place of cohesion and separation. The panel addresses foodways as political, economic, and/or cultural dimensions of production, distribution, preparation, and/or consumption in relation to religious rituals, beliefs, and practices. Though we hope to offer an open and general call to the panel, we ask that papers ethnographically consider the conference theme of Solidarit(i)és (http://cascasana2016.com/call-for-papers/) at the intersection of food and religion.

Please send inquiries and/or short abstracts (150 words) to Jason WM Ellsworth by February 4th, 2016 at Jason.Ellsworth@dal.ca

[English] Cultural Production and the State 

Institutionalized arenas of culture production like film, music and performing arts industries have been described as spaces both nurturing critical public dialogue and advancing hegemonic projects. By employing notions like cultural and creative industries, culture as a resource for governance, alternativity, and artistic public sphere, arenas of cultural production can be seen as zones where government institutions, transnational agencies, cultural producers and consumers negotiate dissent and incorporation. This panel welcomes contributions of anthropologist exploring the intersections of art, market, society and state. Among the questions we would like to consider are: How do states incorporate, marginalize, engage or ignore artistic practices? How do artistic projects permeate state's projects? How do social actors in this field articulate and narrate social solidarities?

Please send inquiries and abstracts to Daniel Salas-Gonzalez (Daniel.Salas@Dal.ca) by January 31, 2016.

[English] Emerging economic futures: The intersections of informality and formality

Co-organizers: Alan Smart (University of Calgary) and B. Lynne Milgram (OCAD University)

One of the key legacies of Keith Hart’s original work is that current scholarship has replaced the informal/formal sector dualism with the recognition that informality/formality are interdependently linked. Indeed, both academic analysis and development policy increasingly bring informal and formal together, especially as policies encourage the formalization of informality. This panel will broaden the terms of this engagement by analyzing a range of formal/informal intersections. Governments and corporations, for example, may formalize informality by engaging informal actors as subcontractors or salespeople; within supra-national institutions formality/informality are negotiated and enforced through non-legally binding (soft law) tools (e.g., treaties, conventions); and NGOs, grassroots movements and civic associations often struggle to formalize and legalize their practice. By analyzing the myriad ways in which formality and informality intersect and interact – subordination, toleration, regularization, eradication, exploitation and subversion – panel papers will effectively inform the economic futures that emerge in a less Euro-centric global economy.

Key words: formality/informality; legality/illegality; Global South; development; governmentality

• DEADLINE: We ask that paper proposal Abstracts and Key Words be submitted by

January 15, 2016. Please also include your full contact and affiliation details.

• Please send paper proposal Abstracts of 100-150 words to both panel co-organizers at: asmart@ucalgary.ca and lmilgram@faculty.ocadu.ca

• Notification of acceptance of proposals will be sent by January 22, 2016.

• Note: In order to present a paper at the 2016 CASCA/SANA conference, presenters must be members of one of these organizations.

• Further information about the conference is available at: http://cascasana2016.com/call-for-papers/

[English] Solidarities at the Edge of Exclusion

Solidarity is usually celebrated as a good thing and something that ought to be promoted. But the forging of solidarity movements necessarily sets one locus of collective values and commitments against others and can lead to marginalization, rupture, scapegoating, and exclusion. This panel engages with the irresolvable tension between inclusion and exclusion in the forging of solidarities by paying particular attention to their exclusionary sides, broadly understood. It invites contributions that ethnographically investigate how troubled forms of social difference are produced, lived, and interpreted at the level of everyday practice. We will be especially interested in the following questions: How do the dualities of solidarity making – inclusion and exclusion – play out in practical contexts? When solidarities collapse, how do social actors make sense of the breakdown of collective attachments and commitments? How do individuals and collectives navigate the everyday tensions that might develop when they are allied in one context or moment, but opposed in others? How fixed are group boundaries, and even in cases of deep collective antipathies, is group membership always or ever an “all or nothing matter”? When social actors engage in exclusionary boundary work, what justifications do they give to these practices? Finally, are there particular theoretical, methodological, or other challenges associated with ethnographic investigations of solidarity’s exclusionary sides?

 Please send inquiries or abstracts of 150 words to Laura Eramian (Sociology and Social Anthropology, Dalhousie University) at leramian@dal.ca by January 27, 2016.

[English] Solidarity with who?: On the Challenges of Studying Up
Session to be submitted for the CASCA/SANA meetings at Dalhousie University, May 11 - 15, 2016

Anthropologists often position themselves in solidarity with marginal groups, frequently represented by our research participants. Yet, for several decades, anthropologists have also focused on studying powerful institutions, including sites of scientific and technological practice, government bureaucracies, and legal and policing systems. Through this practice of “studying-up,” anthropologists unpack the meanings and practices of those operating within and through often opaque institutional systems, providing a means of understanding and often critiquing operations of power (Nader 1989). Yet, conducting ethnographies of powerful actors and institutions can put us at odds with the interests, goals, and politics of our research participants. This panel invites papers that explore the complexities of enacting solidarities while “studying-up,” including discussions of productive and problematic solidarities in the field and beyond, different means and forms of solidarity, analyses of critical versus collaborative approaches to ethnography, and considerations of relationships other than solidarity in fieldwork.

Please send inquiries and abstracts to Samantha Breslin (sdbreslin@mun.ca) by January 22, 2016.

--
*Samantha Breslin, PhD Candidate *
Department of Anthropology
Memorial University of Newfoundland
e:mail: sdbreslin@mun.ca

[ENGLISH] Solidarities with Indigenous Peoples in Canada and Beyond

Anthropologists work with and for Indigenous peoples in Canada and beyond. They expose negative representations about Indigenous peoples within all forms of media. In consultation with Indigenous stakeholders, anthropologists revise education programs, systems and resources providing better access and culturally appropriate instruction. Anthropologists act as expert witnesses for Indigenous peoples within the courts. They work toward solutions to pressing health challenges and problems confronting Indigenous peoples. Applied anthropologists work closely with Indigenous peoples on a host of practical projects designed to address routine and extraordinary needs while creating capacity within communities. Anthropologists collaborate with Indigenous historians and linguists building archives using Indigenous knowledge and practices to save and maintain Indigenous histories and languages. These panels invite, among other things, anthropologists and Indigenous peoples to reflect upon what solidarity requires, where solidarity-building has worked or not, and what could have been done differently.

Please submit abstracts for consideration to:

Craig Proulx

St. Thomas University

Anthropology

cproulx@stu.ca

[English] More-Than-Human Solidarities: Conceptual Insights and Multispecies Political Possibilities

Session to be submitted for the CASCA/SANA meetings at Dalhousie University, May 11-15, 2016

Session organized by Kendra Coulter, Brock University

Interest in human-animal-environmental relations, posthumanism, and multispecies ethnography is growing within and beyond anthropology. How do and could webs of solidarity that move beyond anthropocentrism figure in social theory, methods, and praxis, and in the many communities with which scholars are involved? In this session, we will highlight and analyze more-than-human approaches to solidarity, and consider both the challenges and possibilities of such political and ethical commitments. In the interest of breadth and a holistic discussion, and in keeping with the spirit of solidarity, papers concentrating on solidaristic dynamics that are ethnographically-rooted, conceptual, action-oriented, and/or exploratory are welcome. Please send inquiries and/or short abstracts (150 words) to Kendra Coulter by December 1st, 2015 at kcoulter@brocku.ca

More information about the CASCA/ SANA (Canadian Anthropology Society/Society for the Anthropology of North America) meetings is available at: http://cascasana2016.com/ and details about registration fees, etc. will be posted later in October.

La CASCA accepte les nominations au titre de Membre émérite. Voyez les conditions ici, avant le 1 mars 2016. 
 

La date limite pour les Subventions de voyage pour étudiant(e)s est le 4 mars 2016! Lisez les détails ici

Participez au prochain numéro de Culture sur le thème de l'exclusion. Date limite de soumission: le 1 mars 2016

Planifiez votre séjour en Nouvelle-Écosse au colloque annuel de la CASCA-SANA grâce à ces suggestions

 
Halifax Harbour Entrance Sunrise  Flickr Dennis Jarvis
 
 

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 cascanews@cas-sca.ca. Nous publierons ici toutes les informations pertinentes pour faciliter la communication entre les membres tandis qu'ils se préparent pour le colloque à venir.

Contact Info

Canadian Anthropology Society (CASCA)
c/o Karli Whitmore
125 rue Jean de la Londe, #301
Baie d'Urfe (Québec) H9X 3T8
Email