[ang] By whose authority: Investigating alternative modes of power and the legitimization of expertise
More information: http://nomadit.co.uk/cascaiuaes2017/suite/panels.php5?PanelID=5433
More information: http://nomadit.co.uk/cascaiuaes2017/suite/panels.php5?PanelID=5433
Using diverse theoretical approaches, anthropologists have studied the relationship between state apparatuses and non-state actors, and the processes by which “the state” becomes objectified, legitimated, or undermined. Central to these processes is the production and usage of official state narratives. Such narratives might find expression in history books, public rituals, historical sites, civic education programs, and sometimes in everyday talk. Depending on the historical and ethnographic context, state narratives can be flexible, rigid, or can even be backed by legal sanctions if they are publicly contested. This panel focuses on the place of state narratives of history, culture, or politics in everyday social life. How do these narratives get produced and by whom? And once they become publicly available, who puts them to work and for what purposes? How do diverse social actors engage with state narratives, whether they are imposed, shared, contested, or some combination thereof? What alliances, conflicts, or movements coalesce around these forms of knowledge?
Possible topics include but are not limited to:
-the place of narrative in state formation projects and forging political legitimacy
-the contradictory uses or implications of official narratives of history
-competing official narratives, how they are deployed, and for what agendas
-the stories that social actors tell about themselves by invoking official histories
-knowledge production about the past, ownership of that knowledge, and how it circulates
Convenor: Laura Eramian, Dalhousie University
More information: http://www.nomadit.co.uk/cascaiuaes2017/suite/panels.php5?PanelID=5412
Although collaboration has always been a part of anthropological research, emphasis on more ethical engagement has opened up new avenues for exploration and a reconstitution of the boundaries between researcher and "researched." A push towards the co-production of knowledge, participatory action research, and other forms of negotiated practice, are producing a new and exciting body of work. However, collaboration is not without challenges. At CASCA 2014, Dr. Andrew Walsh organized a round-table on the "Promising Uncertainties of Collaboration in Anthropology Today." In follow-up to that session, we welcome papers that seek to critically examine both the methodological and theoretical possibilities, challenges, and assumptions associated with collaborative research.
Within this context, we wonder how our ideas of collaboration shifted over time. How is our research enriched through collaborative practices? In what ways does collaboration complicate the research endeavour? When is it appropriate not to collaborate? When does collaboration become unethical? How does collaboration shape knowledge production? How is the co-production of knowledge negotiated
Within the humanities and social sciences a nonhuman or more-than-human approach to writing and research has become a prominent genre. This is an epistemological move that underscores humans are ever-entangled with nonhuman animals, technologies, the environment and spiritual entities. Anthropologists, perhaps due to the centrality of anthropos in the discipline, were slow to respond to broader moves to decentre the human subject. However, the publication of the special issue The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography in the journal Cultural Anthropology in 2010 prompted a growing number of anthropologists to focus on more-than-human conceptualizations as valuable in understanding and describing everyday interactions. Nevertheless, movement towards such an approach in anthropology is often resisted by the power structures of universities where more quantitative and rigid regimes of classification—nature/culture or human/animal for example—remain. This round table discussion focuses on how the nonhuman turn informs the work of participants and how they maneuver within the academy. Put concretely, why and how is the nonhuman turn prominent in your work and what are the implications of more-than-human research for methods and practices?
Organizer: Paul Hansen, Hokkaido University (email@example.com)
Life along rivers and coasts is anything but static. The places commonly referred to as "deltas" are not only sites of dense movements of substances, animals, people, technology and expertise. They also fluctuate among liquid, solid and other in-between states of matter.
Deltas have recently received renewed attention from anthropologists and other social scientists. Some study deltas because of their vulnerability due to climate change; others explore the imaginative potential of their alterity for undoing modern land/water and nature/culture oppositions, and the often destructive management practices they enable.
Yet, a tendency remains to assume that the area characterized by sediment deposits and multiple distributaries at the end of a river IS essentially a delta, even in accounts that trace different delta ontologies. The assumption that a river end is necessarily a delta naturalizes a historically specific hydrological enactment that emerged in The Netherlands and travelled with Dutch expertise via colonial and development encounters.
This panel will investigate deltas as living landscapes in order to probe the ways in which a river end may exist as something other than a delta, and the implications of (not) doing so. What practices, processes, infrastructures, and stories compose river ends as living landscapes that exceed expert hydrological enactments? In what ways have inhabitants appropriated expert hydrological knowledge or been displaced by it? How might the existence of river ends as something other than deltas open up new conversations about social and ecological justice, movement and fluctuation, and alternative futures for these more-than-human landscapes?
The deadline for submission is December 19. For more information see: http://www.nomadit.co.uk/cascaiuaes2017/suite/panels.php5?PanelID=5306
This panel focuses on the differing experiences of human movement, which are often neglected under strict guidelines and laws related to immigration, refugee claims, settlement, relocation, property, rights, identity, tourism, and concerns for national or other borders. We bear witness to a globalized world where "movement" is aggressively channeled, contested, regulated, and denied, as several historical and contemporary examples can attest: removal of Aboriginal, Roma, and Gypsy children from families for assimilation purposes; undermining legitimate immigration or refugee claims because of suspicion of the 'cultural other' and/or social, political, and economical ignorance; fear and suspicion of Nomads by a hegemonic authority. Borders, which restrict movement, are reinforced at local levels by reserving prime urban spaces for capitalist edifices or gated communities for the wealthy, while marginalized others live in slums or ethnic ghettos. This panel seeks to bring to the fore people's narratives and lived experiences to serve as counterpoints to the globalized and overarching narratives and discourse surrounding "movement" in a world in motion.
Convenors: Louise de la Gorgendiere (Carleton University), Judith Okely (Oxford University/University of Hull): http://nomadit.co.uk/cascaiuaes2017/suite/panels.php5?PanelID=5420
In Debt to Society: Accounting for Life Under Capitalism Miranda Joseph follows the lead of Lisa Duggan to depict neoliberalism as a diffuse cultural project, the key terms of which - privatization and personal responsibility - play out in the most ordinary domains of life, mundane arenas that we are increasingly impelled to inhabit as entrepreneurial subjects, even if we do so in the mode of failure. Likewise, Philip Mirowski argues in Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste that we will not get to grips with how neoliberalism has survived its evident failure as an economic program unless we address the extent to which its sensibilities now constitute "the unremarkable furniture of waking life," a way of being that he describes as "everyday neoliberalism."
This panel will explore the intersection of neoliberalism's economic and cultural dimensions in various domains of everyday life - domains that are increasingly difficult to disentangle, as life more and more becomes an arena for neoliberalism's contradictory demands of risk taking and responsibility. Among others, these include universities and (other) workplaces, home life, volunteerism, and recreation. Papers might offer (auto-)ethnographic accounts of everyday life in the aftermath of what is commonly called the global financial crisis and/or address, among other topics: the social, cultural, economic and policy architecture of lived neoliberalism and its gaps or cracks; the paradoxes of attachment to the corporatized university; and prospects for contestation.
Since the 1970s, Cuban scholars argue that Cuba is in a state of transition. But Cuba has always been in movement. Yet, indicators suggest that this socialist island of the Caribbean is recently moving faster. On December 17, 2014 -Day of San Lazaro -Raúl Castro and Barack Obama announced that diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United Stated would be progressively 'normalized'. Since then, many things happened: the exponential increase of tourism, and the installation of wi-fi antennas in public spaces like parks are two striking examples. This panel digs into those Cuban movements, the cultural, political, environmental, economic and social undercurrents that are affecting Cubans' lives today. Questions of access, gender, race, and locality, among others, are explored and connected to other concerns, such as infrastructural, political, and technological.
In such a changing climate, we would like to gather a group of scholars who have been / are conducting research in Cuba to engage with the movements, dynamics and changes that are observed. We want to question how those movements do impact our works as anthropologists today. In reflecting on our experiences and thoughts, this panel aims at provoking a conversation about how those Cuban movements are being entangled within our research projects and questionings. Furthermore, we wish to explore how an expected increase of exchanges between foreign and Cuban scholars can potentially create new frontiers of research in anthropology.
Convenors: Alexandrine Boudreault-Fournier (University of Victoria), Sabrina Doyon (Université Laval) http://www.nomadit.co.uk/cascaiuaes2017/suite/panels.php5?PanelID=5430
A longstanding conversation needs to be had on how Anthropological engagement with technoscience (reckoned broadly) has developed in Canada and elsewhere – yet beyond US anthropology (if also in dialogue with it). In Canada, although anthropologists engaging technoscience are present in several universities and sites of action, they have not as yet coalesced into a national community, an outcome that would otherwise be welcome. Might this lack of coalescence be an effect of economies of scale; the effect of diverse research interests or institutional locations; or possibly the common embedding of technoscience in more heterogenous socionatural, political projects and concerns? Apart from asking how things came to be, this roundtable also ask how are things moving differently in this area in Canada. And what has been happening in other, non-US anthropologies, as in the range of anthropologies emergent in Latin America, and elsewhere? How might the action in all these areas merge or diverge, in generative ways with what is taking place in Canada?Indeed, are they moving more dynamically and generatively, and if so, why?
This roundtable is meant as the beginning of a national discussion in Canada, so is necessarily open-ended and reaching out to other anthropologists and anthropologies for the most part based outside the US. Several questions will be explored: What is the character of these anthropological engagements with Technoscience? What sorts of projects are anthropologists undertaking? Are there consistencies with and divergences from lines of practice that have dominated US (and European) approaches? Are there certain thematics, emergent matters of concern, animating these wider anthropologies? How do worldly, planetary, events and forces impinge on our work? Are there lines of flight away from usual horizons of practice detectable in these terrains of scholarly engagement? And how might productive conversations and articulation of these anthropological engagements with technoscience challenge and grow in new directions, in with organized or organic ways?
Each of the discussants (up to 12) in the roundtable will have 3-4 minutes to locate their work, and to bring an animating point to one of the larger questions being considered. This will be followed by a collecting together of views and observations from all attending, students and established researchers alike. This format of quick-reflex presentations is meant to generate motion, with the idea of picking this up both post-session at these meetings, and in more diverse and pointed panels and interchanges in subsequent CASCA and IUAES gatherings.
Brian Noble, organizer. Please send notification of interest, with brief description of your research and engagements in the area, to firstname.lastname@example.org
The phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty has referred to the experience of movement as a “praktognosia”, an original way of knowing the world. Phenomenology has shown, moreover, that movement and perception are inextricably intertwined with each other: every appearance of the world suggests a way of moving one’s body, and every bodily movement immediately translates into a changed perception of the world. It is from the incessant interplay between these aspects that experiential reality arises, over time producing the structures of meaningful experience that anthropologists call “culture”.
When anthropologists study corporeal movement, however, they tend to focus on the ways in which gestures, practices and habits express existing, historically grown systems of cultural meanings and social contexts. Relatively rarely are they concerned with the question how lived experiences of movement are also constitutive of the meanings they express.
For our panel we invite papers which aspire to do just that, to connect corporeal movement as a mode of experience to the emergence, transformation, construction and, possibly, destruction of socio-cultural worlds. Papers can approach the topic empirically or theoretically; they can focus on the experience of one’s own movements or of others, including non-human entities and agents. As for theoretical perspective, we welcome papers in the area of phenomenology broadly conceived, that is including other approaches concerned with experience, e.g. performative anthropology, psychoanalysis, neuropsychology, semiotics. Empirical topics are open, but we regard the areas of ritual, politics, arts and sports as particularly fertile for demonstrating the phenomenological interrelationship between motility and culture.
Conveners: Bernhard Leistle (Carleton University) and Julie Laplante (University of Ottawa)
Language revitalization projects entail not only efforts to move metaphorically movement toward a goal, but also introduce new dynamics of literal movement of people into and out of spaces and places . By considering how language ideologies shape the ways that speakers think of their languages as either mobile or immobile resources, and of themselves as mobile or immobile speaking subjects, we wish to better understand how members of endangered language communities conceptualize their own movement and mobility in relation to language.
Language revitalization programs influence mobility and movement in a variety of ways. How do these projects relate to conditions of diaspora and urbanization? How are spaces and communities dissolved and recreated through this process? How does language intersect with place in the making and remaking of identities in contexts of revitalization? How do people take language into consideration when deciding whether or not to relocate? As language revitalization programs bring new people into communities, what roles do these newcomers then play? How do processes and patterns of movement intersect with efforts to expand domains of language use?
In studying how speakers and their words move, we aim to shed light on what happens to languages and communities as a result of language revitalization. As places are discursively and ideologically connected to different forms of language use, and as speakers reconfigure the boundaries of their communities, these examinations will open up new ways of understanding both language revitalization and experiences of mobility and migration in minority language communities.
Convenors: Sarah Shulist (MacEwan University), Jenanne Ferguson (University of Nevada-Reno)
Indigenous peoples around the world are engaged in, among others, various forms of physical, discursive, political and economic movement. They are also involved in resisting constructions of their mobility as a political-economic problem by various state and corporate actors. Settlers around the world, uncomfortable with these contexts and actions, attempt to re-frame, recalibrate and block this resistance. Anthropologists continue to play a role in understanding, translating, collaborating and building relationships with Indigenous movements while sometimes being criticized for this work by Indigenous peoples. This panel will interrogate Indigenous mobility and the role of anthropologists play in it across a host of vectors. For example, what anti-racist projects are enacted to confront Settler resistance to Indigenous mobility? How are movement discourses of recognition, reconciliation and healing etc. being furthered and/or contested? How is consultation being mobilized in treaty negotiations and/or other Indigenous/state/corporate contexts? What Indigenous protests are mobilized to confront dissatisfactions, oppressions and securitizations? How is how the new mobility of Indigenous peoples disrupting racism, multiculturalism, nation building and normalizing discourses? How are forms of media used by Indigenous peoples, Settlers and anthropologists to advocate for and/or against the above movements? How is Indigenous knowledge changing medical praxis and resource extraction regimes? How are anthropologists seen as allies or as hindrances in these movements and resistances? This panel will consider other views on movement, Indigenous peoples and anthropologists.
Dr. Craig Proulx, St. Thomas University, 1 506 452-0462, email@example.com
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 firstname.lastname@example.org. Nous publierons ici toutes les informations pertinentes pour faciliter la communication entre les membres tandis qu'ils se préparent pour le colloque à venir.