Health policy workshop in U.K.

Dear colleagues:

I would like to bring to your attention the Health in All Policies summer school we are running, by myself and colleagues at the WHO Collaborating Centre on Complex Health Systems Research, Knowledge and Action, at Durham University in England (

It is running 5-7 September this year, in Durham, England: Health in All Policies: Making it Work in Practice. Please find the attached flier. We would be grateful if you could share this with your colleagues who may find this training of interest.

Kind regards
Dr Emily Henderson
Lecturer and Research Fellow, Centre for Public Policy and Health
School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University
Wolfson Research Institute for Health and Wellbeing
Stockton on Tees, TS17 6BH, United Kingdom
email: [email protected]

For full information, see:

Call for papers: Role of migration industry

Dear ASAP Colleagues:

We are pleased to circulate this Call for Presentations at a Roundtable Session that is being proposed for ASAP sponsorship at the 2016 American Anthropological Association Annual Meetings in Minneapolis in November.

The focus of the proposed roundtable is The Role of the Migration Industry in Support, Protection and Re-Integration of Labor Migrants and Refugees.  See the abstract below for further details.

Practitioners and academics with experience working in/with/for organizations of the migration industry are invited and encouraged to participate in the roundtable.  Specific questions to be addressed at the roundtable are provided in the abstract although other questions are welcome.

If you are interested in presenting, please send your name, affiliation, current e-mail address and a brief statement (no more than 150 words) regarding the nature of the question or issue you would like to address at the roundtable to:  Marietta Baba at [email protected].  The deadline for submission of your statement is April 14, 2016.

Thank you!
The Co-Organizers
Marietta Baba and Carla Dahl-JØrgensen

Proposal for a Roundtable:

The Role of Migration Industry Actors in Support, Protection and Re-Integration of
Labor Migrants and Refugees

The current migration crisis in Europe has focused the world’s attention on the important role of actors in the migration industry, initially defined by Hernandez-Leon (2008:155) as “the ensemble of entrepreneurs who, motivated by the pursuit of financial gain, provide a variety of services facilitating human mobility across international borders”.  Not all actors in this field however are motivated by profit; some pursue humanitarian goals related to migrants’ human rights (Sorensen and Gammeltoft-Hansen 2013) while others play an active role in the incorporation and integration of migrants in the host society and in helping the migrants in maintaining transnational ties with sending countries (Garapich 2008: 737).

Once obscure and somewhat shadowy, the migration industry has emerged into the center of attention in the maelstrom of events that are defining this era.  Yet this industry remains understudied and poorly understood, as are its interactions with migrating peoples and States (e.g., see Castles, de Hass and Miller 2014).  A focus on the migration industry reveals a complex interplay among its varied actors, including those that are legally incorporated, those that operate outside the rule of law, those that are private sector, public sector, civil society based, or faith based.  It is often “more than difficult” (ibid:18) to distinguish among actors working legally or illegally in a given situation.  Today, these varied actors interact with one another, with States, international agencies and migrating peoples to produce the flows of migrants and refugees that stream across borders with more or less regard for policy.

The complexity of migration industry operations and the opportunities for entrepreneurship of all types have created an unprecedented situation that mitigates the risk of migrating for some categories of labor migrants and refugees, but places others at greater risk of exploitation, resulting in an increasing number becoming victims of forced labor, especially women and children who are more vulnerable to sexual exploitation.

In accord with a humanitarian theme, we propose a roundtable for the open discussion and sharing of ideas related to the varied roles of migration industry actors in the protection, support and re-integration of labor migrants and refugees, including those who have been exploited through forced labor such as sex trafficking and prostitution.  Practitioners and academics with experience working in/with/for organizations of the migration industry are invited to participate in the roundtable and to address one or more of the following questions, or to propose their own question(s) for discussion:

• What are (or should be) the role(s) of different migration industry actors in protection, support and re-integration of migrants or refugees?

• Under what conditions have actors in the migration industry offered services that are different to or even in contrast with the State? Are there circumstances in which such migration industry actions should be reconciled with or accommodated to those of the State?

• Provide recent examples or case studies of ways in which migration industry actor(s) were substantively involved in a programmatic or policy change at the local, regional, national or international level(s) that focus on the support, protection and/or re-integration of labor migrants or refugees.  What strategies were engaged to facilitate the development and implementation of this program or policy?

Call for papers: LGBTQ and immigration law

Panel for AAA in Minneapolis:
Queer SubordiNation: Evidencing Belonging in LGBTQ Immigration Law

Recent legal debates and legislative “wins” have focused attention on queer immigrants in the United States, for example same-sex marriage, LGBT asylum, the undocuqueer movement and new policy announcements regarding placement of trans* people in immigration detention. The creation of new legally and socially meaningful categories of queer immigrants raises important questions about how intersecting hierarchies of race, gender, sexuality, class, nationality, and immigration status structure access to national belonging and citizenship. Exploration of these categories also prompts consideration of the types of evidence that are leveraged, recognized, or denied as qualifications for belonging, and foregrounds concerns about how self-described identities are legitimized or invalidated by larger sociolegal processes. The papers in this panel ethnographically “study through” immigration policies and processes, from NGO lobbying efforts, to courtrooms, to the daily lives of those granted–or denied–government sanction to remain in the United States at least in part because of their LGBTQ subjectivity. Panelists discuss how the construction of new categories of permissible LGBTQ immigrants–for example, the binational same-sex partner; the trans asylee; the queer DREAMer–is both informed by, and helps to shape neoliberal ideologies about national and other forms of belonging. Further, we examine the various state and non-governmental institutions that help produce these categories, asking how they work to include certain LGBTQ subjects into the nation while precluding others. This panel contributes to existing scholarship in queer migration studies as we consider the circulation of legal definitions outside of courtrooms and paperwork, and focus on the meanings that legal categories come to hold for those whom they are used to describe. The papers collectively work to analyze how differently situated LGBTQ immigrants make use of these categories and subject positions—often in imaginative and unexpected ways– to navigate the immigration system and access, if they so choose, state rights and recognition.

If you are interested in presenting your work on this panel, please send abstracts of 250 words max. to [email protected] by noon, April 10 for our consideration. We will notify proposers of our decision by April 12.

Call for papers: Austerity

For AAA annual meeting in Minneapolis:

Austerity and ‘Accidental’ Effects: Engaging with Crisis across Social and Historical Lines

Co-Organizers: Theodore Powers, University of Iowa and Theodoros Rakopoulos, University of Bergen

Since the 2008 financial crisis, a wave of austerity has enveloped Europe. Pensions, livelihoods and public health have been sacrificed so that debts may be repaid. The social, political and economic crisis that has resulted has garnered extensive academic attention and widespread coverage in mass media. Greece in particular has served as a focal point for these analyses, a case study to gauge the violent social effects put into motion by fiscal austerity. Given the devastating effects of austerity, such consideration is warranted. However the concentration on Europe stands in stark relief to the attention devoted to instances of austerity elsewhere. The emerging anthropologies of austerity also seem to embrace a definition of austerity regimes as a condition concerning societies that enjoyed a high standard of consumption. How can this divergence be explained?

In order to address this concern, the panel will attempt to deprovincialise austerity, embedding its European situatedness in a broader setting of global political economy. We shall engage in the comparative exercise of analyzing how has austerity has unfolded as a social process in different cases. A number of questions follow from the comparative focus, with the question of Eurocentrism at their center. Are the policy assemblages that have emerged under the aegis of ‘austerity’ a situated circumstance of broader neoliberal aggression? To what degree does the ideological framing of austerity’s effects as ‘accidental’ obscure the ongoing nature of crisis and the role of particular actors and institutions in their adoption? What are the similarities and differences between austerity in Europe and structural adjustment across the Global South?  Is it possible to compare the instances of austerity and those of structural adjustment given historical, institutional, geographic and cultural differences? What concepts – if any – might serve to bridge such differences in order to develop a genealogy of austerity and its social effects?

In order to address these questions, we invite papers that address austerity in contemporary Europe and attempt comparisons with structural adjustment in the Global South. In this comparative exercise we are picking one of the possible ways to extend austerity beyond the Eurocentric nexus and onto global processes, by bringing together anthropological perspectives on African and European experiences of austerity. Analyses that critically engage with the Eurocentrism and presentism inherent in the contemporary application of ‘austerity’ serve as the core problematic for the panel. The practicalities of austerity discourse invite a critique that departs from the Foucauldian subjectivization and enters the realm of class politics of dispossession. We need to address the class regime that constructs austerity as a practice of fiscal fetishization and service-slashing while construing austerity as a discourse of obedience and self-blame.

If interested, please send an abstract of 250 or less to: [email protected] and [email protected] by April 11, 2016

Call for papers: The politics of the moral self

AAA Meetings, Minneapolis, MN, November 16-20, 2016:

Panel Title: The Politics of Indignation, Resistance, and Reconstitution of the Moral Self

Organizer: Natasa Garic-Humphrey (University of California, San Diego)

This panel explores the intersections of governmentality, citizenship, political subjectivity, activism, ethics, and morality, and critically examines the importance of inserting “the moral self” within political theory to better understand how citizens come to confront political organizations and policies. Recent years have provided unprecedented examples of large-scale resistance, uprising, protest, and violent confrontation to authoritarian regimes, invidious state policies, and localized manifestations of neoliberal political-economics. To explain current confrontations to prevailing forms of state power, scholars have successfully highlighted the gaps between policy making from above and people’s on-the-ground experiences, resulting in citizens’ alienation from governmental ideologies, programs, and practices, while another line of research explored the various ways in which experiences of subjectivity and suffering are shaped within particular contexts of political economy.

This panel however, takes a closer look at the ways people manage to change their moral orientations within the context of hegemonic power and (re)make their moral selves to engage in and confront larger political and socioeconomic processes. How do specific situations, events, and visceral experiences in people’s lives evoke moments of self-reflection, engender reorientations towards the self, and inspire courses of action that cultivate a new sense of moral personhood? How does this experience of generating a new moral self shape one’s perceptions of government ineptitude and prepare them to engage in citizen-based action to confront political injustices and socio-political reforms? What motivates people to resist, initiate change, and form new senses of themselves as moral actors in the midst of stifling crisis brought by socioeconomic and political transformations, war, genocide, fear, and other examples of structural violence?

If interested, please send abstracts to Natasa Garic-Humphrey at [email protected] by April 10th.