Call for papers (AAA): Policy and politics in exceptional times

Call for Papers, AAA San Jose, CA
States of Exception:  Policy and Politics in Exceptional Times

Deadline:  10.04.2018

Organizers: Cansu Civelek (University of Vienna); Dr. Cris Shore (University of Auckland)
Discussant: Dr. Ayşe Çağlar (University of Vienna)

Abstract

In recent decades, particularly since 9/11, anthropologists, social scientists, and legal studies scholars have become increasingly interested in the theme of governing in and through emergencies, often drawing on Georgio Agamben’s (2005) and Carl Schmitt’s notion of “state of exception”. What these studies share is a concern with scrutinizing sovereign power by investigating state interventions into the rule of law, restrictions on jurisdiction, suspension of human and citizenship rights, militarization, surveillance, and constitutional dictatorships emerging from declarations of state of exception. In addition to formal declarations of exception, however, neoliberal policy agendas, the crisis of democracy, and the proliferation of declarations of urgency and emergency suggest that in many places the “state of emergency” has become the new normal. Whether it be environmental catastrophes, wars, economic crises, or political unrest, governments, public-sector institutions, private bodies and not-for-profit organizations all utilize crises and emergencies to justify making ‘exceptional’ interventions into the domains of policy and law. In some contexts, ruling by decrees has become a governing practice that has blurred the relationship between policy-making, laws, and the concept of due process. What contribution can anthropology of policy make to understanding these processes and challenges? This panel aims to address this theme in all its dimensions.

We welcome empirical and conceptual papers (max. 250 words), including ethnographic and historical investigations, that explore states of exception from anthropological perspectives, or that trace intersections of emergency, risk, threats, and crises that foster policy change in different policy arenas (labor policy, urban policy, security and defense, local economy, social policy etc). We invite contributions that unravel the way policy interventions under states of emergency provide opportunities for the accumulation of wealth and power on the one hand, and dispossession, marginalization, and exclusion on the other. Topics may address, but are not limited to, any of the following questions:

–  What are the characteristics of governing in and through emergencies?
–  What political and economic interests do emergencies serve?
–  What do states of exception tell us about legal norms or ‘states of normality’?
–  What informal as well as formal practices of governance are associated with emergencies?
–  What new kinds of subjects and relation do states of exception create?
–  How do people engage with, or respond to, such states of emergency?

Deadline for abstract submissions: 10th of April

For submissions (max. 250 words) and questions please email to [email protected] and [email protected] which would include affiliation and contact details.

* New Publication*
Cansu Civelek (2017) Social Housing, Urban Renewal and Shifting Meanings of ‘Welfare State’ in Turkey: A Study of the Karapınar Renewal Project, EskiŞehir, in Paul Watt, Peer Smets (ed.) Social Housing and Urban Renewal, pp.391 – 429.

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/978-1-78714-124-720171011

Cansu Civelek

PhD Candidate
Uni: DOCs Fellow
Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology
University of Vienna
Tel: +43 (0)1 427749545
Universitätsstraße 7, 4th Floor
A-1010 Vienna

Call for papers (AAA): Possibilities of care

Dear colleagues,

We are seeking abstract submissions for the following proposed panel at the 2018 AAA meeting in San Jose, CA. Please submit an abstract of no more than 250 words to Fayana Richards ([email protected]) and Gabriela Morales ([email protected]) by April 3, 2018.

Possibilities of Care: Social and Political Enactments of the Good Life
Organizers: Fayana Richards (University of Massachusetts, Amherst) and Gabriela Morales (Scripps College)
Discussant: Felicity Aulino (University of Massachusetts, Amherst)

What does it mean to strive for a “good life” through the practice of care? How might the social relations involved in care enact particular aspirational, moral, and political projects? This panel places the study of care in conversation with recent calls in anthropology to move past the discipline’s reliance on narratives of suffering and attend to how people enact “the good” (Chua 2014; Ortner 2016; Robbins 2013; Fischer 2014; Singh 2015). We build on Cheryl Mattingly’s argument that “the good life for humans is not merely about surviving but also about flourishing” (2014: 9) — and see care as central to intertwined questions of morality and well-being. We find that care creates productive possibilities and challenges what the good life looks like for individuals, including in contexts of precarity.

This panel considers diverse ways that people consider life to be “good,” “qualified,” or “ethical” — and how people enact (or at lease aspire to) these forms of life through acts and structures of care. We are especially interested in submissions that examine alternative understandings of “the good” as people live with, resist, or refuse hegemonic forces. Recent attention to morality in anthropology (Das 2007; Fassin 2012; Keane 2015; Lambek 2010; Zigon and Throop 2014) has raised productive questions about people engage with “the good” in ordinary practice. Building on these approaches, we consider how care enacts specific ideas about life for oneself and for others. We understand social ideas of “the good” to have complex implications for care; they may serve as the basis for forms of violence and domination (Mulla 2014; Stevenson 2014) but also potentially emerge as sites for generating new forms of living in precarious circumstances (Han 2012; Mattingly 2010; 2014). Yet even as we foreground “the good,” we seek to move beyond the idea that care necessarily arises from internal conviction and ask what other social configurations might shape the work of care (Aulino 2016). We ultimately consider whether certain relations of care might create possibilities for other kinds of life and other kinds of politics.

We invite submissions that consider how paradigms and practices of care enact moral and aspirational projects. Potential areas of inquiry include (but are not limited to):
How do social understandings of the moral good and/or well-being shape practices of care?
How does care enact forms of self-fashioning, becoming, and/or relating to others (cf. Mattingly 2014)?
How does care reflect the desire for a particular kind of life — or, potentially, a particular kind of death (cf. Desjarlais 2016; Garcia 2010; Stevenson 2014)?
Whose care, or what forms of caring, is socially valued or devalued (cf. Glenn 2010)?
How does caring for others articulate efforts to enact, live with, resist, or refuse conditions of oppression?
How might care be a site of anti-politics (Ticktin 2011) or, alternatively, for creating new political possibilities (e.g. Black Lives Matter, #MeToo movement)?

References:
Aulino, F. (2016). Rituals of care for the elderly in northern Thailand: Merit, morality, and the everyday of long‐term care. American Ethnologist, 43(1), 91-102.
Chua, J. L. (2014). In pursuit of the good life: aspiration and suicide in globalizing south India. Univ of California Press.
Das, V. (2007). Life and Words: Violence and the Descent into the Ordinary. Univ of California Press.
Desjarlais, R. (2016). Subject to death: Life and Loss in a Buddhist world. University of Chicago Press.
Fassin, D.  (Ed.). (2012). A companion to moral anthropology. John Wiley & Sons.
Fischer, E. F. (2014). The good life: aspiration, dignity, and the anthropology of wellbeing. Stanford University Press.
Garcia, A. (2010). The pastoral clinic: Addiction and dispossession along the Rio Grande. Univ of California Press.
Glenn, E. N. (2010). Forced to care: Coercion and caregiving in America. Harvard University Press.
Keane, W. (2015). Ethical life: Its natural and social histories. Princeton University Press.
Lambek, M. (Ed.). (2010). Ordinary ethics: Anthropology, language, and action. Fordham Univ Press.
Mattingly, C. (2010). The paradox of hope: Journeys through a clinical borderland. Univ of California Press.
—- (2014). Moral laboratories: Family peril and the struggle for a good life. Univ of California Press.
Mulla, S. (2014). The violence of care: Rape victims, forensic nurses, and sexual assault intervention. NYU Press.
Ortner, S. B. (2016). Dark anthropology and its others: Theory since the eighties. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 6(1), 47-73.
Robbins, J. (2013). Beyond the suffering subject: toward an anthropology of the good. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 19(3), 447-462.
Singh, B. (2015). Poverty and the quest for life: Spiritual and material striving in rural India. University of Chicago Press.
Stevenson, L. (2014). Life beside itself: Imagining care in the Canadian Arctic. Univ of California Press.
Ticktin, M. I. (2011). Casualties of care: immigration and the politics of humanitarianism in France. Univ of California Press.
Zigon, J., & Throop, C. J. (2014). Moral experience: introduction. Ethos, 42(1), 1-15.

Call for papers (AAA): Medical humanitarianism

Medical humanitarianism, human rights, and the suffering body

Despite their differences in goal, scale and mode of engagement, humanitarian and human rights practices often coalesce around the figure of the suffering body (Moyn, 2012). The centrality of the suffering body in humanitarianism and human rights activism has given the medical profession a privileged role in both attempts to save lives and alleviate suffering in times of crisis or emergency and processes of claims-making and justice-seeking (Abramowitz & Panter-Brick 2015; Ticktin, 2014).

Recent anthropological critiques of the use of the “suffering” as an analytical category (Robbins, 2013) and of the privileging of biological existence and processes (Das & Han, 2015) have important repercussions for a critical and ethnographically informed analysis of the role of medicine in humanitarian and human rights practices. These critiques point out the risks of reproducing the duality between regimes of care and regimes of recognition, or between biological wellbeing and political rights when exploring experiences of illness, care, healing and so on (Garcia, 2010; Stevenson, 2014).

This panel will focus on humanitarian or human rights “intervention” into the suffering biological body without reproducing the duality between alleviation of pain and realization of legal and political rights. We seek papers that will speak to these broad themes from a variety of ethnographic/topical areas. Some of the questions we are seeking answers to are:

·  How can we think about humanitarian or human rights “intervention” to end suffering without approaching the “object of care” either as a patient or a citizen?
·  What are the limitations of human rights and humanitarian practices in terms of people’s healing experiences in the aftermath of violence, conflict, war, famine and so on?
·  What kinds of affective worlds, political and ethical engagements are created in sites where the expert volunteers, victims of domestic or political violence and workers of humanitarian and human rights organizations have locally and historically shaped intimacies and hostilities?
·  What kind of new concepts can we draw from ethnographic work (Da Col & Graeber, 2011) on human rights and humanitarian practice that move beyond (but including) sovereignty, biopolitics, biosecurity and so on?

Call for Abstracts

We invite interested panelists to submit a paper title, abstract (250 words max), current affiliation and contact info to Salih Can Aciksoz ([email protected]) and Basak Can ([email protected]) by April 1, 2018. Decisions about acceptance of abstracts for these panels will be emailed by April 3, 2018.

Abramowitz, S. A., & Panter-Brick, C. (2015). Medical humanitarianism: ethnographies of practice. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Da Col, G., & Graeber, D. (2011). Foreword: The return of ethnographic theory. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 1(1), vi–xxxv. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau1.1.001

Das, V., & Han, C. (2015). Living and dying in the contemporary world: a compendium. Oakland, California: University of California Press.

Garcia, A. (2010). The Pastoral Clinic: Addiction and Dispossession Along the Rio Grande. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Moyn, S. (2012). Substance, Scale, and Salience: The Recent Historiography of Human Rights. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8(1), 123–140.

Robbins, J. (2013). Beyond the suffering subject: toward an anthropology of the good. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 19(3), 447–462.

Stevenson, L. (2014). Life Beside Itself: Imagining Care in the Canadian Arctic. Oakland, California: University of California Press.

Ticktin, M. (2014). Transnational Humanitarianism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 43(1), 273–289.

Call for papers (AAA): Digital infrastructures

Digital Infrastructures: Poetics, Politics and Personhood – AAA San Jose 14-18 November 2018
Lorraine Weekes (Stanford University)
Gertjan Plets (Utrecht University)

Government databases, digital archives, online voting systems, and e-portals enabling the submission of everything from insurance claims to income tax returns increasingly define mundane engagements between citizen-users and a suite of public and private institutions across social arenas. Because of efficiency and transparency digital technologies are seen as affording, reliance on digital infrastructures has become widely supported on the ground. At the same time, sociopolitical structures and assumptions encoded in many of these infrastructures—and the entanglements they produce—have received little attention. The tendency of infrastructure to remain invisible until something goes wrong is perhaps especially acute in digital and high-tech contexts where the scale, technological complexity, and physical diffusion encourages black boxing. By putting the politics and poetics of digital infrastructure into the limelight, this panel will consider the historical and ethnographic dimensions of digital infrastructures and how they produce individual subjectivities, mediate power relationships and further existing reifications of the social across the globe. By bringing the theoretical insights of the burgeoning anthropology of infrastructure and bureaucracy to bear on the digital networks and assemblages, the papers in this panel endeavor to make the materiality, social-embeddedness, and historical contingency of digital infrastructure visible. 


Please submit an abstract before April 2 or send enquiries to [email protected] 

Dr. Gertjan Plets 
Assistant Professor Cultural Heritage (UD) 
Department of History and Art History 
Utrecht University 

Call for papers (AAA): Dismantling of policies and institutions

Panel Title: “Things Fall Apart: Navigating the Dismantling of Policies and Government Institutions”
In recent years there have been drastic changes in both formal and informal government policies and practices worldwide. In the specific context of the U.S., the elimination and shifts in laws and regulations have greatly impacted issues affecting climate change, immigrants, healthcare, environmental issues, the nation’s involvement with international organizations and agreements. These sweeping changes are likely to have long lasting effects, both domestically and internationally, adding to the need for an anthropological examination of the removal and alterations of established policies and practices. The current trend in the breakdown and reconstruction of government policies is not limited to the United States. Increased xenophobia has led to the rise of populist sentiment in Europe, resulting in restrictions on immigration and adaptations in the ways in which states manage border control. For example, the fear of migrants from Africa entering Europe contributed to European Union (EU) policies on “border control” in the Mediterranean Sea. Prior operations that focused on the search and rescue of migrants at sea have been dismantled, creating new systems that focus on preventing migrants entering Europe. Additionally, the effects of the vote for the British exit from the EU have yet to be determined; however, this drastic change in policy will likely have profound effects on populations throughout Europe. In some geopolitical regions, the absence of a centralized government has led to the deterioration of migration policies, resulting in the increase of armed militias that “regulate” migration and lead to human rights abuses on migrants in transit. In this respect, failed states such as Libya and Syria provide a specific geopolitical context for the examination of how the collapse of state and local governments affect complex issues such as migration. This panel will contribute to the anthropological scholarship on policy and government by examining instances where policy is deconstructed or ceases to exist. 
Reflecting on the theme of “Resistance, Resilience, and Adaptation,” this panel seeks to examine how the dismantling of policies and collapse of institutions affects local populations’ abilities to resist or adapt to political change. This panel examines a wide range topics focused on the response to the deterioration of local, national, and international policies and government institutions. We invite proposals that consider these topics from a variety of angles to provide a broad understanding of how the unraveling of established policies and institutions impact local populations and how they navigate these changes. 
Questions to be considered include: 
How do people respond when there is a dismantling of policy? What are the effects of “failed states” and the deterioration of government institutions on local populations? What can anthropologists do when policies and centralized governments deteriorate? How are resistance movements in the U.S. and elsewhere responding to radical right-wing policies and legislation? What are the effects of xenophobic laws and discourses on migrants’ lived experiences?  How does the collapse of government institutions impact migration? How do changes in health care policy impact public health in the U.S.? In what ways do people adapt or resist such changes in policy and government institutions? 
Call for Abstracts:
Scholars and practitioners are encouraged to submit abstracts concerning these issues from a variety of areas of focus. Please email abstracts of up to 250 words by March 25, 2018 to Russell Manzano- [email protected]. Those who submit an abstract will be notified about acceptance to the panel by March 30, 2018.


Call for papers (AAA): Unrecognized states

States of Imagination: Policy and Experience in Unrecognized States (AAA 2018)

Unrecognized states dot a globe that is imagined in terms of bounded states. Some unrecognized states came into being after unilaterally declaring independence, others exist as nation-states in the imaginations of their members. Some of these entities meet recognized criteria for statehood, such as Weber’s definition centering on the monopoly of legitimate violence or the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, one of the most widely accepted formulation of the criteria of statehood in international law. It notes that the state as an international person should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states.  Where unrecognized states are ruled out of play in the global game is often on the final point—they cannot enter into relations with other states because the policies of those states do not imagine them to be states. Such cases include Somaliland, North Cyprus, and Taiwan.

Anthropology’s changing conceptualizations, or imaginings we might say, of culture have also played a role in the recognition or rights of states.  The right to self-determination in many international conventions is based on an earlier primordial model that anthropologists themselves no longer employ. Few scholarly studies have been conducted regarding the socio-political implications of non-recognition: how and why unrecognized states adopt policies and evolve the way they do.

With this session we aim to explore the dynamics of policymaking and evolution—political, social and cultural—in unrecognized states, dynamics of international policy which prevents their recognition, and what roles anthropology has or can play in the recognition of states, the rights of their citizens, and documenting the impact of non-recognition.

We welcome articles from both scholars and practitioners whose work pertains to unrecognized states, including theoretical work regarding the definition of such entities. Interdisciplinary approaches are particularly welcome. Topics may include, but are not limited to:

Defining unrecognized states:

·       The evolution of socio-political and cultural identities under non-recognition;

·       The impact of non-recognition on the development of unrecognized states and/or the conflicts where they are involved;

·       The interplay between culture and state recognition;

·       Evaluation of the statehood capacity of unrecognized states and their potential for earning diplomatic recognition;

·       How unrecognized states have been able to build functioning state institutions and in some cases, democracies;

·       How non-recognition impacts lives.

Co-organizers: Hilmi Ulas (The American University of Cyprus) and Diane O’Rourke (Victoria University of Wellington).  Please send expressions of interest to [email protected] .

Dr. Diane O’Rourke
Anthropology Program
School of Social & Cultural Studies
Victoria University
PO Box 600
Wellington 6140
NEW ZEALAND
[email protected]

Call for papers (AAA): Immigration and mental health

Panel Proposal: Immigration and Mental Health in the Age of Trump

Organizers: Megan Carney (Assistant Professor, University of Arizona) & Thurka Sangaramoorthy (Assistant Professor, University of Maryland)

The rhetoric around Trump’s presidency overlaps with and mimics much of the language that has been historically employed to exclude or deem immigrants unworthy of formal belonging, especially in the United States. Incendiary words and phrases grounded in the notions of “unfit” and “undesirable” that we often associate with poor physical or mental health status of individuals, communities, and entire societies are reminiscent of the language used by nativists and racists in the early 20th century against Eastern and Southern Europeans and Asians.

Accusations of mental instability waged at both the current U.S. presidential administration (e.g., “deranged dotard,” “unfit for office,” “crazy,” “malignant narcissist”) and large segments of the population that it governs (e.g., “savage sicko,” “dangerous,” “wacko,” “unstable”) have engendered moral and material effects about the ways which we collectively perceive and address mental health. Such vernacular highlight broader social concerns about the pervasiveness of negative connotations related to an individual or group’s out-of-the-ordinary behavior or mental state. These modes of expression perpetuate the social stigma that people with mental illness are inferior and unworthy of care and compassion.

Concomitantly, the policies enacted and proposed by this current administration have translated to very real mental distress within the population at large, and especially among individuals with precarious legal status or those who may be targeted by detention and deportation (i.e., immigrants and refugees with temporary legal status, individuals with DACA, unauthorized immigrants, and immigrants from one of the banned countries). In this panel, we seek to explore how this psychosocial distress might be silenced or overlooked given the everyday abstractions of U.S. national politics, the normalization of mental illness as it may undergird the current American political landscape, the medicalization of social response (i.e., anger, anxiety, frustration), and the concurrent sense of immobilization among many.

Please send abstracts (max 250 words) to both Thurka Sangaramoorthy ([email protected]) and Megan Carney ([email protected]) by March 15th.

2018 AAA Annual Meeting information:
http://www.americananthro.org/AttendEvents/landing.aspxItemNumber=14722&navItemNumber=566

Call for papers (AAA): Dismantling of policies and government institutions

In recent years there have been drastic changes in both formal and informal government policies and practices worldwide. In the specific context of the U.S., the elimination and shifts in laws and regulations have greatly impacted issues affecting climate change, immigrants, healthcare, environmental issues, the nation’s involvement with international organizations and agreements. These sweeping changes are likely to have long lasting effects, both domestically and internationally, adding to the need for an anthropological examination of the removal and alterations of established policies and practices. The current trend in the breakdown and reconstruction of government policies is not limited to the United States. Increased xenophobia has led to the rise of populist sentiment in Europe, resulting in restrictions on immigration and adaptations in the ways in which states manage border control. For example, the fear of migrants from Africa entering Europe contributed to European Union (EU) policies on “border control” in the Mediterranean Sea. Prior operations that focused on the search and rescue of migrants at sea have been dismantled, creating new systems that focus on preventing migrants entering Europe. Additionally, the effects of the vote for the British exit from the EU have yet to be determined; however, this drastic change in policy will likely have profound effects on populations throughout Europe. In some geopolitical regions, the absence of a centralized government has led to the deterioration of migration policies, resulting in the increase of armed militias that “regulate” migration and lead to human rights abuses on migrants in transit. In this respect, failed states such as Libya and Syria provide a specific geopolitical context for the examination of how the collapse of state and local governments affect complex issues such as migration. This panel will contribute to the anthropological scholarship on policy and government by examining instances where policy is deconstructed or ceases to exist.

Reflecting on the theme of “Resistance, Resilience, and Adaption,” this panel seeks to examine how the dismantling of policies and collapse of institutions affects local populations’ abilities to resist or adapt to political change. This panel examines a wide range topics focused on the response to deterioration of local, national, and international policies and government institutions. We invite proposals that consider these topics from a variety of angles to provide a broad understanding of how the unraveling of established policies and institutions impact local populations and how they navigate these changes.

Questions to be considered include:
How do people respond when there is a dismantling of policy? What are the effects of “failed states” and the deterioration of government institutions on local populations? What can anthropologists do when policies and centralized governments deteriorate? How are resistance movements in the U.S. and elsewhere responding to radical right-wing policies and legislation? What are the effects of xenophobic laws and discourses on migrants’ lived experiences?  How does the collapse of government institutions impact migration? How do changes in health care policy impact public health in the U.S.? In what ways do people adapt or resist such changes in policy and government institutions?

Call for Abstracts:

Scholars and practitioners are encouraged to submit abstracts concerning these issues from a variety of areas of focus. Please email abstracts of up to 250 words by March 25, 2018 to Russell Manzano- [email protected]. Those who submit an abstract will be notified about acceptance to the panel by March 30, 2018.

Call for papers (AAA): Rare disease interventions

Dear colleagues,

We invite abstracts to the following panel for the 2018 AAA meetings in San Jose, California – November 14-18:

*******************
Panel Title:
What Does it Mean to ‘Care for Rare’? Anthropological Interventions and Imagination in Rare Disease

Organizers:
Marlee McGuire, PhD Candidate
CIHR Douglas Kinsella Doctoral Researcher in Bioethics
Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia, Canada

Małgorzata Rajtar, PhD
Assistant Professor, Department of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology
Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland

Discussant:
Mara Buchbinder, PhD
Associate Professor, Department of Social Medicine
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

*******************

Panel Abstract:

A daily tablespoon of corn starch, a low protein diet, carnitine supplements, Omega 3 fish oil pills, a biologic enzyme replacement therapy that costs $500,000 per year: what links these different substances and practices is that they are all treatments for rare genetic metabolic disease. The conditions that get labeled ‘rare’ or ‘orphan’ constitute a diverse and growing group of up to 8000 genetic conditions that are chronic, disabling, and sometimes fatal. Biomedical care practices in rare disease have been substantially altered in recent years—from a clinical practice of testing and tinkering with different dosages of vitamins and therapeutic diets to one that also includes prescribing and monitoring the use of controversial expensive therapies. Newborn genetic screening programs facilitate earlier treatment of the afflicted, but they equally raise new ethical questions and introduce new inequalities in terms of access and money. In all contexts, patients and their families grapple with being ‘rare,’ particularly as these interventions and technologies open new moral frames for cultural projects of belonging and care.

Following the 1983 United States Orphan Drug Act and similar incentivizing legislations worldwide, recent years have witnessed an expansion of pharmacological, biomedical, and biotechnological interventions in the field of rare diseases. This has infused rare disease care with massive flows of capital and industry funding, making them impossible to ignore. Public and private systems worldwide have responded in variable ways. The Council of the European Union instituted a rare disease policy in 2009 but only some member states have followed through on developing national plans or strategies. In a very different policy direction, Canada has adopted a ‘policy of non-policy’—efforts to develop one stalled by multi-stakeholder negotiations between those who profit from rare diseases and those who pay for them. As higher-income Western states struggle to find a way to reconcile how to ‘care for rare’ within existing political frameworks, private industry actors take the opportunity to profoundly reshape health care systems, regulatory agencies, and resource allocation mechanisms. States not within the global economic core are left to figure out whether and how to integrate these treatments and practices into their own health care systems, amidst other pressing public health concerns.

Against this background of biomedical and political interventions, this panel calls for anthropological attention to sociocultural, institutional, economic, and medical entanglements of rare diseases. Rare disease urges us all to ask deeper theoretical questions about the dichotomies that structure ethics and policy more generally: the few versus the many, equity versus equality, evidence versus hope. Specifically, we ask what tensions the notion of “rarity” presents at the individual/collective and population/global health levels; what ethical theories inform the discourse about rare diseases and structure access to treatment and/or care globally; how power structures are appropriated as well as how biomedical and biotechnological inequalities are handled by different actors in the field of rare diseases. Finally, we are interested in an analysis of care practices employed in the field of rare diseases, broadly defined.

Call for Abstracts:
We invite ethnographically grounded and theoretically inspiring paper abstracts (of up to 250 words) that attend to the above-mentioned issues. Please send your abstracts to both Marlee McGuire (at: [email protected]) and Malgorzata Rajtar (at: [email protected]) by March 31st 2018 at 5pm PST. Decisions about acceptance for this panel will be emailed by April 4th 2018.

2018 AAA Annual Meeting information:
http://secure-web.cisco.com/15KVfTGvb_E2Lsh8a140Z_PmaYGDudl48GNLHawFO1g8i-mYX0qckjanHmANcfJHb5IheDtiGL8_rGfAjd6fiH-7tb_BMLG5VRy9Cc3nt6-B-7LrLzdAVPVr1d0E6XhYcyRa7iH1_JvAbuoSABaiIw8Uz1rgcejdYXFZ8a2jR9GJtRYI9UTNlA2koS9IEROI3AbDFllf32csmEscQnsuWg4-1EvS4afkSHo9Lj1H2GzcCV-B1rsYRQQu8f-8B13wowDAZezfMsvxRe7zPIImGmGSVTMJHRs5BbL_d78azzDd3fSA-qQ1O9GiSQkZxS_xi-nXnt3q-fNQd9MTJ4fivvLFCLzQl6ehLZeeXVsbZdrqGsOfZb8B2BsPspZy-Gl6aYw5S1XcsHogYEcYl0UkMXI3wFZhmIa5Nh6L5QlrcGEuIsfy6bg3vK38zuc5yih7uDCvgTcSPggXOzHzDJ4dQcw/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americananthro.org%2FAttendEvents%2Flanding.aspx%3FItemNumber%3D14722%26navItemNumber%3D566

Thank you and best regards,

Marlee & Malgorzata

Call for papers: Migration and borders

Call for papers: Edited volume by the Committee on Refugees and Immigrants (CORI)

Porous Borders, Invisible Boundaries

The 21st century continues to see an explosion in all forms of migration due to socioeconomic, political, and security factors.  While this suggests that borders are easier to cross, the growing security industry and rising anti-immigrant sentiment in many countries suggests that border crossings remain fraught with difficulties and dangers.  Borders are increasingly becoming difficult to cross as new technology and policy increase surveillance and patrolling of state boundaries.  Migrants’ adjustment in their new homes continues to be challenged by nativists who create difficulties for those trying to establish a new life in host countries.  Nonetheless, many migrants are able to create sustainable communities and establish healthy ties with the vast majority of the population in their new home.  Migration will continue to be a topic that will occupy politicians, activists, and scholars for time to come.

The Society for Urban, National, Transnational/Global Anthropology (SUNTA) welcomes proposals for essays to be included in a 2018 edited Committee on Refugees and Immigrants (CORI) volume.  This volume will address the vulnerability and challenge of being a migrant in today’s world. We invite scholarship that explores the vicissitudes of contemporary migration vis-à-vis a diverse range of topics in various cultural and social settings.  We are interested in papers that address the plight of migrants, as well as the impact of migrants and migration on host countries. Topics could include the opening of grocery stores stocked with Turkish foods in Germany, support for DACA students in the United States, the rise of the UKIP in the United Kingdom, or pro-refugee resettlement programs in Australia and Canada.

If you are interested in participating, please submit an abstract of no more than 300 words for a text (2000-word) or photo (700-word plus up to 6 photos) essay to [email protected] by 19 March 2018.  Authors whose proposals are accepted should plan to submit completed essays, with a 100-word bio, by 1 June 2018.

For a sense of the format for text and photo essays, please refer to the 2017 CORI volume Maintaining Refuge: Anthropological Reflections in Uncertain Times at http://mason.gmu.edu/~dhaines1/CORI_2017_Final.pdf).

Dr. Chima Michael Anyadike-Danes
SUNTA Webmaster