For AAA/CASCA in Vancouver
Organizers: Georgia Hartman (Pitzer College), Alex J.S. Lee (Rice University), Liza Youngling (DePaul University)
This panel is concerned with the ways in which manifold technologies harness, obscure, and reformulate human sociality. We understand technology as both the material application of scientific knowledge and as the application of technique. Data-driven digital technologies obscure the sociality of taste, value, service, and more. Zillow’s “zestimate” for example, makes the interpretative, context-driven work of property valuation appear as an objective and calculable process. Crowd-sourced technologies such as blockchain promise to facilitate public trust in record keeping for functions heretofore in the domain of the state such as election certification and cadastral maintenance. In so doing, blockchain harnesses social interactions, reformulating them into quantifiable and objective fact. Centralized technologies of care invert this formula, reifying authentic social interactions and obscuring the standardized, programmed elements of care work so as to appear as genuine human interaction. In-flight service, for example–embodied in the customer service techniques of flight attendants, and in the space and materiality of the cabin–is carefully curated the present an “appropriately” gendered, racialized, and classed experience.
Against the backdrop of such empirically grounded and theoretically informed examples, this panel asks the following: How might technologies make use of and simultaneously transform social relationships? How do technologies add value or allow for the extraction of value? What categories of difference, such as gender, class, or geography, do technologies obscure and legitimize? Finally, how does techno-optimism quell anxieties over efficiency, transparency, authenticity, and accuracy even as it reinforces these metrics?
Assembling Social Worlds: Anthropological Engagements with Social Work
CfP for the CASCA/AAA Annual Meeting, Vancouver, November 20-24, 2019
Conveners: Anouk de Koning (Radboud University) and Ann Marie Leshkowich (College of the Holy Cross)
This panel seeks to explore new avenues in anthropological studies of social work beyond the more usual focus on how social workers combine empowerment and governance, care and control. We propose to envisage social workers as experts who assemble social worlds and help create forms of personhood. Social work practices provide us with access points to the configuration of social worlds in locally embedded, material ways that are conversant with transnationally circulating forms of social work and therapeutic knowledge and practice. This panel invites contributions that elaborate, through concrete case studies, social work as world making, not only in the European and the US contexts in which the profession originated, but also in diverse sites around the globe.
Contributions could address the following sets of questions:
- How do social workers conceive of the social world on which they act, and how do they understand their ability to act on it?
- How do social workers help create conceptions of personhood? On what kinds of understanding of individuals and society do these conceptions of personhood draw?
- What technologies, including documentation and infrastructure, do social workers use to create and enact these social worlds and forms of personhood?
- What do we gain from an understanding of social work as affective labor, for instance in terms of the classed and gendered nature of social work, or in the kinds of relations it creates in and through its practices?
- What kinds of ethics of care and responsibility infuse social work, and how do these relate to the power dynamics that are often central to the governmental tasks of social work?
- How can we understand the globalization of social work, including concurrent politics of knowledge related to indigenizing social work?
Anouk de Koning | Department of Anthropology and Development Studies | Radboud University, Nijmegen
Spinoza Building, SPA 04.18 | +31 24 361 6277 | www.ru.nl/english/people/koning-a-de/
PI Reproducing Europe project www.reproducingeurope.nl | Chair of the Dutch Anthropological Association (Antropologen Beroepsvereniging) www.antropologen.nl
AAA 2019: Changing Climates: Struggle, Collaboration, and Justice/Changer d’air: Lutte, collaboration et justice
Panel Proposal: Precarious Policies: Migrant Health in Times of Crisis and Rising Xenophobia
Organizers: MPAAC Public Policy & Association for the Anthropology of Policy
The global rise in illiberal migration policies and xenophobic rhetoric has brought about significant public policy, humanitarian, and human rights challenges. Yet, conceptual and methodological gaps continue to exist in the study of the policyscapes of migrant health. This has limited analysis of how migration processes create differential risks for migrants at different stages of mobility and settlement and intersecting inequalities, resulting in exclusionary policies and institutional responses.
As debates on global health governance and global migration expand and begin to converge in different policy spheres, there is a growing imperative for anthropologists to engage in dialogue to align priorities and coordinate responses to migration across regions. Anthropological work that addresses the complexities of circular migration and migrants’ vulnerabilities and agency have the potential to move policy dialogues on migration and health beyond narrow public health interventions and protectionist policies.
This co-sponsored roundtable creates a platform for those engaged in migration and health scholarship and policy responses to share insights from both global North/South. We hope to draw on the collective experiences of prior and ongoing research projects, networks, and collaborations to examine what is known about migrant health and care, and policy discussions on health and social protections. The roundtable represents an opportunity to develop research capacities, amplify methodological and empirical understandings, and engender scholarship and policy around migration, mobility, and health.
We welcome contributions focused on health and social care of migrants within policy dialogues on migration around one or more of the following questions:
(1) What do we understand and know about migration and health and what crucial gaps remain global/regional/national migration and health research? How can research link with policy makers/policy community and communities of practice?
(2) What political and ethical questions does researching migrants raise for anthropologists, advocates, and policy makers?
(3) What methodological and conceptual interventions are/will be required to chart migration and health policyscapes?
(4) How have engagements with policy moved beyond scholarship to critically engage in migration and health advocacy work through active participation in community and grassroot coalitions, local and national health and immigration initiatives, and interdisciplinary collaborations within and beyond the academy to curb repression and prevent the systematic targeting of particular marginalized groups?
(5) How does migration and health advocacy and activism underscore incipient political, economic, and cultural dynamics that may prove influential for future generations of anthropologists involved with policy?
(6) How have anthropologists and non-anthropologists engaged with the visions and the values promoted in future-oriented migration and health policies in their research and advocacy work- conceptually, empirically, practically?
Call for Panels and Papers:
Gender-Based Violence at the Society for Applied Anthropology in Portland (March 2019)
The Gender-Based Violence Topical Interest Group invites submissions for panels or papers to be presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology in Portland, OR from March 19th to 23rd, 2019. The overall conference theme is “Engaging Change in Turbulent Times,” with the aim to consider the ways that anthropologists, other applied social scientists and professionals in related fields address “the content, pace, and process of change today.” With a recognition that “the communities where we live and work may be experiencing pronounced uncertainty, isolationism, extremism, trauma and violence, and racial and ethnic tensions,” how is anthropology responding and what can an anthropological lens lend to an understanding of reactions to rapid and turbulent change? The TIG will host sessions that take up this idea while continuing to explore the ways in which gender and violence have been and should be configured or reconfigured. Specifically, we hope to examine ways to expand our understanding of gender and violence as well as put these expanded definitions in conversation with one another. Papers and sessions might address the following questions:
- What does it mean to consider violence, in both intention and action, with an expanded understanding of gender?What does it mean to consider gender, as organizing ideology and social construct, with an expanded understanding of violence?
- How does an expanded notion of gender and/or violence complicate our approach to thinking about gender-based violence?Has the current political environment further complicated those notions—and if so, how?
- What does anthropological insight offer the public about the social justice movements addressing gender violence during these turbulent times and the trajectory creating the context for these movements?What do these movements say about our contemporary culture as well as the context from which these movements have risen?
- Where and how do we sustain a critique of gender-based violence that takes race, poverty, age, disability, citizenship and sexuality seriously?What do the impacts of these other identities mean for applied work in this area?
- Does the usual rubric of “gender-based violence” limit the efficacy of applied approaches?Where and how? And how do we expand that rubric to better reflect what we see on the ground?
- How do these assumptions shape the production of anthropological knowledge, and our engagement in applied work?
The GBV-TIG’s panel organizers will accept proposals that speak to these questions and others. Proposals are due by October 12th. Please email submissions to [email protected], with SfAA 2019 Abstract in the subject line. You can embed your proposal within an email or attach a word file. Submissions must include the following:
Individual papers: A paper title, a 100-word abstract, the author’s name, contact email and affiliation.
Panel Sessions: A session title, a 100-word session abstract, individual paper titles with 100-word paper abstracts, the name, email addresses, and affiliation of all participants (including chair, presenters, and discussants as needed). A full panel includes 4-5 papers.
The GBV-TIG panel organizers will work with session organizers and paper presenters to build panels, thensubmit the sessions to the Society for Applied Anthropology on behalf of the TIG. The SfAA Program Chair and TIG panel organizers will schedule all TIG-related sessions in clusters, so as to form a mini-conference within the larger meeting. All GBV-TIG-clusters will be listed at the front of the conference program.
After the GBV TIG approves your submission for inclusion as part of a GBV TIG panel, you must complete registration by October 15th at: https://www.sfaa.net/annual-meeting/meeting-registration/ in order to be included in the official SfAA Program. During registration, you must pay the requisite fees, submit a 100-word abstract, and designate the appropriate GBV-TIG panel in your submission. Please email Elizabeth Wirtz ([email protected]) with any questions. We look forward to learning more about your work (by October 12th!) and engaging set of conversations in Portland.
Visiting Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
Sovereignties in Contention: Nations, Regions, and Citizens in Europe
June 20-22, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain
The European Culture Research Network [ECRN] of The Council for European Studies
Panel Organizers & Chairs:
Brenna McCaffrey, PhD Student, Cultural Anthropology, CUNY Graduate Center
Joanna Mishtal, PhD, Associate Professor, University of Central Florida
Panel Title: “Contested Sovereignty and Reproductive Governance in Europe”
In keeping with the conference focus on shifting forms of sovereignty, this panel focuses on the contested domain of reproductive politics as a form of governance that engages with issues such as population, nation, citizens, race/ethnicity, care, and reproduction. The concept of reproductive governance refers to “the mechanisms through which different historical configurations of actors – such as state, religious, and international financial institutions, NGOs, and social movements – use legislative controls, economic inducements, moral injunctions, direct coercion, and ethical incitements to produce, monitor, and control reproductive behaviours and population practices” (Roberts and Morgan 2012:241). Examining changing laws, biomedical practices, activist strategies, pharmaceutical licensing, and public discourses around reproductive healthcare can help illuminate co-occuring shifts in the logics of sovereignty within the European Union and European nation-states. At the same time, feminist arguments for increased bodily autonomy and human rights claims have come into conflict with healthcare systems and legal regimes governing abortion and areas of family planning. The role of the Church is also in flux, controlling certain moral arguments and legitimating conscientious objection clauses in medicine, while declining in moral and political influence as an institution in other contexts. Crucially, reproductive practices in Europe today often resists national boundaries, and thereby defy the sovereignty of national policies. This is especially evident in abortion care, as people are increasingly either travelling across borders to seek services, or sending the abortion pill across borders, to get around barriers to access such as waiting periods and a lack of health providers. This panel will take up the lens of reproductive governance to analyze how reproductive politics are an integral part of contesting and making boundaries and sovereignty in Europe today.
This panel will consist of 5 paper presentations, and comments provided by a Chair and a Discussant. We invite abstract submission for papers from across disciplines and European regions which examine questions of governance and sovereignty in the context of reproductive policies, politics, practices, experiences, or discourses. Papers may be single country studies, comparative, or transnational.
Deadlines & Abstract Submission:
Abstract submissions due to session organizers by: September 26, 2018.
Abstract selection completed and email notifications sent to authors by September 30, 2018.
Session submission (completed by organizers) by October 5, 2018.
Please submit a 250-word abstract and paper title along with your name, title, institutional affiliation, rank, and e-mail address for all presenting and non-presenting authors to.
Note: You do not have to become a CES member in order to submit an abstract or participate in CES conference, once the session is accepted. However, CES members pay a discounted rate for Conference registration, which is required of all paper presenters. Please see CES website for more information about the conference: https://councilforeuropeanstudies.org/conferences/upcoming-conferences/2019-conference
Call for Papers, AAA San Jose, CA
States of Exception: Policy and Politics in Exceptional Times
Organizers: Cansu Civelek (University of Vienna); Dr. Cris Shore (University of Auckland)
Discussant: Dr. Ayşe Çağlar (University of Vienna)
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
* 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.
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)?
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. Continue reading
Roundtable for EASA 2018, 14-17 August, Stockholm
Steffen Jensen (Aalborg University, Copenhagen)
Morten Koch Andersen (Dignity Institute, Denmark)
Anouk de Koning (Radboud University, Nijmegen)
This roundtable aims to explore future directions in the anthropology of the state. What new directions are emergent and what interventions are necessary in anthropological engagements with the state?
Over the past decades, anthropology has offered its ethnographically informed perspective on the state. It has questioned the nature and effects of the State Idea and sovereignty, examining how individuals and institutions come to stand in for that entity and with what effects. Anthropologists have also examined the state’s disciplinary operation and the way subject populations have engaged with such disciplinary mechanisms. While the state has often appeared as inherently repressive, recently, several anthropologists have called for an understanding of policy practice and bureaucracy in terms of the state’s utopian aspirations to produce the public good, and have drawn attention to the moral and affective dimensions of people’s engagement with the state. Yet other anthropologists have examined governmental assemblages that include a range of actors, from active citizens to corporations, and have asked what forms of citizenship emerge as a result. And how does mobility impact various forms of statecraft? What relations do states develop with populations in flux?
This roundtable invites scholars to reflect on the state of the art in anthropological engagements with the state. What kind of cases and foci have been central to that state of the art, and which have been absent? What kind of interventions may help push the field further?
Thomas van Aquinostraat 8.03.01 | +31 24 361 6277 | www.ru.nl/english/people/
The Humanitarian Imagination: Socialities and Materialities of Voluntarism
Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and Commonwealth Conference, Oxford Brookes 18-21 September
We invite submissions to the panel “The Humanitarian Imagination: Socialities and Materialities of Voluntarism” for the ASA Conference in Oxford, 18-21 September. https://nomadit.co.uk/asa/asa2018/conferencesuite.php/panels/6887
Our panel aims to interrogate the ways in which volunteers imagine and engage with “others” through activities that involve relational processes and acts of self-making. The papers in this session will explore the role of the humanitarian imagination in animating and informing socialities and materialities of voluntarism.
Volunteers are increasingly engaged in practices of gifting, service provision, material aid, and activism in relation to various “others”: refugees; immigrants; poor; homeless, but also with animals, and in the non-human and environmental realms. The session explores the ways in which humanitarian imaginations animate and inform forms of sociality and materiality. How do volunteers imagine themselves and others in humanitarian encounters? What political, moral, affective and ethical imaginaries accompany their motivations and experiences? In what ways do these imaginaries impact upon the material and social dimensions of voluntarism? What is the material form that aid acquires, and what are the relationships formed? Such questions can be directed at relationships between volunteers, between volunteers and those they seek to support and with material aid itself.
We are interested in the collective subjects that emerge through humanitarian imaginations. Historical studies underline how humanitarianism is interrelated to the emergence of humanity as a collective subject and a shared identity. What other collective subjects emerge in forms of sociality pertaining to humanitarianism today?
Through exploring the role of the humanitarian imagination in shaping volunteer encounters and experiences, we also seek to open up a space to consider the power of imaginative practice as a form of “imaginative politics” (Malkki 2015) that produces certain effects. We are hence particularly interested in papers that focus on the power dynamics of the humanitarian encounter, and that consider the potential of this encounter for social and political change.
Our section is Pol08. To submit your paper, please follow this link.https://nomadit.co.uk/asa/asa2018/conferencesuite.php/paperproposal/6887
We look forward to receiving thought-provoking and interesting papers!